This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

3054 

Vol. 86, No. 9 

Thursday, January 14, 2021 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2020–0505; FRL–10017–22– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AU66 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Carbon 

Black Production Residual Risk and 

Technology Review and Carbon Black 

Production Area Sources Technology 

Review 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing 

amendments to the National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

(NESHAP) for the Carbon Black 

Production major source category. The 

proposal addresses the results of the 

residual risk and technology review 

(RTR) for this source category as 

required under the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

The proposed amendments address 

hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions 

that occur after the main unit filter of a 

carbon black production unit, as well as 

emissions from boilers and process 

heaters. The proposed amendments also 

address the startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction (SSM) provisions of the 

existing standards, and would require 

electronic reporting of certain 

notifications, performance test results, 

and semiannual reports. Additionally, 

the proposal addresses the results of the 

technology review for the Carbon Black 

Production Area Source NESHAP. 

DATES: 

Comments. Comments must be 

received on or before March 1, 2021. 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(PRA), comments on the information 

collection provisions are best assured of 

consideration if the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

receives a copy of your comments on or 

before February 16, 2021. 

Public hearing: If anyone contacts us 

requesting a public hearing on or before 

January 19, 2021, we will hold a virtual 

public hearing. See SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION for information on 

requesting and registering for a public 

hearing. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2020–0505, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

https://www.regulations.gov/ (our 

preferred method). Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

Include Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2020–0505 in the subject line of the 

message. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744. Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2020– 

0505. 

• Mail: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2020– 

0505, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20460. 

• Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket 

Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 

1301 Constitution Avenue NW, 

Washington, DC 20004. The Docket 

Center’s hours of operation are 8:30 

a.m.–4:30 p.m., Monday–Friday (except 

federal holidays). 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the Docket ID No. for this 

rulemaking. Comments received may be 

posted without change to https://

www.regulations.gov/, including any 

personal information provided. For 

detailed instructions on sending 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. Out of an abundance of 

caution for members of the public and 

our staff, the EPA Docket Center and 

Reading Room are closed to the public, 

with limited exceptions, to reduce the 

risk of transmitting COVID–19. Our 

Docket Center staff will continue to 

provide remote customer service via 

email, phone, and webform. We 

encourage the public to submit 

comments via https://

www.regulations.gov/ or email, as there 

may be a delay in processing mail and 

faxes. Hand deliveries and couriers may 

be received by scheduled appointment 

only. For further information on EPA 

Docket Center services and the current 

status, please visit us online at https:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions about this proposed action, 

contact Mr. Korbin Smith Sector 

Policies and Programs Division (D243– 

04), Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone 

number: (919) 541–2416; fax number: 

(919) 541–4991; and email address: 

smith.korbin@epa.gov. For specific 

information regarding the risk modeling 

methodology, contact Mr. James Hirtz, 

Health and Environmental Impacts 

Division (C539–02), Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 

0881; fax number: (919) 541–0840; and 

email address: hirtz.james@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Participation in virtual public 

hearing. Please note that the EPA is 

deviating from its typical approach for 

public hearings because the President 

has declared a national emergency. Due 

to the current Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention (CDC) 

recommendations, as well as state and 

local orders for social distancing to limit 

the spread of COVID–19, the EPA 

cannot hold in-person public meetings 

at this time. 

To request a virtual public hearing, 

contact the public hearing team at (888) 

372–8699 or by email at 

SPPDpublichearing@epa.gov. If 

requested, the virtual hearing will be 

held on January 29, 2021. The hearing 

will convene at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Time 

(ET) and will conclude at 3:00 p.m. ET. 

The EPA may close a session 15 minutes 

after the last pre-registered speaker has 

testified if there are no additional 

speakers. The EPA will announce 

further details at https://www.epa.gov/ 

stationary-sources-air-pollution/acetalresins-acrylic-modacrylic-fibers-carbonblack-hydrogen. 

Upon publication of this document in 

the Federal Register, the EPA will begin 

pre-registering speakers for the hearing, 

if a hearing is requested. To register to 

speak at the virtual hearing, please use 

the online registration form available at 

https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sourcesair-pollution/acetal-resins-acrylicmodacrylic-fibers-carbon-blackhydrogen or contact the public hearing 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 3055 

team at (888) 372–8699 or by email at 

SPPDpublichearing@epa.gov. The last 

day to pre-register to speak at the 

hearing will be January 26, 2021. Prior 

to the hearing, the EPA will post a 

general agenda that will list preregistered speakers in approximate 

order at: https://www.epa.gov/ 

stationary-sources-air-pollution/acetalresins-acrylic-modacrylic-fibers-carbonblack-hydrogen. 

The EPA will make every effort to 

follow the schedule as closely as 

possible on the day of the hearing; 

however, please plan for the hearings to 

run either ahead of schedule or behind 

schedule. 

Each commenter will have 5 minutes 

to provide oral testimony. The EPA 

encourages commenters to provide the 

EPA with a copy of their oral testimony 

electronically (via email) by emailing it 

to smith.korbin@epa.gov. The EPA also 

recommends submitting the text of your 

oral testimony as written comments to 

the rulemaking docket. 

The EPA may ask clarifying questions 

during the oral presentations but will 

not respond to the presentations at that 

time. Written statements and supporting 

information submitted during the 

comment period will be considered 

with the same weight as oral testimony 

and supporting information presented at 

the public hearing. 

Please note that any updates made to 

any aspect of the hearing will be posted 

online at https://www.epa.gov/ 

stationary-sources-air-pollution/acetalresins-acrylic-modacrylic-fibers-carbonblack-hydrogen. While the EPA expects 

the hearing to go forward as set forth 

above, please monitor our website or 

contact the public hearing team at (888) 

372–8699 or by email at 

SPPDpublichearing@epa.gov to 

determine if there are any updates. The 

EPA does not intend to publish a 

document in the Federal Register 

announcing updates. 

If you require the services of a 

translator or a special accommodation 

such as audio description, please preregister for the hearing with the public 

hearing team and describe your needs 

by January 21, 2021. The EPA may not 

be able to arrange accommodations 

without advanced notice. 

Docket. The EPA has established a 

docket for this rulemaking under Docket 

ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2020–0505. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

https://www.regulations.gov/. Although 

listed, some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. With the 

exception of such material, publicly 

available docket materials are available 

electronically in Regulations.gov. 

Instructions. Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2020– 

0505. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at https:// 

www.regulations.gov/, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. This type of 

information should be submitted by 

mail as discussed below. 

The EPA may publish any comment 

received to its public docket. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. The EPA will 

generally not consider comments or 

comment contents located outside of the 

primary submission (i.e., on the Web, 

cloud, or other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

The https://www.regulations.gov/ 

website allows you to submit your 

comment anonymously, which means 

the EPA will not know your identity or 

contact information unless you provide 

it in the body of your comment. If you 

send an email comment directly to the 

EPA without going through https://

www.regulations.gov/, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, the EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

digital storage media you submit. If the 

EPA cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, the EPA may not 

be able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should not include 

special characters or any form of 

encryption and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about the EPA’s public docket, visit the 

EPA Docket Center homepage at https:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

The EPA is temporarily suspending 

its Docket Center and Reading Room for 

public visitors, with limited exceptions, 

to reduce the risk of transmitting 

COVID–19. Our Docket Center staff will 

continue to provide remote customer 

service via email, phone, and webform. 

We encourage the public to submit 

comments via https://

www.regulations.gov/ as there may be a 

delay in processing mail and faxes. 

Hand deliveries or couriers will be 

received by scheduled appointment 

only. For further information and 

updates on EPA Docket Center services, 

please visit us online at https://

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

The EPA continues to carefully and 

continuously monitor information from 

the CDC, local area health departments, 

and our Federal partners so that we can 

respond rapidly as conditions change 

regarding COVID–19. 

Submitting CBI. Do not submit 

information containing CBI to the EPA 

through https://www.regulations.gov/ or 

email. Clearly mark the part or all of the 

information that you claim to be CBI. 

For CBI information on any digital 

storage media that you mail to the EPA, 

mark the outside of the digital storage 

media as CBI and then identify 

electronically within the digital storage 

media the specific information that is 

claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comments that 

includes information claimed as CBI, 

you must submit a copy of the 

comments that does not contain the 

information claimed as CBI directly to 

the public docket through the 

procedures outlined in Instructions 

above. If you submit any digital storage 

media that does not contain CBI, mark 

the outside of the digital storage media 

clearly that it does not contain CBI. 

Information not marked as CBI will be 

included in the public docket and the 

EPA’s electronic public docket without 

prior notice. Information marked as CBI 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

part 2. Send or deliver information 

identified as CBI only to the following 

address: OAQPS Document Control 

Officer (C404–02), OAQPS, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2020–0505. Note that written 

comments containing CBI and 

submitted by mail may be delayed and 

no hand deliveries will be accepted. 

Preamble acronyms and 

abbreviations. We use multiple 

acronyms and terms in this preamble. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
3056 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

While this list may not be exhaustive, to 

ease the reading of this preamble and for 

reference purposes, the EPA defines the 

following terms and acronyms here: 

AEGL Acute exposure guideline level 

AERMOD air dispersion model used by the 

HEM–3 model 

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substance and 

Disease Registry 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CalEPA California EPA 

CBI Confidential Business Information 

CCD combustion control device 

CDC Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention 

CDX Central Data Exchange 

CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data 

Reporting Interface 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

EAV equivalent annual value 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ERPG emergency response planning 

guideline 

ERT Electronic Reporting Tool 

GACT generally available control 

technology 

HAP hazardous air pollutant(s) 

HCl hydrochloric acid 

HEM–3 Human Exposure Model, Version 

1.5.5 

HF hydrogen fluoride 

HI hazard index 

HQ hazard quotient 

ICBA International Carbon Black 

Association 

ICR Information Collection Request 

IRIS Integrated Risk Information System 

km kilometer 

MACT maximum achievable control 

technology 

mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter 

MIR maximum individual risk 

MUF main unit filter 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

NAICS North American Industry 

Classification System 

NATA National Air Toxics Assessment 

NEI National Emissions Inventory 

NESHAP national emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutants 

NOAEL no observed adverse effect level 

NOCS Notification of Compliance Status 

NSR New Source Review 

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PB–HAP hazardous air pollutants known to 

be persistent and bio-accumulative in the 

environment 

PDF portable document format 

POM polycyclic organic matter 

ppm parts per million 

PRA Paperwork Reduction Act 

PV present value 

RBLC Reasonably Available Control 

Technology, Best Available Control 

Technology, and Lowest Achievable 

Emission Rate Clearinghouse 

REL reference exposure level 

RfC reference concentration 

RfD reference dose 

RTR residual risk and technology review 

SAB Science Advisory Board 

SV screening value 

SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index 

tpy tons per year 

TRIM.FaTE Total Risk Integrated 

Methodology.Fate, Transport, and 

Ecological Exposure model 

UF uncertainty factor 

mg/m3 microgram per cubic meter 

URE unit risk estimate 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

Organization of this document. The 

information in this preamble is 

organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. Where can I get a copy of this document 

and other related information? 

II. Background 

A. What is the statutory authority for this 

action? 

B. What is this source category and how 

does the current NESHAP regulate its 

HAP emissions? 

C. What data collection activities were 

conducted to support this action? 

D. What other relevant background 

information and data are available? 

III. Analytical Procedures and DecisionMaking 

A. How do we consider risk in our 

decision-making? 

B. How do we perform the technology 

review? 

C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk 

posed by the source category? 

IV. Analytical Results and Proposed 

Decisions 

A. What actions are we taking pursuant to 

CAA sections 112(d)(2) and 112(d)(3)? 

B. What are the results of the risk 

assessment and analyses? 

C. What are our proposed decisions 

regarding risk acceptability, ample 

margin of safety, and adverse 

environmental effect? 

D. What are the results and proposed 

decisions based on our technology 

review? 

E. What other actions are we proposing? 

F. What compliance dates are we 

proposing? 

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and 

Economic Impacts 

A. What are the affected sources? 

B. What are the air quality impacts? 

C. What are the cost impacts? 

D. What are the economic impacts? 

E. What are the benefits? 

VI. Request for Comments 

VII. Submitting Data Corrections 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing 

Regulations and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

J. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

The source categories that are the 

subject of this proposal are carbon black 

production major sources regulated 

under 40 CFR 63, subpart YY, and 

carbon black production area sources, 

regulated under 40 CFR 63 Subpart 

MMMMMM (6M). The North American 

Industry Classification System (NAICS) 

code for the carbon black production 

industry is 325182. This list of 

categories and NAICS codes is not 

intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide for readers regarding 

the entities that this proposed action is 

likely to affect. 

Federal, state, local, and tribal 

government entities would not be 

affected by this proposed action. The 

Carbon Black Production major source 

category was added to EPA’s source 

category list June 4,1996 (61 FR 28197). 

As defined in the National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; 

Revision of Initial List of Categories of 

Sources and Schedule for Standards 

Under Sections 112(c) and (e) of the 

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the 

Carbon Black Production major source 

categories are any facility engaged in the 

manufacture of carbon black using the 

channel, thermal, or furnace process. 

(61 FR 28197, June 4, 1996). The Carbon 

Black Production area source category 

was added to the EPA’s source category 

list in 2002. (67 FR 70427, November 

22, 2002). 

B. Where can I get a copy of this 

document and other related 

information? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this action 

is available on the internet. Following 

signature by the EPA Administrator, the 

EPA will post a copy of this proposed 

action at https://www.epa.gov/ 

stationary-sources-air-pollution/acetalresins-acrylic-modacrylic-fibers-carbonblack-hydrogen. Following publication 

in the Federal Register, the EPA will 

post the Federal Register version of the 

proposal and key technical documents 

at this same website. Information on the 

overall RTR program is available at 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 3057 

1Although defined as ‘‘maximum individual 

risk,’’ MIR refers only to cancer risk. MIR, one 

metric for assessing cancer risk, is the estimated 

risk if an individual were exposed to the maximum 

level of a pollutant for a lifetime. 

https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/ 

rtrpg.html. 

The proposed changes to the CFR that 

would be necessary to incorporate the 

changes proposed in this action are set 

out in an attachment to the 

memorandum titled Proposed 

Regulation Edits for 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart YY, available in the docket for 

this action (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2020–0505). The document 

includes the specific proposed 

amendatory language for revising the 

CFR and, for the convenience of 

interested parties, a redline version of 

the regulation. Following signature by 

the EPA Administrator, the EPA will 

also post a copy of this memorandum 

and the attachments to https://

www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-airpollution/acetal-resins-acrylicmodacrylic-fibers-carbon-blackhydrogen. 

II. Background 

A. What is the statutory authority for 

this action? 

The statutory authority for this action 

is provided by sections 112 and 301 of 

the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et 

seq.). Section 112 of the CAA 

establishes a two-stage regulatory 

process to develop standards for 

emissions of hazardous air pollutants 

(HAP) from stationary sources. 

Generally, the first stage involves 

establishing technology-based standards 

and the second stage involves 

evaluating those standards that are 

based on maximum achievable control 

technology (MACT) to determine 

whether additional standards are 

needed to address any remaining risk 

associated with HAP emissions. This 

second stage is commonly referred to as 

the ‘‘residual risk review.’’ In addition 

to the residual risk review, the CAA also 

requires the EPA to review standards set 

under CAA section 112 every 8 years 

and revise the standards as necessary 

taking into account any ‘‘developments 

in practices, processes, or control 

technologies.’’ This review is commonly 

referred to as the ‘‘technology review.’’ 

When the two reviews are combined 

into a single rulemaking, it is commonly 

referred to as the ‘‘risk and technology 

review.’’ The discussion that follows 

identifies the most relevant statutory 

sections and briefly explains the 

contours of the methodology used to 

implement these statutory requirements. 

A more comprehensive discussion 

appears in the document titled CAA 

Section 112 Risk and Technology 

Reviews: Statutory Authority and 

Methodology, in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

In the first stage of the CAA section 

112 standard setting process, the EPA 

promulgates technology-based standards 

under CAA section 112(d) for categories 

of sources identified as emitting one or 

more of the HAP listed in CAA section 

112(b). Sources of HAP emissions are 

either major sources or area sources, and 

CAA section 112 establishes different 

requirements for major source standards 

and area source standards. ‘‘Major 

sources’’ are those that emit or have the 

potential to emit 10 tons per year (tpy) 

or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or 

more of any combination of HAP. All 

other sources are ‘‘area sources.’’ For 

major sources, CAA section 112(d)(2) 

provides that the technology-based 

NESHAP must reflect the maximum 

degree of emission reductions of HAP 

achievable (after considering cost, 

energy requirements, and non-air 

quality health and environmental 

impacts). These standards are 

commonly referred to as MACT 

standards. CAA section 112(d)(3) also 

establishes a minimum control level for 

MACT standards, known as the MACT 

‘‘floor.’’ In certain instances, as 

provided in CAA section 112(h), the 

EPA may set work practice standards in 

lieu of numerical emission standards. 

The EPA must also consider control 

options that are more stringent than the 

floor. Standards more stringent than the 

floor are commonly referred to as 

beyond-the-floor standards. For area 

sources, CAA section 112(d)(5) gives the 

EPA discretion to set standards based on 

generally available control technologies 

or management practices (GACT 

standards) in lieu of MACT standards. 

The second stage in standard-setting 

focuses on identifying and addressing 

any remaining (i.e., ‘‘residual’’) risk 

pursuant to CAA section 112(f). For 

source categories subject to MACT 

standards, section 112(f)(2) of the CAA 

requires the EPA to determine whether 

promulgation of additional standards is 

needed to provide an ample margin of 

safety to protect public health or to 

prevent an adverse environmental 

effect. Section 112(d)(5) of the CAA 

provides that this residual risk review is 

not required for categories of area 

sources subject to GACT standards. 

Section 112(f)(2)(B) of the CAA further 

expressly preserves the EPA’s use of the 

two-step approach for developing 

standards to address any residual risk 

and the Agency’s interpretation of 

‘‘ample margin of safety’’ developed in 

the National Emissions Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Benzene 

Emissions from Maleic Anhydride 

Plants, Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, 

Benzene Storage Vessels, Benzene 

Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product 

Recovery Plants (Benzene NESHAP) (54 

FR 38044, September 14, 1989). The 

EPA notified Congress in the Residual 

Risk Report that the Agency intended to 

use the Benzene NESHAP approach in 

making CAA section 112(f) residual risk 

determinations (EPA–453/R–99–001, p. 

ES–11). The EPA subsequently adopted 

this approach in its residual risk 

determinations and the United States 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit Court) 

upheld the EPA’s interpretation that 

CAA section 112(f)(2) incorporates the 

approach established in the Benzene 

NESHAP. See NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 

1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 

The approach incorporated into the 

CAA and used by the EPA to evaluate 

residual risk and to develop standards 

under CAA section 112(f)(2) is a twostep approach. In the first step, the EPA 

determines whether risks are acceptable. 

This determination ‘‘considers all health 

information, including risk estimation 

uncertainty, and includes a presumptive 

limit on maximum individual lifetime 

[cancer] risk (MIR) 1 of approximately 1 

in 10 thousand.’’ (54 FR 38045). If risks 

are unacceptable, the EPA must 

determine the emissions standards 

necessary to reduce risk to an acceptable 

level without considering costs. In the 

second step of the approach, the EPA 

considers whether the emissions 

standards provide an ample margin of 

safety to protect public health ‘‘in 

consideration of all health information, 

including the number of persons at risk 

levels higher than approximately 1 in 1 

million, as well as other relevant factors, 

including costs and economic impacts, 

technological feasibility, and other 

factors relevant to each particular 

decision.’’ Id. The EPA must promulgate 

emission standards necessary to provide 

an ample margin of safety to protect 

public health or determine that the 

standards being reviewed provide an 

ample margin of safety without any 

revisions. After conducting the ample 

margin of safety analysis, we consider 

whether a more stringent standard is 

necessary to prevent, taking into 

consideration costs, energy, safety, and 

other relevant factors, an adverse 

environmental effect. 

CAA section 112(d)(6) separately 

requires the EPA to review standards 

promulgated under CAA section 112 

and revise them ‘‘as necessary (taking 

into account developments in practices, 

processes, and control technologies)’’ no 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
3058 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

less often than every 8 years. In 

conducting this review, which we call 

the ‘‘technology review,’’ the EPA is not 

required to recalculate the MACT floor. 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

(NRDC) v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 

(D.C. Cir. 2008). Association of Battery 

Recyclers, Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667 

(D.C. Cir. 2013). The EPA may consider 

cost in deciding whether to revise the 

standards pursuant to CAA section 

112(d)(6). The EPA is required to 

address regulatory gaps, such as missing 

standards for listed air toxics known to 

be emitted from the source category. 

Louisiana Environmental Action 

Network (LEAN) v. EPA, 955 F.3d 1088 

(D.C. Cir. 2020). 

B. What is this source category and how 

does the current NESHAP regulate its 

HAP emissions? 

The NESHAP for the Carbon Black 

Production major source category was 

promulgated on July 12, 2002 (67 FR 

46258), and codified at 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart YY. Additionally, the Carbon 

Black Production area source NESHAP 

was promulgated on July 16, 2007 (72 

FR 38864), and codified at 40 CFR part 

63, subpart MMMMMM. Subpart 

MMMMMM was subsequently amended 

by a direct final rule on March 26, 2008 

(73 FR 15923). As promulgated, the 

Carbon Black Production major source 

and area source NESHAPs apply to 

affected sources of HAP at carbon black 

production facilities that are, 

respectively, major sources and area 

sources of HAP. The affected sources 

covered by subpart YY include each 

carbon black production process unit, 

along with associated process vents and 

equipment that are located at a major 

source, as defined in section 112(a) of 

the CAA. 

Emissions limits in the 2002 major 

source NESHAP for the Carbon Black 

Production source category were set for 

process vents associated with the main 

unit filter (MUF). Process vents at the 

MUF that have a HAP concentration of 

the emission stream equal to or greater 

than 260 parts per million by volume 

(ppmv), must reduce emissions of HAP 

by the use of a flare meeting the 

requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

SS, or must reduce emissions of total 

HAP by 98 weight-percent or to a 

concentration of 20 ppmv, whichever is 

less stringent, by venting emissions 

through a closed vent system to any 

combination of control devices meeting 

the requirements of subpart SS of this 

part, as specified in 40 CFR 63.982(a)(2). 

40 CFR 63.982(a)(2) specifies separate 

compliance depending on whether the 

closed vent system is routed to a flare, 

or a non-flare control device. These 

provisions include flare compliance 

assessments, and specific monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements. Emission limits for the 

Carbon Black Production area source 

category NESHAP reference the 

provisions of the major source standard. 

C. What data collection activities were 

conducted to support this action? 

For the residual risk assessment, the 

EPA utilized data from the 2016 

National Emissions Inventory (NEI). The 

NEI is a database that contains 

information about sources that emit 

criteria air pollutants, their precursors, 

and HAP. The database includes 

estimates of annual air pollutant 

emissions from point, nonpoint, and 

mobile sources in the 50 states, the 

District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and 

the U.S. Virgin Islands. The EPA 

collects this information and releases an 

updated version of the NEI database 

every 3 years. The NEI contains data 

necessary for conducting the residual 

risk assessment, including annual HAP 

emissions estimates from individual 

emission points at facilities in the 

Carbon Black Production source 

category, and related emissions release 

parameters. 

The 2016 NEI data for the Carbon 

Black Production source category was 

reviewed and updated as appropriate by 

the International Carbon Black 

Association (ICBA). Major source 

members of ICBA represent all major 

sources subject to this regulation. The 

information received included 

descriptions of HAP-emitting processes, 

information on the HAP-containing 

materials used, estimates of emissions, 

and descriptions of control 

technologies, if present. 

The EPA used NEI emissions data and 

the review by ICBA as the primary 

technical basis for developing the model 

input files for the residual risk 

assessment for the Carbon Black 

Production source category. Additional 

information on the development of the 

modeling file for the Carbon Black 

Production source category can be 

found in the document, Residual Risk 

Assessment for the Carbon Black 

Production Source Category in Support 

of the Risk and Technology Review 2020 

Proposed Rule, which is available in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

To support both the residual risk 

assessment and the technology review 

addressed in this action, the EPA visited 

two carbon black production facilities. 

During the visits, the EPA discussed 

process operations, compliance with the 

existing NESHAP, description of the 

emission points, process controls, 

unregulated emissions, and other 

aspects of facility operations. The EPA 

used the information provided by the 

facilities to understand the various 

operations, existing controls, and new 

developments in practices, processes, 

and control technologies for the source 

category. Additional information can be 

found in the site visit reports, the Orion 

Borger Facility Site Visit Report and the 

Sid Richardson Addis Facility Site Visit 

Report, which are available in the 

docket for this action. 

D. What other relevant background 

information and data are available? 

For the technology review, we 

reviewed the Reasonably Available 

Control Technology (RACT), Best 

Available Control Technology (BACT), 

and Lowest Achievable Emission Rate 

(LAER) Clearinghouse (RBLC). This is a 

database that contains case-specific 

information on air pollution control 

technologies that have been required to 

reduce the emissions of air pollutants 

from stationary sources. Under the 

EPA’s New Source Review (NSR) 

program, if a facility is planning new 

construction or a modification that will 

increase the air emissions above certain 

defined thresholds, an NSR permit may 

be required. The RBLC promotes the 

sharing of information among 

permitting agencies and aids in case-bycase BACT and LAER determinations 

for NSR permits. We examined 

information contained in the RBLC to 

determine what technologies are 

currently used for this source category 

to reduce air emissions and did not 

identify any new technologies. 

Additional information about these 

data collection activities for the 

technology review is contained in the 

technology review memorandum, 

Technology Review for the Carbon Black 

Production Source Category, which is 

available in the docket for this action. 

III. Analytical Procedures and 

Decision-Making 

In this section, we describe the 

analyses performed to support the 

proposed decisions for the RTR and 

other issues addressed in this proposal. 

A. How do we consider risk in our 

decision-making? 

As discussed in section II.A of this 

preamble and in the Benzene NESHAP, 

in evaluating and developing standards 

under CAA section 112(f)(2), we apply 

a two-step approach to determine 

whether or not risks are acceptable and 

to determine if the standards provide an 

ample margin of safety to protect public 

health. As explained in the Benzene 

NESHAP, ‘‘the first step judgment on 

acceptability cannot be reduced to any 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 3059 

2The MIR is defined as the cancer risk associated 

with a lifetime of exposure at the highest 

concentration of HAP where people are likely to 

live. The HQ is the ratio of the potential HAP 

exposure concentration to the noncancer doseresponse value; the HI is the sum of HQs for HAP 

that affect the same target organ or organ system. 

3Recommendations of the SAB Risk and 

Technology Review Methods Panel are provided in 

their report, which is available at: https://

yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/ 

4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPASAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf. 

single factor’’ and, thus, ‘‘[t]he 

Administrator believes that the 

acceptability of risk under section 112 is 

best judged on the basis of a broad set 

of health risk measures and 

information.’’ (54 FR 38046). Similarly, 

with regard to the ample margin of 

safety determination, ‘‘the Agency again 

considers all of the health risk and other 

health information considered in the 

first step. Beyond that information, 

additional factors relating to the 

appropriate level of control will also be 

considered, including cost and 

economic impacts of controls, 

technological feasibility, uncertainties, 

and any other relevant factors.’’ Id. 

The Benzene NESHAP approach 

provides flexibility regarding factors the 

EPA may consider in making 

determinations and how the EPA may 

weigh those factors for each source 

category. The EPA conducts a risk 

assessment that provides estimates of 

the MIR posed by emissions of HAP that 

are carcinogens from each source in the 

source category, the hazard index (HI) 

for chronic exposures to HAP with the 

potential to cause noncancer health 

effects, and the hazard quotient (HQ) for 

acute exposures to HAP with the 

potential to cause noncancer health 

effects.2 The assessment also provides 

estimates of the distribution of cancer 

risk within the exposed populations, 

cancer incidence, and an evaluation of 

the potential for an adverse 

environmental effect. The scope of the 

EPA’s risk analysis is consistent with 

the explanation in the EPA’s response to 

comments on our policy under the 

Benzene NESHAP: 

The policy chosen by the Administrator 

permits consideration of multiple measures 

of health risk. Not only can the MIR figure 

be considered, but also incidence, the 

presence of non-cancer health effects, and the 

uncertainties of the risk estimates. In this 

way, the effect on the most exposed 

individuals can be reviewed as well as the 

impact on the general public. These factors 

can then be weighed in each individual case. 

This approach complies with the Vinyl 

Chloride mandate that the Administrator 

ascertain an acceptable level of risk to the 

public by employing his expertise to assess 

available data. It also complies with the 

Congressional intent behind the CAA, which 

did not exclude the use of any particular 

measure of public health risk from the EPA’s 

consideration with respect to CAA section 

112 regulations, and thereby implicitly 

permits consideration of any and all 

measures of health risk which the 

Administrator, in his judgment, believes are 

appropriate to determining what will 

‘‘protect the public health.’’ 

(54 FR 38057). Thus, the level of the 

MIR is only one factor to be weighed in 

determining acceptability of risk. The 

Benzene NESHAP explained that ‘‘an 

MIR of approximately one in 10 

thousand should ordinarily be the upper 

end of the range of acceptability. As 

risks increase above this benchmark, 

they become presumptively less 

acceptable under CAA section 112, and 

would be weighed with the other health 

risk measures and information in 

making an overall judgment on 

acceptability. Or, the Agency may find, 

in a particular case, that a risk that 

includes an MIR less than the 

presumptively acceptable level is 

unacceptable in the light of other health 

risk factors.’’ Id. at 38045. In other 

words, risks that include an MIR above 

100-in-1 million may be determined to 

be acceptable, and risks with an MIR 

below that level may be determined to 

be unacceptable, depending on all of the 

available health information. Similarly, 

with regard to the ample margin of 

safety analysis, the EPA stated in the 

Benzene NESHAP that: ‘‘EPA believes 

the relative weight of the many factors 

that can be considered in selecting an 

ample margin of safety can only be 

determined for each specific source 

category. This occurs mainly because 

technological and economic factors 

(along with the health-related factors) 

vary from source category to source 

category.’’ Id. at 38061. We also 

consider the uncertainties associated 

with the various risk analyses, as 

discussed earlier in this preamble, in 

our determinations of acceptability and 

ample margin of safety. 

The EPA notes that it has not 

considered certain health information to 

date in making residual risk 

determinations. At this time, we do not 

attempt to quantify the HAP risk that 

may be associated with emissions from 

other facilities that do not include the 

source category under review, mobile 

source emissions, natural source 

emissions, persistent environmental 

pollution, or atmospheric 

transformation in the vicinity of the 

sources in the category. 

The EPA understands the potential 

importance of considering an 

individual’s total exposure to HAP in 

addition to considering exposure to 

HAP emissions from the source category 

and facility. We recognize that such 

consideration may be particularly 

important when assessing noncancer 

risk, where pollutant-specific exposure 

health reference levels (e.g., reference 

concentrations (RfCs)) are based on the 

assumption that thresholds exist for 

adverse health effects. For example, the 

EPA recognizes that, although exposures 

attributable to emissions from a source 

category or facility alone may not 

indicate the potential for increased risk 

of adverse noncancer health effects in a 

population, the exposures resulting 

from emissions from the facility in 

combination with emissions from all of 

the other sources (e.g., other facilities) to 

which an individual is exposed may be 

sufficient to result in an increased risk 

of adverse noncancer health effects. In 

May 2010, the Science Advisory Board 

(SAB) advised the EPA ‘‘that RTR 

assessments will be most useful to 

decision makers and communities if 

results are presented in the broader 

context of aggregate and cumulative 

risks, including background 

concentrations and contributions from 

other sources in the area.’’ 3

In response to the SAB 

recommendations, the EPA incorporates 

cumulative risk analyses into its RTR 

risk assessments. The Agency: (1) 

Conducts facility-wide assessments, 

which include source category emission 

points, as well as other emission points 

within the facilities; (2) combines 

exposures from multiple sources in the 

same category that could affect the same 

individuals; and (3) for some persistent 

and bioaccumulative pollutants, 

analyzes the ingestion route of 

exposure. In addition, the RTR risk 

assessments consider aggregate cancer 

risk from all carcinogens and aggregated 

noncancer HQs for all noncarcinogens 

affecting the same target organ or target 

organ system. 

Although we are interested in placing 

source category and facility-wide HAP 

risk in the context of total HAP risk 

from all sources combined in the 

vicinity of each source, we are 

concerned about the uncertainties of 

doing so. Estimates of total HAP risk 

from emission sources other than those 

that we have studied in depth during 

this RTR review would have 

significantly greater associated 

uncertainties than the source category or 

facility-wide estimates. Such aggregate 

or cumulative assessments would 

compound those uncertainties, making 

the assessments too unreliable. 

B. How do we perform the technology 

review? 

Our technology review primarily 

focuses on the identification and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
3060 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

4U.S. EPA. Risk and Technology Review (RTR) 

Risk Assessment Methodologies: For Review by the 

EPA’s Science Advisory Board with Case Studies— 

MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and Portland 

Cement Manufacturing, June 2009. EPA–452/R–09– 

006. https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/rrisk/ 

rtrpg.html. 

evaluation of developments in practices, 

processes, and control technologies that 

have occurred since the MACT 

standards were promulgated. Where we 

identify such developments, we analyze 

their technical feasibility, estimated 

costs, energy implications, and non-air 

environmental impacts. We also 

consider the emission reductions 

associated with applying each 

development. This analysis informs our 

decision of whether it is ‘‘necessary’’ to 

revise the emissions standards. In 

addition, we consider the 

appropriateness of applying controls to 

new sources versus retrofitting existing 

sources. For this exercise, we consider 

any of the following to be a 

‘‘development’’: 

• Any add-on control technology or 

other equipment that was not identified 

and considered during development of 

the original MACT standards; 

• Any improvements in add-on 

control technology or other equipment 

(that were identified and considered 

during development of the original 

MACT standards) that could result in 

additional emissions reduction; 

• Any work practice or operational 

procedure that was not identified or 

considered during development of the 

original MACT standards; 

• Any process change or pollution 

prevention alternative that could be 

broadly applied to the industry and that 

was not identified or considered during 

development of the original MACT 

standards; and 

• Any significant changes in the cost 

(including cost effectiveness) of 

applying controls (including controls 

the EPA considered during the 

development of the original MACT 

standards). 

In addition to reviewing the practices, 

processes, and control technologies that 

were considered at the time we 

originally developed the NESHAP, we 

review a variety of data sources in our 

investigation of potential practices, 

processes, or controls. We also review 

the NESHAP and the available data to 

determine if there are any unregulated 

emissions of HAP within the source 

category and evaluate this data for use 

in developing new emission standards. 

See sections II.C and II.D of this 

preamble for information on the specific 

data sources that were reviewed as part 

of the technology review. 

C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk 

posed by the source category? 

In this section, we provide a complete 

description of the types of analyses that 

we generally perform during the risk 

assessment process. In some cases, we 

do not perform a specific analysis 

because it is not relevant. For example, 

in the absence of emissions of HAP 

known to be persistent and 

bioaccumulative in the environment 

(PB–HAP), we would not perform a 

multipathway exposure assessment. 

Where we do not perform an analysis, 

we state that we do not and provide the 

reason. While we present all of our risk 

assessment methods, we only present 

risk assessment results for the analyses 

actually conducted (see section IV.B of 

this preamble). 

The EPA conducts a risk assessment 

that provides estimates of the MIR for 

cancer posed by the HAP emissions 

from each source in the source category, 

the HI for chronic exposures to HAP 

with the potential to cause noncancer 

health effects, and the HQ for acute 

exposures to HAP with the potential to 

cause noncancer health effects. The 

assessment also provides estimates of 

the distribution of cancer risk within the 

exposed populations, cancer incidence, 

and an evaluation of the potential for an 

adverse environmental effect. The seven 

sections that follow this paragraph 

describe how we estimated emissions 

and conducted the risk assessment. The 

docket for this rulemaking contains the 

following document which provides 

more information on the risk assessment 

inputs and models: Residual Risk 

Assessment for the Carbon Black 

Production Source Category in Support 

of the 2020 Risk and Technology Review 

Proposed Rule. The methods used to 

assess risk (as described in the seven 

primary steps below) are consistent with 

those described by the EPA in the 

document reviewed by a panel of the 

EPA’s SAB in 2009; 4 and described in 

the SAB review report issued in 2010. 

They are also consistent with the key 

recommendations contained in that 

report. 

1. How did we estimate actual 

emissions and identify the emissions 

release characteristics? 

The estimated actual emissions and 

the emission release characteristics for 

each facility in the source category were 

obtained from the 2016 NEI. In addition, 

the EPA provided draft actual emissions 

data and stack parameters to facilities 

for review and confirmation. In some 

cases, facilities were contacted to 

confirm emissions that appeared to be 

outliers, otherwise inconsistent with our 

understanding of the industry, or 

associated with high risk values in our 

initial risk screening analyses. Where 

appropriate, emission values and release 

characteristics were corrected, based on 

revised stack parameter information 

provided by the facilities. Additional 

information on the development of the 

modeling file for the source category, 

including the development of the actual 

emissions and emissions release 

characteristics, can be found in the 

Appendix 1 of the document, Residual 

Risk Assessment for Carbon Black 

Production Source Category in Support 

of the 2020 Risk and Technology Review 

Proposed Rule, which is available in the 

docket for this action. 

2. How did we estimate MACTallowable emissions? 

The available emissions data in the 

RTR emissions dataset include estimates 

of the mass of HAP emitted during a 

specified annual time period. These 

‘‘actual’’ emission levels are often lower 

than the emission levels allowed under 

the requirements of the current MACT 

standards. The emissions allowed under 

the MACT standards are referred to as 

the ‘‘MACT-allowable’’ emissions. We 

discussed the consideration of both 

MACT-allowable and actual emissions 

in the final Coke Oven Batteries RTR (70 

FR 19992, 19998 through 19999, April 

15, 2005) and in the proposed and final 

Hazardous Organic NESHAP RTR (71 

FR 34421, 34428, June 14, 2006, and 71 

FR 76603, 76609, December 21, 2006, 

respectively). In those actions, we noted 

that assessing the risk at the MACTallowable level is inherently reasonable 

since that risk reflects the maximum 

level facilities could emit and still 

comply with national emission 

standards. We also explained that it is 

reasonable to consider actual emissions, 

where such data are available, in both 

steps of the risk analysis, in accordance 

with the Benzene NESHAP approach. 

(54 FR 38044.) 

In order to calculate allowable 

emissions, a detailed analysis of the 

source category was conducted to 

determine how each major source 

facility meets the emissions standards of 

the Carbon Black NESHAP. With respect 

to the various types of controls used 

within the source category, all facilities 

use a combination of combustion 

control devices (CCDs). Facilities that 

manufacture carbon black typically have 

several types of CCDs including but not 

limited to, flares, incinerators, boilers/ 

process heaters, and dryers. CCDs can 

be used to control emissions for a single 

emissions source, or as is generally the 

case, to control emissions from multiple 

emission sources/emission source types. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 3061 

5For more information about HEM–3, go to 

https://www.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-andmodeling-human-exposure-model-hem. 

6U.S. EPA. Revision to the Guideline on Air 

Quality Models: Adoption of a Preferred General 

Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain) Dispersion 

Model and Other Revisions (70 FR 68218, 

November 9, 2005). 7A census block is the smallest geographic area 

for which census statistics are tabulated. 

8The EPA classification system is, in general, an 

adaptation of the International Agency for Research 

on Cancer (IARC, 1982) approach for classifying the 

weight of evidence for human data and animal data. 

The EPA classification system for the 

characterization of the overall weight of evidence 

for carcinogenicity (animal, human, and other 

supportive data) includes: Group A—Carcinogenic 

to Humans; Group B—Probably Carcinogenic to 

Humans; Group C—Possibly Carcinogenic to 

Humans; Group D—Not Classifiable as to Human 

Carcinogenicity; and Group E—Evidence of 

Noncarcinogenicity for Humans. These 

classifications also coincide with the terms, 

‘‘carcinogenic to humans, probably carcinogenic to 

humans, and possibly carcinogenic to humans,’’ 

respectively, which are the terms advocated in the 

EPA’s Guidelines for Carcinogenic Risk Assessment, 

published in 1986 (51 FR 33992, September 24, 

1986); https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/ 

30004TZX.PDF?/Dockey=/30004TZX.PDF. 

Historically, the majority of facilities 

in this source category utilize flares to 

control emissions. Emissions reductions 

for flares in this source category 

presume to control HAP at a level of 98 

percent (e.g., see as an example, 

Technical Supplement 4: Flares in 

‘‘2016 Emissions Inventory Guidelines,’’ 

(TCEQ 2017)). Due to ongoing consent 

decrees, several facilities are 

transitioning from flares to incinerators 

to reduce criteria pollutants. Since the 

current emission limit allows the use of 

a flare, or to control emissions to 98 

percent, and all facilities utilize a CCD 

meeting those requirements, it is 

appropriate to estimate actual emissions 

as equal to allowable emissions. 

For equipment leaks, which are 

subject to work practice standards, there 

is no difference between actual and 

MACT-allowable emissions for facilities 

in the Carbon Black Production source 

category. This is because all facilities 

are using the same work practice 

standard, and when the work practice 

standard is correctly applied, the actual 

emissions that result are the same as 

allowable emissions. For additional 

information on the allowable 

calculations, see Development of the 

RTR Proposal Risk Modeling Dataset for 

the Carbon Black Production Source 

Category, available in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

3. How do we conduct dispersion 

modeling, determine inhalation 

exposures, and estimate individual and 

population inhalation risk? 

Both long-term and short-term 

inhalation exposure concentrations and 

health risk from the source category 

addressed in this proposal were 

estimated using the Human Exposure 

Model (HEM–3).5 The HEM–3 performs 

three primary risk assessment activities: 

(1) Conducting dispersion modeling to 

estimate the concentrations of HAP in 

ambient air, (2) estimating long-term 

and short-term inhalation exposures to 

individuals residing within 50 

kilometers (km) of the modeled sources, 

and (3) estimating individual and 

population-level inhalation risk using 

the exposure estimates and quantitative 

dose-response information. 

a. Dispersion Modeling 

The air dispersion model AERMOD, 

used by the HEM–3 model, is one of the 

EPA’s preferred models for assessing air 

pollutant concentrations from industrial 

facilities.6 To perform the dispersion 

modeling and to develop the 

preliminary risk estimates, HEM–3 

draws on three data libraries. The first 

is a library of meteorological data, 

which is used for dispersion 

calculations. This library includes 1 

year (2016) of hourly surface and upper 

air observations from 824 

meteorological stations selected to 

provide coverage of the United States 

and Puerto Rico. A second library of 

United States Census Bureau census 

block 7 internal point locations and 

populations provides the basis of 

human exposure calculations (U.S. 

Census, 2010). In addition, for each 

census block, the census library 

includes the elevation and controlling 

hill height, which are also used in 

dispersion calculations. A third library 

of pollutant-specific dose-response 

values is used to estimate health risk. 

These are discussed below. 

b. Risk From Chronic Exposure to HAP 

In developing the risk assessment for 

chronic exposures, we use the estimated 

annual average ambient air 

concentrations of each HAP emitted by 

each source in the source category. The 

HAP air concentrations at each nearby 

census block centroid located within 50 

km of the facility are a surrogate for the 

chronic inhalation exposure 

concentration for all the people who 

reside in that census block. A distance 

of 50 km is consistent with both the 

analysis supporting the 1989 Benzene 

NESHAP (54 FR 38044) and the 

limitations of Gaussian dispersion 

models, including AERMOD. 

For each facility, we calculate the MIR 

as the cancer risk associated with a 

continuous lifetime (24 hours per day, 

7 days per week, 52 weeks per year, 70 

years) exposure to the maximum 

concentration at the centroid of each 

inhabited census block. We calculate 

individual cancer risk by multiplying 

the estimated lifetime exposure to the 

ambient concentration of each HAP (in 

micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3)) by 

its unit risk estimate (URE). The URE is 

an upper-bound estimate of an 

individual’s incremental risk of 

contracting cancer over a lifetime of 

exposure to a concentration of 1 

microgram of the pollutant per cubic 

meter of air. For residual risk 

assessments, we generally use UREs 

from the EPA’s Integrated Risk 

Information System (IRIS). For 

carcinogenic pollutants without IRIS 

values, we look to other reputable 

sources of cancer dose-response values, 

often using California EPA (CalEPA) 

UREs, where available. In cases where 

new, scientifically credible doseresponse values have been developed in 

a manner consistent with EPA 

guidelines and have undergone a peer 

review process similar to that used by 

the EPA, we may use such doseresponse values in place of, or in 

addition to, other values, if appropriate. 

The pollutant-specific dose-response 

values used to estimate health risk are 

available at https://www.epa.gov/fera/ 

dose-response-assessment-assessinghealth-risks-associated-exposurehazardous-air-pollutants. 

To estimate individual lifetime cancer 

risks associated with exposure to HAP 

emissions from each facility in the 

source category, we sum the risks for 

each of the carcinogenic HAP 8 emitted 

by the modeled facility. We estimate 

cancer risk at every census block within 

50 km of every facility in the source 

category. The MIR is the highest 

individual lifetime cancer risk estimated 

for any of those census blocks. In 

addition to calculating the MIR, we 

estimate the distribution of individual 

cancer risks for the source category by 

summing the number of individuals 

within 50 km of the sources whose 

estimated risk falls within a specified 

risk range. We also estimate annual 

cancer incidence by multiplying the 

estimated lifetime cancer risk at each 

census block by the number of people 

residing in that block, summing results 

for all of the census blocks, and then 

dividing this result by a 70-year 

lifetime. 

To assess the risk of noncancer health 

effects from chronic exposure to HAP, 

we calculate either an HQ or a target 

organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI). 

We calculate an HQ when a single 

noncancer HAP is emitted. Where more 

than one noncancer HAP is emitted, we 

sum the HQ for each of the HAP that 

affects a common target organ or target 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
3062 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

9See, e.g., U.S. EPA. Screening Methodologies to 

Support Risk and Technology Reviews (RTR): A 

Case Study Analysis (Draft Report, May 2017. 

https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html). 

10 In the absence of hourly emission data, we 

develop estimates of maximum hourly emission 

rates by multiplying the average actual annual 

emissions rates by a factor (either a categoryspecific factor or a default factor of 10) to account 

for variability. This is documented in Residual Risk 

Assessment for Carbon Black Production Source 

Category in Support of the 2020 Risk and 

Technology Review Proposed Rule and in Appendix 

5 of the report: Technical Support Document for 

Acute Risk Screening Assessment. Both are 

available in the docket for this rulemaking. 

11CalEPA issues acute RELs as part of its Air 

Toxics Hot Spots Program, and the 1-hour and 8- 

hour values are documented in Air Toxics Hot 

Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, Part I, 

The Determination of Acute Reference Exposure 

Levels for Airborne Toxicants, which is available at 

https://oehha.ca.gov/air/general-info/oehha-acute8-hour-and-chronic-reference-exposure-level-relsummary. 

12National Academy of Sciences, 2001. Standing 

Operating Procedures for Developing Acute 

Exposure Levels for Hazardous Chemicals, page 2. 

Available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/ 

files/2015-09/documents/sop_final_standing_

operating_procedures_2001.pdf. Note that the 

National Advisory Committee for Acute Exposure 

Guideline Levels for Hazardous Substances ended 

in October 2011, but the AEGL program continues 

to operate at the EPA and works with the National 

Academies to publish final AEGLs (https://

www.epa.gov/aegl). 

13ERPGS Procedures and Responsibilities. March 

2014. American Industrial Hygiene Association. 

organ system to obtain a TOSHI. The 

HQ is the estimated exposure divided 

by the chronic noncancer dose-response 

value, which is a value selected from 

one of several sources. The preferred 

chronic noncancer dose-response value 

is the EPA RfC, defined as ‘‘an estimate 

(with uncertainty spanning perhaps an 

order of magnitude) of a continuous 

inhalation exposure to the human 

population (including sensitive 

subgroups) that is likely to be without 

an appreciable risk of deleterious effects 

during a lifetime’’ (https://

iaspub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/ 

termreg/searchandretrieve/glossaries/

and/keyword/lists/search.do?/details=/

&vocabName=/IRIS%20/Glossary). In 

cases where an RfC from the EPA’s IRIS 

is not available or where the EPA 

determines that using a value other than 

the RfC is appropriate, the chronic 

noncancer dose-response value can be a 

value from the following prioritized 

sources, which define their doseresponse values similarly to the EPA: (1) 

The Agency for Toxic Substances and 

Disease Registry (ATSDR) Minimum 

Risk Level (https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ 

mrls/index.asp); (2) the CalEPA Chronic 

Reference Exposure Level (REL) (https:// 

oehha.ca.gov/air/crnr/notice-adoptionair-toxics-hot-spots-program-guidancemanual-preparation-health-risk-0); or 

(3) as noted above, a scientifically 

credible dose-response value that has 

been developed in a manner consistent 

with the EPA guidelines and has 

undergone a peer review process similar 

to that used by the EPA. The pollutantspecific dose-response values used to 

estimate health risks are available at 

https://www.epa.gov/fera/doseresponse-assessment-assessing-healthrisks-associated-exposure-hazardousair-pollutants. 

c. Risk From Acute Exposure to HAP 

That May Cause Health Effects Other 

Than Cancer 

For each HAP for which appropriate 

acute inhalation dose-response values 

are available, the EPA also assesses the 

potential health risks due to acute 

exposure. For these assessments, the 

EPA makes conservative assumptions 

about emission rates, meteorology, and 

exposure location. As part of our efforts 

to continually improve our 

methodologies to evaluate the risks that 

HAP emitted from categories of 

industrial sources pose to human health 

and the environment,9 we revised our 

treatment of meteorological data to use 

reasonable worst-case air dispersion 

conditions in our acute risk screening 

assessments instead of worst-case air 

dispersion conditions. This revised 

treatment of meteorological data and the 

supporting rationale are described in 

more detail in Residual Risk Assessment 

for the Carbon Black Production Source 

Category in Support of the 2020 Risk 

and Technology Review Proposed Rule 

and in Appendix 5 of the report: 

Technical Support Document for Acute 

Risk Screening Assessment. This revised 

approach has been used in this 

proposed rule and in all other RTR 

rulemakings proposed on or after June 3, 

2019. 

To assess the potential acute risk to 

the maximally exposed individual, we 

use the peak hourly emission rate for 

each emission point,10 reasonable 

worst-case air dispersion conditions 

(i.e., 99th percentile), and the point of 

highest off-site exposure. Specifically, 

we assume that peak emissions from the 

source category and reasonable worstcase air dispersion conditions co-occur 

and that a person is present at the point 

of maximum exposure. 

To characterize the potential health 

risks associated with estimated acute 

inhalation exposures to a HAP, we 

generally use multiple acute doseresponse values, including acute RELs, 

acute exposure guideline levels 

(AEGLs), and emergency response 

planning guidelines (ERPG) for 1-hour 

exposure durations, if available, to 

calculate acute HQs. The acute HQ is 

calculated by dividing the estimated 

acute exposure concentration by the 

acute dose-response value. For each 

HAP for which acute dose-response 

values are available, the EPA calculates 

acute HQs. 

An acute REL is defined as ‘‘the 

concentration level at or below which 

no adverse health effects are anticipated 

for a specified exposure duration.’’ 11

Acute RELs are based on the most 

sensitive, relevant, adverse health effect 

reported in the peer-reviewed medical 

and toxicological literature. They are 

designed to protect the most sensitive 

individuals in the population through 

the inclusion of margins of safety. 

Because margins of safety are 

incorporated to address data gaps and 

uncertainties, exceeding the REL does 

not automatically indicate an adverse 

health impact. AEGLs represent 

threshold exposure limits for the general 

public and are applicable to emergency 

exposures ranging from 10 minutes to 8 

hours.12 They are guideline levels for 

‘‘once-in-a-lifetime, short-term 

exposures to airborne concentrations of 

acutely toxic, high-priority chemicals.’’ 

Id. at 21. The AEGL–1 is specifically 

defined as ‘‘the airborne concentration 

(expressed as ppm (parts per million) or 

mg/m3 (milligrams per cubic meter)) of 

a substance above which it is predicted 

that the general population, including 

susceptible individuals, could 

experience notable discomfort, 

irritation, or certain asymptomatic 

nonsensory effects. However, the effects 

are not disabling and are transient and 

reversible upon cessation of exposure.’’ 

The document also notes that ‘‘Airborne 

concentrations below AEGL–1 represent 

exposure levels that can produce mild 

and progressively increasing but 

transient and nondisabling odor, taste, 

and sensory irritation or certain 

asymptomatic, nonsensory effects.’’ Id. 

AEGL–2 are defined as ‘‘the airborne 

concentration (expressed as parts per 

million or milligrams per cubic meter) 

of a substance above which it is 

predicted that the general population, 

including susceptible individuals, could 

experience irreversible or other serious, 

long-lasting adverse health effects or an 

impaired ability to escape.’’ Id. 

ERPGs are ‘‘developed for emergency 

planning and are intended as healthbased guideline concentrations for 

single exposures to chemicals.’’ 13 Id. at 

1. The ERPG–1 is defined as ‘‘the 

maximum airborne concentration below 

which it is believed that nearly all 

individuals could be exposed for up to 

1 hour without experiencing other than 

mild transient adverse health effects or 

without perceiving a clearly defined, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 3063 

14Burger, J. 2002. Daily consumption of wild fish 

and game: Exposures of high end recreationists. 

International Journal of Environmental Health 

Research, 12:343–354. 

15U.S. EPA. Exposure Factors Handbook 2011 

Edition (Final). U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R–09/052F, 

2011. 

objectionable odor.’’ Id. at 2. Similarly, 

the ERPG–2 is defined as ‘‘the 

maximum airborne concentration below 

which it is believed that nearly all 

individuals could be exposed for up to 

one hour without experiencing or 

developing irreversible or other serious 

health effects or symptoms which could 

impair an individual’s ability to take 

protective action.’’ Id. at 1. 

An acute REL for 1-hour exposure 

durations is typically lower than its 

corresponding AEGL–1 and ERPG–1. 

Even though their definitions are 

slightly different, AEGL–1s are often the 

same as the corresponding ERPG–1s, 

and AEGL–2s are often equal to ERPG– 

2s. The maximum HQs from our acute 

inhalation screening risk assessment 

typically result when we use the acute 

REL for a HAP. In cases where the 

maximum acute HQ exceeds 1, we also 

report the HQ based on the next highest 

acute dose-response value (usually the 

AEGL–1 and/or the ERPG–1). 

For this source category, carbon black 

is produced at a steady state, 

continuously. Due to the consistency of 

operation, we do not expect significant 

variability in emissions for this source 

category. To allow for small variations 

in production, we have assigned an 

hourly acute multiplication factor of 

two for all emission process groups. A 

further discussion of why this factor 

was chosen can be found in the 

memorandum, Development of the RTR 

Proposal Risk Modeling Dataset for the 

Carbon Black Production Source 

Category, available in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

In our acute inhalation screening risk 

assessment, acute impacts are deemed 

negligible for HAP for which acute HQs 

are less than or equal to 1, and no 

further analysis is performed for these 

HAP. In cases where an acute HQ from 

the screening step is greater than 1, we 

assess the site-specific data to ensure 

that the acute HQ is at an off-site 

location. 

4. How do we conduct the 

multipathway exposure and risk 

screening assessment? 

The EPA conducts a tiered screening 

assessment examining the potential for 

significant human health risks due to 

exposures via routes other than 

inhalation (i.e., ingestion). We first 

determine whether any sources in the 

source category emit any HAP known to 

be persistent and bioaccumulative in the 

environment, as identified in the EPA’s 

Air Toxics Risk Assessment Library (see 

Volume 1, Appendix D, at https://

www.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-andmodeling-air-toxics-risk-assessmentreference-library). 

For the Carbon Black Production 

source category, we identified PB–HAP 

emissions of arsenic, cadmium, lead, 

mercury, and polycyclic organic matter 

(POM) of which polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbons is a subset, so we 

proceeded to the next step of the 

evaluation. Except for lead, the human 

health risk screening assessment for PB– 

HAP consists of three progressive tiers. 

In a Tier 1 screening assessment, we 

determine whether the magnitude of the 

facility-specific emissions of PB–HAP 

warrants further evaluation to 

characterize human health risk through 

ingestion exposure. To facilitate this 

step, we evaluate emissions against 

previously developed screening 

threshold emission rates for several PB– 

HAP that are based on a hypothetical 

upper-end screening exposure scenario 

developed for use in conjunction with 

the EPA’s Total Risk Integrated 

Methodology.Fate, Transport, and 

Ecological Exposure (TRIM.FaTE) 

model. The PB–HAP with screening 

threshold emission rates are arsenic 

compounds, cadmium compounds, 

chlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans, 

mercury compounds, and POM. Based 

on the EPA estimates of toxicity and 

bioaccumulation potential, these 

pollutants represent a conservative list 

for inclusion in multipathway risk 

assessments for RTR rules. (See Volume 

1, Appendix D at https://www.epa.gov/ 

sites/production/files/2013-08/ 

documents/volume_1_reflibrary.pdf.) In 

this assessment, we compare the 

facility-specific emission rates of these 

PB–HAP to the screening threshold 

emission rates for each PB–HAP to 

assess the potential for significant 

human health risks via the ingestion 

pathway. We call this application of the 

TRIM.FaTE model the Tier 1 screening 

assessment. The ratio of a facility’s 

actual emission rate to the Tier 1 

screening threshold emission rate is a 

‘‘screening value (SV).’’ 

We derive the Tier 1 screening 

threshold emission rates for these PB– 

HAP (other than lead compounds) to 

correspond to a maximum excess 

lifetime cancer risk of 1-in-1 million 

(i.e., for arsenic compounds, 

polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and 

furans, and POM) or, for HAP that cause 

noncancer health effects (i.e., cadmium 

compounds and mercury compounds), a 

maximum HQ of 1. If the emission rate 

of any one PB–HAP or combination of 

carcinogenic PB–HAP in the Tier 1 

screening assessment exceeds the Tier 1 

screening threshold emission rate for 

any facility (i.e., the SV is greater than 

1), we conduct a second screening 

assessment, which we call the Tier 2 

screening assessment. The Tier 2 

screening assessment separates the Tier 

1 combined fisher and farmer exposure 

scenario into fisher, farmer, and 

gardener scenarios that retain upperbound ingestion rates. 

In the Tier 2 screening assessment, 

the location of each facility that exceeds 

a Tier 1 screening threshold emission 

rate is used to refine the assumptions 

associated with the Tier 1 fisher and 

farmer exposure scenarios at that 

facility. A key assumption in the Tier 1 

screening assessment is that a lake and/ 

or farm is located near the facility. As 

part of the Tier 2 screening assessment, 

we use a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

database to identify actual waterbodies 

within 50 km of each facility and 

assume the fisher only consumes fish 

from lakes within that 50 km zone. We 

also examine the differences between 

local meteorology near the facility and 

the meteorology used in the Tier 1 

screening assessment. We then adjust 

the previously-developed Tier 1 

screening threshold emission rates for 

each PB–HAP for each facility based on 

an understanding of how exposure 

concentrations estimated for the 

screening scenario change with the use 

of local meteorology and the USGS lakes 

database. 

In the Tier 2 farmer scenario, we 

maintain an assumption that the farm is 

located within 0.5 km of the facility and 

that the farmer consumes meat, eggs, 

dairy, vegetables, and fruit produced 

near the facility. We may further refine 

the Tier 2 screening analysis by 

assessing a gardener scenario to 

characterize a range of exposures, with 

the gardener scenario being more 

plausible in RTR evaluations. Under the 

gardener scenario, we assume the 

gardener consumes home-produced 

eggs, vegetables, and fruit products at 

the same ingestion rate as the farmer. 

The Tier 2 screen continues to rely on 

the high-end food intake assumptions 

that were applied in Tier 1 for local fish 

(adult female angler at 99th percentile 

fish consumption 14) and locally grown 

or raised foods (90th percentile 

consumption of locally grown or raised 

foods for the farmer and gardener 

scenarios 15). If PB–HAP emission rates 

do not result in a Tier 2 SV greater than 

1, we consider those PB–HAP emissions 

to pose risks below a level of concern. 

If the PB–HAP emission rates for a 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
3064 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

16 In doing so, the EPA notes that the legal 

standard for a primary NAAQS—that a standard is 

requisite to protect public health and provide an 

adequate margin of safety (CAA section 109(b))— 

differs from the CAA section 112(f) standard 

(requiring, among other things, that the standard 

provide an ‘‘ample margin of safety to protect 

public health’’). However, the primary lead NAAQS 

is a reasonable measure of determining risk 

acceptability (i.e., the first step of the Benzene 

NESHAP analysis) since it is designed to protect the 

most susceptible group in the human population— 

children, including children living near major lead 

emitting sources. 73 FR 67002/3; 73 FR 67000/3; 73 

FR 67005/1. In addition, applying the level of the 

primary lead NAAQS at the risk acceptability step 

is conservative, since that primary lead NAAQS 

reflects an adequate margin of safety. 

facility exceed the Tier 2 screening 

threshold emission rates, we may 

conduct a Tier 3 screening assessment. 

There are several analyses that can be 

included in a Tier 3 screening 

assessment, depending upon the extent 

of refinement warranted, including 

validating that the lakes are fishable, 

locating residential/garden locations for 

urban and/or rural settings, considering 

plume-rise to estimate emissions lost 

above the mixing layer, and considering 

hourly effects of meteorology and 

plume-rise on chemical fate and 

transport (a time-series analysis). If 

necessary, the EPA may further refine 

the screening assessment through a sitespecific assessment. 

In evaluating the potential 

multipathway risk from emissions of 

lead compounds, rather than developing 

a screening threshold emission rate, we 

compare maximum estimated chronic 

inhalation exposure concentrations to 

the level of the current National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) 

for lead.16 Values below the level of the 

primary (health-based) lead NAAQS are 

considered to have a low potential for 

multipathway risk. 

For further information on the 

multipathway assessment approach, see 

the Residual Risk Assessment for the 

Carbon Black Production Source 

Category in Support of the Risk and 

Technology Review 2020 Proposed Rule, 

which is available in the docket for this 

action. 

5. How do we conduct the 

environmental risk screening 

assessment? 

a. Adverse Environmental Effect, 

Environmental HAP, and Ecological 

Benchmarks 

The EPA conducts a screening 

assessment to examine the potential for 

an adverse environmental effect as 

required under section 112(f)(2)(A) of 

the CAA. Section 112(a)(7) of the CAA 

defines ‘‘adverse environmental effect’’ 

as ‘‘any significant and widespread 

adverse effect, which may reasonably be 

anticipated, to wildlife, aquatic life, or 

other natural resources, including 

adverse impacts on populations of 

endangered or threatened species or 

significant degradation of 

environmental quality over broad 

areas.’’ 

The EPA focuses on eight HAP, which 

are referred to as ‘‘environmental HAP,’’ 

in its screening assessment: Six PB– 

HAP and two acid gases. The PB–HAP 

included in the screening assessment 

are arsenic compounds, cadmium 

compounds, dioxins/furans, POM, 

mercury (both inorganic mercury and 

methyl mercury), and lead compounds. 

The acid gases included in the screening 

assessment are hydrochloric acid (HCl) 

and hydrogen fluoride (HF). 

HAP that persist and bioaccumulate 

are of particular environmental concern 

because they accumulate in the soil, 

sediment, and water. The acid gases, 

HCl and HF, are included due to their 

well-documented potential to cause 

direct damage to terrestrial plants. In the 

environmental risk screening 

assessment, we evaluate the following 

four exposure media: Terrestrial soils, 

surface water bodies (includes watercolumn and benthic sediments), fish 

consumed by wildlife, and air. Within 

these four exposure media, we evaluate 

nine ecological assessment endpoints, 

which are defined by the ecological 

entity and its attributes. For PB–HAP 

(other than lead), both community-level 

and population-level endpoints are 

included. For acid gases, the ecological 

assessment evaluated is terrestrial plant 

communities. 

An ecological benchmark represents a 

concentration of HAP that has been 

linked to a particular environmental 

effect level. For each environmental 

HAP, we identified the available 

ecological benchmarks for each 

assessment endpoint. We identified, 

where possible, ecological benchmarks 

at the following effect levels: Probable 

effect levels, lowest-observed-adverseeffect level, and no-observed-adverseeffect level. In cases where multiple 

effect levels were available for a 

particular PB–HAP and assessment 

endpoint, we use all of the available 

effect levels to help us to determine 

whether ecological risks exist and, if so, 

whether the risks could be considered 

significant and widespread. 

For further information on how the 

environmental risk screening 

assessment was conducted, including a 

discussion of the risk metrics used, how 

the environmental HAP were identified, 

and how the ecological benchmarks 

were selected, see Appendix 9 of the 

Residual Risk Assessment for the 

Carbon Black Production Source 

Category in Support of the Risk and 

Technology Review 2020 Proposed Rule, 

which is available in the docket for this 

action. 

b. Environmental Risk Screening 

Methodology 

For the environmental risk screening 

assessment, the EPA first determined 

whether any facilities in the Carbon 

Black Production source category 

emitted any of the environmental HAP. 

For the Carbon Black Production source 

category, we identified emissions of 

arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury, POM 

and the two acid gasses, hydrochloric 

and hydrofluoric acid. Because one or 

more of the environmental HAP 

evaluated are emitted by at least one 

facility in the source category, we 

proceeded to the second step of the 

evaluation. 

c. PB–HAP Methodology 

The environmental screening 

assessment includes six PB–HAP, 

arsenic compounds, cadmium 

compounds, dioxins/furans, POM, 

mercury (both inorganic mercury and 

methyl mercury), and lead compounds. 

With the exception of lead, the 

environmental risk screening 

assessment for PB–HAP consists of three 

tiers. The first tier of the environmental 

risk screening assessment uses the same 

health-protective conceptual model that 

is used for the Tier 1 human health 

screening assessment. TRIM.FaTE 

model simulations were used to backcalculate Tier 1 screening threshold 

emission rates. The screening threshold 

emission rates represent the emission 

rate in tons of pollutant per year that 

results in media concentrations at the 

facility that equal the relevant ecological 

benchmark. To assess emissions from 

each facility in the category, the 

reported emission rate for each PB–HAP 

was compared to the Tier 1 screening 

threshold emission rate for that PB–HAP 

for each assessment endpoint and effect 

level. If emissions from a facility do not 

exceed the Tier 1 screening threshold 

emission rate, the facility ‘‘passes’’ the 

screening assessment, and, therefore, is 

not evaluated further under the 

screening approach. If emissions from a 

facility exceed the Tier 1 screening 

threshold emission rate, we evaluate the 

facility further in Tier 2. 

In Tier 2 of the environmental 

screening assessment, the screening 

threshold emission rates are adjusted to 

account for local meteorology and the 

actual location of lakes in the vicinity of 

facilities that did not pass the Tier 1 

screening assessment. For soils, we 

evaluate the average soil concentration 

for all soil parcels within a 7.5-km 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 3065 

radius for each facility and PB–HAP. 

For the water, sediment, and fish tissue 

concentrations, the highest value for 

each facility for each pollutant is used. 

If emission concentrations from a 

facility do not exceed the Tier 2 

screening threshold emission rate, the 

facility ‘‘passes’’ the screening 

assessment and typically is not 

evaluated further. If emissions from a 

facility exceed the Tier 2 screening 

threshold emission rate, we evaluate the 

facility further in Tier 3. 

As in the multipathway human health 

risk assessment, in Tier 3 of the 

environmental screening assessment, we 

examine the suitability of the lakes 

around the facilities to support life and 

remove those that are not suitable (e.g., 

lakes that have been filled in or are 

industrial ponds), adjust emissions for 

plume-rise, and conduct hour-by-hour 

time-series assessments. If these Tier 3 

adjustments to the screening threshold 

emission rates still indicate the 

potential for an adverse environmental 

effect (i.e., facility emission rate exceeds 

the screening threshold emission rate), 

we may elect to conduct a more refined 

assessment using more site-specific 

information. If, after additional 

refinement, the facility emission rate 

still exceeds the screening threshold 

emission rate, the facility may have the 

potential to cause an adverse 

environmental effect. 

To evaluate the potential for an 

adverse environmental effect from lead, 

we compared the average modeled air 

concentrations (from HEM–3) of lead 

around each facility in the source 

category to the level of the secondary 

NAAQS for lead. The secondary lead 

NAAQS is a reasonable means of 

evaluating environmental risk because it 

is set to provide substantial protection 

against adverse welfare effects which 

can include ‘‘effects on soils, water, 

crops, vegetation, man-made materials, 

animals, wildlife, weather, visibility and 

climate, damage to and deterioration of 

property, and hazards to transportation, 

as well as effects on economic values 

and on personal comfort and wellbeing.’’ 

d. Acid Gas Environmental Risk 

Methodology 

The environmental screening 

assessment for acid gases evaluates the 

potential phytotoxicity and reduced 

productivity of plants due to chronic 

exposure to HF and HCl. The 

environmental risk screening 

methodology for acid gases is a singletier screening assessment that compares 

modeled ambient air concentrations 

(from AERMOD) to the ecological 

benchmarks for each acid gas. To 

identify a potential adverse 

environmental effect (as defined in 

section 112(a)(7) of the CAA) from 

emissions of HF and HCl, we evaluate 

the following metrics: The size of the 

modeled area around each facility that 

exceeds the ecological benchmark for 

each acid gas, in acres and square 

kilometers; the percentage of the 

modeled area around each facility that 

exceeds the ecological benchmark for 

each acid gas; and the area-weighted 

average SV around each facility 

(calculated by dividing the areaweighted average concentration over the 

50-km modeling domain by the 

ecological benchmark for each acid gas). 

For further information on the 

environmental screening assessment 

approach, see Appendix 9 of the 

Residual Risk Assessment for the 

Carbon Black Production Source 

Category in Support of the Risk and 

Technology Review 2020 Proposed Rule, 

which is available in the docket for this 

action. 

6. How do we conduct facility-wide 

assessments? 

To put the source category risks in 

context, we typically examine the risks 

from the entire ‘‘facility,’’ where the 

facility includes all HAP-emitting 

operations within a contiguous area and 

under common control. In other words, 

we examine the HAP emissions not only 

from the source category emission 

points of interest, but also emissions of 

HAP from all other emission sources at 

the facility for which we have data. For 

this source category, we conducted the 

facility-wide assessment using a dataset 

compiled from the 2016 NEI. The source 

category records of that NEI dataset 

were removed, evaluated, and updated 

as described in section II.C of this 

preamble: What data collection 

activities were conducted to support 

this action? Once a quality assured 

source category dataset was available, it 

was placed back with the remaining 

records from the NEI for that facility. 

The facility-wide file was then used to 

analyze risks due to the inhalation of 

HAP that are emitted ‘‘facility-wide’’ for 

the populations residing within 50 km 

of each facility, consistent with the 

methods used for the source category 

analysis described above. For these 

facility-wide risk analyses, the modeled 

source category risks were compared to 

the facility-wide risks to determine the 

portion of the facility-wide risks that 

could be attributed to the source 

category addressed in this proposal. We 

also specifically examined the facility 

that was associated with the highest 

estimate of risk and determined the 

percentage of that risk attributable to the 

source category of interest. The Residual 

Risk Assessment for the Carbon Black 

Production Source Category in Support 

of the Risk and Technology Review 2020 

Proposed Rule, available through the 

docket for this action, provides the 

methodology and results of the facilitywide analyses, including all facilitywide risks and the percentage of source 

category contribution to facility-wide 

risks. 

For this source category, we 

conducted the facility-wide assessment 

using a dataset that the EPA compiled 

from the 2016 NEI with updated 

emissions and release data provided by 

industry. We analyzed risks due to the 

inhalation of HAP that are emitted 

‘‘facility-wide’’ for the populations 

residing within 50 km of each facility, 

consistent with the methods used for 

the source category analysis described 

above. For these facility-wide risk 

analyses, we made a reasonable attempt 

to identify the source category risks, and 

these risks were compared to the 

facility-wide risks to determine the 

portion of facility-wide risks that could 

be attributed to the source category 

addressed in this proposal. We also 

specifically examined the facility that 

was associated with the highest estimate 

of risk and determined the percentage of 

that risk attributable to the source 

category of interest. The Residual Risk 

Assessment for the Carbon Black 

Production Source Category in Support 

of the Risk and Technology Review 2020 

Proposed Rule, available through the 

docket for this action, provides the 

methodology and results of the facilitywide analyses, including all facilitywide risks and the percentage of source 

category contribution to facility-wide 

risks. 

7. How do we consider uncertainties in 

risk assessment? 

Uncertainty and the potential for bias 

are inherent in all risk assessments, 

including those performed for this 

proposal. Although uncertainty exists, 

we believe that our approach, which 

used conservative tools and 

assumptions, ensures that our decisions 

are health and environmentally 

protective. A brief discussion of the 

uncertainties in the RTR emissions 

dataset, dispersion modeling, inhalation 

exposure estimates, and dose-response 

relationships follows below. Also 

included are those uncertainties specific 

to our acute screening assessments, 

multipathway screening assessments, 

and our environmental risk screening 

assessments. A more thorough 

discussion of these uncertainties is 

included in the Residual Risk 

Assessment for the Carbon Black 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
3066 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

17 IRIS glossary (https://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_

internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/ 

glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=

&glossaryName=IRIS%20Glossary). 

18An exception to this is the URE for benzene, 

which is considered to cover a range of values, each 

end of which is considered to be equally plausible, 

and which is based on maximum likelihood 

estimates. 

19See A Review of the Reference Dose and 

Reference Concentration Processes, U.S. EPA, 

December 2002, and Methods for Derivation of 

Inhalation Reference Concentrations and 

Application of Inhalation Dosimetry, U.S. EPA, 

1994. 

Production Source Category in Support 

of the Risk and Technology Review 2020 

Proposed Rule, which is available in the 

docket for this action. If a multipathway 

site-specific assessment was performed 

for this source category, a full 

discussion of the uncertainties 

associated with that assessment can be 

found in Appendix 11 of that document, 

Site-Specific Human Health 

Multipathway Residual Risk Assessment 

Report. 

a. Uncertainties in the RTR Emissions 

Dataset 

Although the development of the RTR 

emissions dataset involved quality 

assurance/quality control processes, the 

accuracy of emissions values will vary 

depending on the source of the data, the 

degree to which data are incomplete or 

missing, the degree to which 

assumptions made to complete the 

datasets are accurate, errors in emission 

estimates, and other factors. The 

emission estimates considered in this 

analysis generally are annual totals for 

certain years, and they do not reflect 

short-term fluctuations during the 

course of a year or variations from year 

to year. The estimates of peak hourly 

emission rates for the acute effects 

screening assessment were based on an 

emission adjustment factor applied to 

the average annual hourly emission 

rates, which are intended to account for 

emission fluctuations due to normal 

facility operations. 

b. Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling 

We recognize there is uncertainty in 

ambient concentration estimates 

associated with any model, including 

the EPA’s recommended regulatory 

dispersion model, AERMOD. In using a 

model to estimate ambient pollutant 

concentrations, the user chooses certain 

options to apply. For RTR assessments, 

we select some model options that have 

the potential to overestimate ambient air 

concentrations (e.g., not including 

plume depletion or pollutant 

transformation). We select other model 

options that have the potential to 

underestimate ambient impacts (e.g., not 

including building downwash). Other 

options that we select have the potential 

to either under- or overestimate ambient 

levels (e.g., meteorology and receptor 

locations). On balance, considering the 

directional nature of the uncertainties 

commonly present in ambient 

concentrations estimated by dispersion 

models, the approach we apply in the 

RTR assessments should yield unbiased 

estimates of ambient HAP 

concentrations. We also note that the 

selection of meteorology dataset 

location could have an impact on the 

risk estimates. As we continue to update 

and expand our library of 

meteorological station data used in our 

risk assessments, we expect to reduce 

this variability. 

c. Uncertainties in Inhalation Exposure 

Assessment 

Although every effort is made to 

identify all of the relevant facilities and 

emission points, as well as to develop 

accurate estimates of the annual 

emission rates for all relevant HAP, the 

uncertainties in our emission inventory 

likely dominate the uncertainties in the 

exposure assessment. Some 

uncertainties in our exposure 

assessment include human mobility, 

using the centroid of each census block, 

assuming lifetime exposure, and 

assuming only outdoor exposures. For 

most of these factors, there is neither an 

under nor overestimate when looking at 

the maximum individual risk or the 

incidence, but the shape of the 

distribution of risks may be affected. 

With respect to outdoor exposures, 

actual exposures may not be as high if 

people spend time indoors, especially 

for very reactive pollutants or larger 

particles. For all factors, we reduce 

uncertainty when possible. For 

example, with respect to census-block 

centroids, we analyze large blocks using 

aerial imagery and adjust locations of 

the block centroids to better represent 

the population in the blocks. We also 

add additional receptor locations where 

the population of a block is not well 

represented by a single location. 

d. Uncertainties in Dose-Response 

Relationships 

There are uncertainties inherent in 

the development of the dose-response 

values used in our risk assessments for 

cancer effects from chronic exposures 

and noncancer effects from both chronic 

and acute exposures. Some 

uncertainties are generally expressed 

quantitatively, and others are generally 

expressed in qualitative terms. We note, 

as a preface to this discussion, a point 

on dose-response uncertainty that is 

stated in the EPA’s 2005 Guidelines for 

Carcinogen Risk Assessment; namely, 

that ‘‘the primary goal of EPA actions is 

protection of human health; 

accordingly, as an Agency policy, risk 

assessment procedures, including 

default options that are used in the 

absence of scientific data to the 

contrary, should be health protective’’ 

(the EPA’s 2005 Guidelines for 

Carcinogen Risk Assessment, page 1 

through 7). This is the approach 

followed here as summarized in the 

next paragraphs. 

Cancer UREs used in our risk 

assessments are those that have been 

developed to generally provide an upper 

bound estimate of risk.17 That is, they 

represent a ‘‘plausible upper limit to the 

true value of a quantity’’ (although this 

is usually not a true statistical 

confidence limit). In some 

circumstances, the true risk could be as 

low as zero; however, in other 

circumstances the risk could be 

greater.18 Chronic noncancer RfC and 

reference dose (RfD) values represent 

chronic exposure levels that are 

intended to be health-protective levels. 

To derive dose-response values that are 

intended to be ‘‘without appreciable 

risk,’’ the methodology relies upon an 

uncertainty factor (UF) approach,19

which considers uncertainty, variability, 

and gaps in the available data. The UFs 

are applied to derive dose-response 

values that are intended to protect 

against appreciable risk of deleterious 

effects. 

Many of the UFs used to account for 

variability and uncertainty in the 

development of acute dose-response 

values are quite similar to those 

developed for chronic durations. 

Additional adjustments are often 

applied to account for uncertainty in 

extrapolation from observations at one 

exposure duration (e.g., 4 hours) to 

derive an acute dose-response value at 

another exposure duration (e.g., 1 hour). 

Not all acute dose-response values are 

developed for the same purpose, and 

care must be taken when interpreting 

the results of an acute assessment of 

human health effects relative to the 

dose-response value or values being 

exceeded. Where relevant to the 

estimated exposures, the lack of acute 

dose-response values at different levels 

of severity should be factored into the 

risk characterization as potential 

uncertainties. 

Uncertainty also exists in the 

selection of ecological benchmarks for 

the environmental risk screening 

assessment. We established a hierarchy 

of preferred benchmark sources to allow 

selection of benchmarks for each 

environmental HAP at each ecological 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 3067 

20 In the context of this discussion, the term 

‘‘uncertainty’’ as it pertains to exposure and risk 

encompasses both variability in the range of 

expected inputs and screening results due to 

existing spatial, temporal, and other factors, as well 

as uncertainty in being able to accurately estimate 

the true result. 

assessment endpoint. We searched for 

benchmarks for three effect levels (i.e., 

no-effects level, threshold-effect level, 

and probable effect level), but not all 

combinations of ecological assessment/ 

environmental HAP had benchmarks for 

all three effect levels. Where multiple 

effect levels were available for a 

particular HAP and assessment 

endpoint, we used all of the available 

effect levels to help us determine 

whether risk exists and whether the risk 

could be considered significant and 

widespread. 

For a group of compounds that are 

unspeciated (e.g., glycol ethers), we 

conservatively use the most protective 

dose-response value of an individual 

compound in that group to estimate 

risk. Similarly, for an individual 

compound in a group (e.g., ethylene 

glycol diethyl ether) that does not have 

a specified dose-response value, we also 

apply the most protective dose-response 

value from the other compounds in the 

group to estimate risk. 

e. Uncertainties in Acute Inhalation 

Screening Assessments 

In addition to the uncertainties 

highlighted above, there are several 

factors specific to the acute exposure 

assessment that the EPA conducts as 

part of the risk review under section 112 

of the CAA. The accuracy of an acute 

inhalation exposure assessment 

depends on the simultaneous 

occurrence of independent factors that 

may vary greatly, such as hourly 

emissions rates, meteorology, and the 

presence of a person. In the acute 

screening assessment that we conduct 

under the RTR program, we assume that 

peak emissions from the source category 

and reasonable worst-case air dispersion 

conditions (i.e., 99th percentile) cooccur. We then include the additional 

assumption that a person is located at 

this point at the same time. Together, 

these assumptions represent a 

reasonable worst-case actual exposure 

scenario. In most cases, it is unlikely 

that a person would be located at the 

point of maximum exposure during the 

time when peak emissions and 

reasonable worst-case air dispersion 

conditions occur simultaneously. 

f. Uncertainties in the Multipathway 

and Environmental Risk Screening 

Assessments 

For each source category, we 

generally rely on site-specific levels of 

PB–HAP or environmental HAP 

emissions to determine whether a 

refined assessment of the impacts from 

multipathway exposures is necessary or 

whether it is necessary to perform an 

environmental screening assessment. 

This determination is based on the 

results of a three-tiered screening 

assessment that relies on the outputs 

from models—TRIM.FaTE and 

AERMOD—that estimate environmental 

pollutant concentrations and human 

exposures for five PB–HAP (dioxins, 

POM, mercury, cadmium, and arsenic) 

and two acid gases (HF and HCl). For 

lead, we use AERMOD to determine 

ambient air concentrations, which are 

then compared to the secondary 

NAAQS standard for lead. Two 

important types of uncertainty 

associated with the use of these models 

in RTR risk assessments and inherent to 

any assessment that relies on 

environmental modeling are model 

uncertainty and input uncertainty.20

Model uncertainty concerns whether 

the model adequately represents the 

actual processes (e.g., movement and 

accumulation) that might occur in the 

environment. For example, does the 

model adequately describe the 

movement of a pollutant through the 

soil? This type of uncertainty is difficult 

to quantify. However, based on feedback 

received from previous EPA SAB 

reviews and other reviews, we are 

confident that the models used in the 

screening assessments are appropriate 

and state-of-the-art for the multipathway 

and environmental screening risk 

assessments conducted in support of 

RTRs. 

Input uncertainty is concerned with 

how accurately the models have been 

configured and parameterized for the 

assessment at hand. For Tier 1 of the 

multipathway and environmental 

screening assessments, we configured 

the models to avoid underestimating 

exposure and risk. This was 

accomplished by selecting upper-end 

values from nationally representative 

datasets for the more influential 

parameters in the environmental model, 

including selection and spatial 

configuration of the area of interest, lake 

location and size, meteorology, surface 

water, soil characteristics, and structure 

of the aquatic food web. We also assume 

an ingestion exposure scenario and 

values for human exposure factors that 

represent reasonable maximum 

exposures. 

In Tier 2 of the multipathway and 

environmental screening assessments, 

we refine the model inputs to account 

for meteorological patterns in the 

vicinity of the facility versus using 

upper-end national values, and we 

identify the actual location of lakes near 

the facility rather than the default lake 

location that we apply in Tier 1. By 

refining the screening approach in Tier 

2 to account for local geographical and 

meteorological data, we decrease the 

likelihood that concentrations in 

environmental media are overestimated, 

thereby increasing the usefulness of the 

screening assessment. In Tier 3 of the 

screening assessments, we refine the 

model inputs again to account for hourby-hour plume-rise and the height of the 

mixing layer. We can also use those 

hour-by-hour meteorological data in a 

TRIM.FaTE run using the screening 

configuration corresponding to the lake 

location. These refinements produce a 

more accurate estimate of chemical 

concentrations in the media of interest, 

thereby reducing the uncertainty with 

those estimates. The assumptions and 

the associated uncertainties regarding 

the selected ingestion exposure scenario 

are the same for all three tiers. 

For the environmental screening 

assessment for acid gases, we employ a 

single-tiered approach. We use the 

modeled air concentrations and 

compare those with ecological 

benchmarks. 

For all tiers of the multipathway and 

environmental screening assessments, 

our approach to addressing model input 

uncertainty is generally cautious. We 

choose model inputs from the upper 

end of the range of possible values for 

the influential parameters used in the 

models, and we assume that the 

exposed individual exhibits ingestion 

behavior that would lead to a high total 

exposure. This approach reduces the 

likelihood of not identifying high risks 

for adverse impacts. 

Despite the uncertainties, when 

individual pollutants or facilities do not 

exceed screening threshold emission 

rates (i.e., screen out), we are confident 

that the potential for adverse 

multipathway impacts on human health 

is very low. On the other hand, when 

individual pollutants or facilities do 

exceed screening threshold emission 

rates, it does not mean that impacts are 

significant, only that we cannot rule out 

that possibility and that a refined 

assessment for the site might be 

necessary to obtain a more accurate risk 

characterization for the source category. 

The EPA evaluates the following HAP 

in the multipathway and/or 

environmental risk screening 

assessments, where applicable: Arsenic, 

cadmium, dioxins/furans, lead, mercury 

(both inorganic and methyl mercury), 

POM, HCl, and HF. These HAP 

represent pollutants that can cause 

adverse impacts either through direct 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
3068 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

exposure to HAP in the air or through 

exposure to HAP that are deposited 

from the air onto soils and surface 

waters and then through the 

environment into the food web. These 

HAP represent those HAP for which we 

can conduct a meaningful multipathway 

or environmental screening risk 

assessment. For other HAP not included 

in our screening assessments, the model 

has not been parameterized such that it 

can be used for that purpose. In some 

cases, depending on the HAP, we may 

not have appropriate multipathway 

models that allow us to predict the 

concentration of that pollutant. The EPA 

acknowledges that other HAP beyond 

these that we are evaluating may have 

the potential to cause adverse effects 

and, therefore, the EPA may evaluate 

other relevant HAP in the future, as 

modeling science and resources allow. 

IV. Analytical Results and Proposed 

Decisions 

A. What actions are we taking pursuant 

to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and 

112(d)(3)? 

In this proposal, pursuant to CAA 

section 112(d)(2) and (3), the EPA is 

proposing to broaden the scope of the 

existing standard, which applies to 

process vents associated with the MUF, 

to include all process vents associated 

with the carbon black production unit. 

This would require all process vents, 

including those located after the MUF, 

to control to 98 percent where the HAP 

concentration of the emission stream is 

equal to or greater than 260 ppmv. 

Additionally, it would require facilities 

to conduct performance testing on the 

additional process vents located after 

the MUF. 

B. What are the results of the risk 

assessment and analyses? 

As described above, for the Carbon 

Black Production major source category, 

we conducted an inhalation risk 

assessment for all HAP emitted, a 

multipathway screening assessment for 

the PB–HAP emitted, and an 

environmental risk screening 

assessment for the PB–HAP and acid 

gasses emitted from the source category. 

We present results of the risk 

assessment briefly below and in more 

detail in the Residual Risk Assessment 

for the Carbon Black Production Source 

Category in Support of the Risk and 

Technology Review 2020 Proposed Rule, 

which is available in the docket for this 

action. 

1. Chronic Inhalation Risk Assessment 

Results 

The EPA estimated the inhalation risk 

for the Carbon Black Production major 

source category based on actual and 

allowable emissions. The estimated 

baseline maximum individual lifetime 

cancer risk (MIR) from inhalation posed 

by the source category is less than 1-in1 million based on actual emissions and 

MACT-allowable emissions. The total 

estimated cancer incidence based on 

actual or allowable emission levels is 

0.00004 excess cancer cases per year, or 

one case every 25,000 years. No one is 

exposed to cancer risk greater than or 

equal to 1-in-1 million based upon 

actual and allowable emissions (see 

Table 1 of this preamble). 

The maximum chronic noncancer 

TOSHI value for the source category was 

estimated to be less than 1 (0.06) based 

on actual and allowable emissions. For 

both actual and allowable emissions, 

neurological risks were driven by 

hydrogen cyanide emissions from 

process filters and fugitive emissions. 

TABLE 1—INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY FOR CARBON BLACK PRODUCTION 1 SOURCE CATEGORY

[40 CFR part 63, subpart YY] 

Risk assessment Number of 

facilities 2

Maximum 

individual 

cancer risk 

(1-in-1 

million) 3

Estimated 

population 

at increased 

risk of 

cancer 

≥1-in-1 

million 

Estimated 

annual 

cancer 

incidence 

(cases 

per yr) 

Maximum 

chronic noncancer 

TOSHI 4

Maximum 

screening acute 

noncancer HQ 5

Baseline Actual Emissions 

Source Category ............................ 15 0.06 0 0.00004 <1 (neurological) 0.09 (REL). 

Facility-Wide .................................. 15 0.06 0 0.00004 <1 (neurological).

Baseline Allowable Emissions 

Source Category ............................ 15 0.06 0 0.00004 <1 (neurological).

1Based on actual and allowable emissions. 

2 Number of facilities evaluated in the risk assessment. Includes 15 operating facilities subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY. 

3 Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category. 

4 Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the Carbon Black Production source category is the neurological system. 5The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. The acute HQ shown was based upon the lowest acute 1-hour dose-response value, the REL for hydrogen cyanide. When an HQ exceeds 

1, we also show the HQ using the next lowest available acute dose-response value. 

2. Screening Level Acute Inhalation 

Risk Assessment Results 

Based on our screening analysis of 

reasonable worst-case acute exposure to 

actual emissions from the source 

category, no HAP exposures result in an 

acute noncancer HQ greater than 0.09 

based upon the 1-hour REL. As 

discussed in section III.C.3.c of this 

preamble, we used an acute hourly 

multiplier of 2 for all emission 

processes. 

3. Multipathway Risk Screening Results 

PB–HAP emissions were reported 

from 14 of the 15 facilities in the source 

category with seven facilities exceeding 

the Tier 1 screening threshold emission 

rates for the carcinogenic PB–HAP, 

arsenic and POM. Emissions from two 

facilities exceeded the Tier 1 screening 

threshold emission rates for mercury 

and cadmium, which are PB–HAP with 

noncancer health effects. For the PB– 

HAP and facilities with Tier 1 SVs 

greater than 1, we conducted a Tier 2 

screening analysis. 

Two facilities exceeded the arsenic 

and POM Tier 2 cancer SV with a 

maximum value of 9 for the farmer 

scenario. One facility exceeded the 

cadmium Tier 2 noncancer SV with a 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 3069 

21EPA Docket records (EPA–HQ–OAR–2017– 

0015): Appendix 11 of the Residual Risk 

Assessment for the Taconite Manufacturing Source 

Category in Support of the Risk and Technology 

Review 2019 Proposed Rule; Appendix 11 of the 

Residual Risk Assessment for the Integrated Iron 

and Steel Source Category in Support of the Risk 

and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule; 

Appendix 11 of the Residual Risk Assessment for 

the Portland Cement Manufacturing Source 

Category in Support of the 2018 Risk and 

Technology Review Final Rule; and Appendix 11 of 

the Residual Risk Assessment for the Coal and OilFired EGU Source Category in Support of the 2018 

Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule and 

EPA Docket (EPA–HQ–2019–0373): Appendix 11 of 

the Residual Risk Assessment for the Iron and Steel 

Foundries Source Category in Support of the Risk 

and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule. 

maximum value of 2. Two facilities 

exceeded the mercury Tier 2 noncancer 

SV under the fisher scenario, with a 

maximum value of 4. When we 

evaluated the effect multiple facilities 

within the source category could have 

on common lake(s) in the modeling 

domain, mercury and cadmium 

emissions exceeded the noncancer SVs 

with a maximum value of 4 and 2, 

respectively. 

For cadmium and mercury, we 

continued the fisher scenario screening 

analysis with a Tier 3 multipathway 

screen which comprises three 

individual stages. These stages included 

lake, plume rise, and time-series 

assessments. A Tier 3 lake assessment 

was conducted for the two facilities 

with Tier 2 noncancer SVs greater than 

1. After conducting the lake analysis 

screen, only one facility was above a 

noncancer SV of 1, with a Tier 3 

noncancer SV of 2 for mercury, 

including consideration of cumulative 

lake impacts from facilities within the 

source category. 

Further details on the Tier 3 screening 

analysis can be found in Appendix 11 

of Residual Risk Assessment for the 

Carbon Black Production Source 

Category in Support of the Risk and 

Technology Review 2020 Proposed 

Rule.’’ 

An SV in any of the tiers is not an 

estimate of the cancer risk or a 

noncancer HQ (or HI). Rather, an SV 

represents a high-end estimate of what 

the risk or HQ may be. For example, 

facility emissions resulting in an SV of 

2 for a non-carcinogen can be 

interpreted to mean that we are 

confident that the HQ would be lower 

than 2. Similarly, facility emissions 

resulting in a cancer SV of 20 for a 

carcinogen means that we are confident 

that the cancer risk is lower than 20-in1 million. Our confidence comes from 

the health-protective assumptions that 

are incorporated into the screens: We 

choose inputs from the upper end of the 

range of possible values for the 

influential parameters used in the 

screens and we assume food 

consumption behaviors that would lead 

to high total exposure. This risk 

assessment estimates the maximum 

hazard for mercury and cadmium 

through fish consumption based on 

upper bound screens and the maximum 

excess cancer risks from POM and 

arsenic through ingestion of fish and 

farm produce. 

When we progress from the model 

designs of the Tier 1, 2, and 3 screens 

to a site-specific assessment, we refine 

the risk assessment through 

incorporation of additional site-specific 

data and enhanced model designs. Sitespecific refinements include the 

following: (1) Improved spatial locations 

identifying the boundaries of the 

watershed and lakes within the 

watershed as it relates to surrounding 

facilities within the source category; (2) 

calculating actual soil/water run-off 

amounts to target lakes based upon 

actual soil type(s) and elevation changes 

associated with the affected watershed 

versus assuming a worst-case 

assumption of 100-percent run-off to 

target lakes; and (3) incorporating 

AERMOD deposition of pollutants into 

TRIM.FaTE to accurately account for 

site-specific release parameters such as 

stack heights and exit gas temperatures, 

versus using TRIM.FaTE’s simple 

dispersion algorithms that assume the 

pollutant is uniformly distributed 

within the airshed. These refinements 

have the net effect of improved 

modeling of the mass of HAP entering 

a lake by more accurately defining the 

watershed/lake boundaries as well as 

the dispersion of HAP into the 

atmosphere to better reflect deposition 

contours across all target watersheds 

and lakes in our 50-km model domain. 

As discussed above, the maximum 

mercury Tier 3 noncancer SV based 

upon the lake analysis resulted in a 

maximum value of 2. The EPA 

determined that it is not necessary to go 

beyond the Tier 3 lake analysis or 

conduct a site-specific assessment. As 

explained above, the SV of 2 is a highend estimate of what the risk or hazard 

may be and can be interpreted to mean 

that we are confident that the HQ would 

be lower than 2. Further, risk results 

from five site-specific mercury 

assessments the EPA has conducted for 

five RTR source categories resulted in 

noncancer HQs that range from 50 times 

to 800 times lower than the respective 

Tier 2 SV for these facilities (refer to 

EPA Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2017–0015 for a copy of these reports).21

Based on our review of these analyses, 

we would expect at least a one order of 

magnitude decrease in all Tier 2 

noncancer SVs for mercury for the 

Carbon Black Production source 

category, if we were to perform a sitespecific assessment. In addition, based 

upon the conservative nature of the 

screens and the level of additional 

refinements that would go into a sitespecific multipathway assessment, were 

one to be conducted, we are confident 

that the HI for ingestion exposure, 

specifically mercury through fish 

ingestion, is less than 1. Further details 

on the Tier 3 screening assessment can 

be found in Appendix 11 of Residual 

Risk Assessment for the Carbon Black 

Production Source Category in Support 

of the Risk and Technology Review 2020 

Proposed Rule. 

In evaluating the potential for adverse 

health effects from emissions of lead, 

the EPA compared modeled annual lead 

concentrations around each facility to 

the secondary NAAQS level for lead 

(0.15 mg/m3, arithmetic mean 

concentration over a 3-month period. 

The highest annual average lead 

concentration, of 0.000099 mg/m3, is 

below the NAAQS level for lead, 

indicating a low potential for 

multipathway impacts. 

4. Environmental Risk Screening Results 

As described in section III.A of this 

preamble, we conducted an 

environmental risk screening 

assessment for the Carbon Black 

Production source category for the 

following pollutants: arsenic, cadmium, 

HCL, hydrofluoric acid, lead, mercury 

(methyl mercury and mercuric 

chloride), and POMs. 

In the Tier 1 screening analysis for 

PB–HAP (other than lead, which was 

evaluated differently), cadmium, methyl 

mercury, and divalent mercury resulted 

in exceedances of ecological 

benchmarks for two facilities. Cadmium 

emissions had Tier 1 exceedances for 

the following benchmarks: surface soil 

no observed adverse effect levels 

(NOAELs) for mammalian insectivores 

and avian ground insectivores, and fish 

(avian piscivores) NOAEL, geometricmaximum-allowable-toxicant-level, and 

lowest observed adverse effect level 

benchmarks with a maximum SV of 6. 

Divalent mercury emissions had Tier 1 

exceedances for the following 

benchmarks: surface soil threshold 

level—plant communities, surface soil 

threshold level—invertebrate 

communities with a maximum SV of 10. 

Methyl mercury emissions had Tier 1 

exceedances for the following 

benchmarks: NOAEL—mammalian 

insectivores and surface soil NOAEL for 

avian ground insectivores with a 

maximum SV of 10. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
3070 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

22 Demographic groups included in the analysis 

are: White, African American, Native American, 

other races and multiracial, Hispanic or Latino, 

children 17 years of age and under, adults 18 to 64 

years of age, adults 65 years of age and over, adults 

without a high school diploma, people living below 

the poverty level, people living two times the 

poverty level, and linguistically isolated people. 

A Tier 2 screening analysis was 

performed for cadmium, divalent 

mercury, and methyl mercury 

emissions. In the Tier 2 screening 

analysis, there were no exceedances of 

any of the ecological benchmarks 

evaluated for cadmium, divalent 

mercury, and methyl mercury. 

For lead, we did not estimate any 

exceedances of the secondary lead 

NAAQS. For HCl and HF, the average 

modeled concentration around each 

facility (i.e., the average concentration 

of all off-site data points in the 

modeling domain) did not exceed any 

ecological benchmark. In addition, each 

individual modeled concentration of 

HCl and HF (i.e., each off-site data point 

in the modeling domain) was below the 

ecological benchmarks for all facilities. 

Based on the results of the 

environmental risk screening analysis, 

we do not expect an adverse 

environmental effect as a result of HAP 

emissions from this source category. 

5. Facility-Wide Risk Results 

As shown in Table 1, the facility-wide 

risks are the same as the risks for actual 

emissions and allowable emissions from 

units subject to the NESHAP for the 

Carbon Black Production major source 

category, with no change in incidence or 

risk drivers. 

6. What demographic groups might 

benefit from this regulation? 

To examine the potential for any 

environmental justice issues that might 

be associated with the source category, 

we performed a demographic analysis, 

which is an assessment of risks to 

individual demographic groups of the 

populations living within 5 km and 

within 50 km of the facilities. In the 

analysis, we evaluated the distribution 

of HAP-related cancer and noncancer 

risks from the Carbon Black Production 

source category across different 

demographic groups within the 

populations living near facilities.22

Results of the demographic analysis 

indicate that, for four of the 11 

demographic groups, 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 

people below the poverty level reside 

within 5 km of facilities in the source 

category at a percentage greater than the 

corresponding national percentage for 

the same demographic groups. When 

examining the risk levels of those 

exposed to emissions from carbon black 

production facilities, we find that no 

one is exposed to a cancer risk at or 

above 1-in-1 million or to a chronic 

noncancer TOSHI greater than 1. 

The 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 this action. 

C. What are our proposed decisions 

regarding risk acceptability, ample 

margin of safety, and adverse 

environmental effect? 

1. Risk Acceptability 

As explained in section II.A of this 

preamble, the EPA sets standards under 

CAA section 112(f)(2) using ‘‘a two-step 

standard-setting approach, with an 

analytical first step to determine an 

’acceptable risk’ that considers all 

health information, including risk 

estimation uncertainty, and includes a 

presumptive limit on MIR of 

approximately 1-in-10 thousand’’ (54 FR 

38045, September 14, 1989). The EPA 

weighed all health risk measures and 

information, including risk estimation 

uncertainties, in determining whether 

risk posed by HAP emissions from the 

source category is acceptable. 

The maximum individual lifetime 

cancer risk (MIR) for inhalation 

exposure to actual and allowable 

emissions from the Carbon Black 

Production source category (< 1-in-1 

million) is two orders of magnitude 

below 100-in-1 million, which is the 

presumptive upper limit of acceptable 

risk. The EPA estimates emissions from 

the category would result in a cancer 

incidence of 0.00004 excess cancer 

cases per year, or one case every 25,000 

years. Inhalation exposures to HAP 

associated with chronic noncancer 

health effects result in a TOSHI of 0.06 

based on actual emissions, 25 times 

below an exposure that the EPA has 

determined is without appreciable risk 

of adverse health effects. An exposure 

analysis of HAP with acute noncancer 

health effects demonstrated that the 

risks are below a level of concern with 

a max HQ equal to 0.09 based upon the 

1-hour REL. 

Maximum cancer risk due to ingestion 

exposures estimated using healthprotective risk screening assumptions 

are below 10-in-1 million for the Tier 2 

farmer exposure scenario. Tier 3 

screening analyses of mercury exposure 

due to fish ingestion determined that 

the maximum HQ for mercury would be 

less than 2 as explained in section 

III.C.4 of this preamble. The EPA is 

confident that this hazard estimate 

would be reduced to a HQ less than 1, 

if further refined to incorporate 

enhanced site-specific analyses such as 

improved model boundary 

identification with improved soil/water 

run-off calculations and AERMOD 

deposition outputs used in the 

TRIM.FaTE model. Considering all of 

the health risk information and factors 

discussed above, as well as the 

uncertainties discussed in section III of 

this preamble, we propose that the risks 

posed by HAP emissions from the Black 

Carbon Production source category are 

acceptable. 

2. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis 

As directed by CAA section 112(f)(2), 

we conducted an analysis to determine 

whether the current emissions standards 

provide an ample margin of safety to 

protect public health. In light of the 

cancer risk being below 1-in-1 million 

and the noncancer chronic and acute 

risks being below established levels of 

concern as well as the low potential for 

multipathway risks, we propose to 

conclude that the existing standards 

provide an ample margin of safety to 

protect public health. 

3. Adverse Environmental Effect 

The emissions data for the Carbon 

Black Production source category 

indicate that the following 

environmental HAP are emitted by this 

category: Arsenic, cadmium, HCl, 

hydrofluoric acid, lead, mercury 

(methyl mercury and mercuric 

chloride), and POMs. The screeninglevel evaluation of the potential for 

adverse environmental effects 

associated with emissions of these 

environmental HAP from the Carbon 

Black Production source category 

indicated that there are no exceedances 

of Tier 2 screening values for PB–HAP, 

no exceedances of the average modeled 

concentration around each facility (i.e., 

the average concentration of all off-site 

data points in the modeling domain) for 

acid gases, and, for lead, we did not 

estimate any exceedances of the 

secondary lead NAAQS. In addition, we 

are unaware of any adverse 

environmental effects caused by HAP 

emitted by this source category. 

Therefore, we do not expect there to be 

an adverse environmental effect as a 

result of HAP emissions from this 

source category and we are proposing 

that it is not necessary to set a more 

stringent standard to prevent, taking 

into consideration costs, energy, safety, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 3071 

and other relevant factors, an adverse 

environmental effect. 

D. What are the results and proposed 

decisions based on our technology 

review? 

1. Major Source Technology Review 

As described in section III.B of this 

preamble, the technology review 

focused on the identification and 

evaluation of developments in practices, 

processes, and control technologies that 

have occurred since the MACT 

standards were promulgated. In 

conducting the technology review, we 

reviewed various informational sources 

regarding the emissions from the Carbon 

Black Production major source category. 

The review included a search of the 

RBLC database, reviews of air permits 

for carbon black production facilities, 

and meetings with industry and the 

trade association (summarized in the 

docket for this action). We reviewed 

these data sources for information on 

practices, processes, and control 

technologies that were not considered 

during the development of the Carbon 

Black Production NESHAP. We also 

looked for information on 

improvements in practices, processes, 

and control technologies that have 

occurred since the development of the 

Carbon Black Production NESHAP for 

major sources. 

After reviewing information from the 

aforementioned sources, we did not 

identify any developments in practices, 

processes, or control technologies used 

at carbon black production facilities 

since promulgation of the MACT 

standard. 

Based on the technology review, we 

are proposing that it is not necessary to 

revise the existing standards because we 

did not identify developments in 

practices, processes, or control 

technologies. Additional information on 

our technology review can be found in 

the memorandum, Technology Review 

for Carbon Black Production Source 

Category, which is available in the 

docket for this action. 

2. Area Source Technology Review 

We performed a technology review of 

the Carbon Black Production area source 

NESHAP. As part of that review, we 

determined that there are no area 

sources in this source category currently 

in operation. Given this and the overlap 

in the requirements for major and area 

sources, we are concluding that it is not 

necessary to make changes to the 

existing area source standards as a result 

of this review. For more information on 

the determination that there are no 

sources subject to the area source 

standard see the memorandum, 

Identification of Area Sources for the 

Carbon Black Production NESHAP, 

available in the docket for this action. 

E. What other actions are we proposing? 

In addition to the proposed actions 

described above, we are proposing four 

other revisions to the NESHAP. We are 

proposing revisions to the SSM-related 

provisions of the MACT rule in order to 

ensure that they are consistent with the 

decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 

3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008), in which the 

court vacated two provisions that 

exempted sources from the requirement 

to comply with otherwise applicable 

CAA section 112(d) emission standards 

during periods of SSM. We are also 

proposing to require electronic reporting 

and annual tune-up requirements for 

applicable process heaters/boilers. 

Lastly, we are proposing that owners 

and operators of carbon black 

production process vents subject to the 

rule conduct performance tests every 5 

years to demonstrate continued 

compliance with the NESHAP. A 

discussion of these proposed changes 

follows. 

1. SSM 

a. Proposed Elimination of the SSM 

Exemption 

In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. 

EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the 

D.C. Circuit Court vacated portions of 

two regulatory provisions governing the 

emissions of HAP during periods of 

SSM, which were promulgated pursuant 

to CAA section 112. Specifically, the 

court vacated the SSM exemption 

contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 

CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that under 

section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions 

standards or limitations must be 

continuous in nature and that the SSM 

exemption violates the CAA’s 

requirement that some CAA section 112 

standards apply continuously. 

Consistent with the court’s decision in 

Sierra Club v. EPA, we are proposing 

standards in this rule that apply at all 

times. We are also proposing several 

revisions to cross-references of SSM 

exemptions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

SS. We also are proposing to eliminate 

and revise certain recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements related to the 

SSM exemption as further described 

below. 

The EPA has attempted to ensure that 

the provisions we are proposing to 

eliminate are inappropriate, 

unnecessary, or redundant in the 

absence of the SSM exemption. We are 

specifically seeking comment on 

whether we have successfully done so. 

We are proposing the elimination of 

the SSM exemption, which currently 

appears at 40 CFR 63.1108, and any 

reference to SSM requirements in 40 

CFR part 63, subpart YY that apply to 

carbon black production affected 

sources. For example, we are proposing 

to eliminate the incorporation of the 

requirement that the source develop an 

SSM plan. Additionally, we are 

proposing to eliminate and revise 

certain recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements related to the SSM 

exemption. The EPA is also proposing 

several similar SSM-related revisions to 

40 CFR part 63, subpart YY to remove 

SSM-related referenced provisions of 40 

CFR part 63, subpart SS (National 

Emission Standards for Closed Vent 

Systems, Control Devices, Recovery 

Devices and Routing to a Fuel Gas 

System or a Process). These revisions 

are discussed in greater detail below 

(see sections IV.E.1.b through j of this 

preamble). 

In proposing the standards in this 

rule, the EPA has taken into 

consideration the impacts of the SSM 

exemption as it relates to startup and 

shutdown periods and is proposing a 

13-minute startup work practice 

standard. This added provision is 

required for safety purposes in the 

absence of the SSM exemption and is 

discussed further below (see section 

IV.E.1.i of this preamble). 

Periods of startup, normal operations, 

and shutdown are all predictable and 

routine aspects of a source’s operations. 

Malfunctions, in contrast, are neither 

predictable nor routine. Instead, they 

are, by definition, sudden, infrequent, 

and not reasonably preventable failures 

of emissions control, process or 

monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 63.2) 

(containing regulatory definition of 

‘‘malfunction’’). The EPA interprets 

CAA section 112 as not requiring 

emissions that occur during periods of 

malfunction to be factored into 

development of CAA section 112 

standards. The EPA’s interpretation has 

been upheld as reasonable. See United 

States Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 

606–10 (D.C. Cir. 2016). Under CAA 

section 112, emissions standards for 

new sources must be no less stringent 

than the level ‘‘achieved’’ by the best 

controlled similar source and for 

existing sources generally must be no 

less stringent than the average emission 

limitation ‘‘achieved’’ by the best 

performing 12 percent of sources in the 

category. There is nothing in CAA 

section 112 that directs the Agency to 

consider malfunctions in determining 

the level ‘‘achieved’’ by the best 

performing sources when setting 

emission standards. See, e.g., National 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
3072 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

Ass’n of Clean Water Agencies v. EPA, 

734 F.3d 1115, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2013) 

(noting that ‘‘average emissions 

limitation achieved by the best 

performing 12 percent of’’ sources ‘‘says 

nothing about how the performance of 

the best units is to be calculated’’). 

While the EPA accounts for variability 

in setting emissions standards, nothing 

in CAA section 112 requires the Agency 

to consider malfunctions as part of that 

analysis. The EPA is not required to 

treat a malfunction in the same manner 

as the type of variation in performance 

that occurs during routine operations of 

a source. A malfunction is a failure of 

the source to perform in a ‘‘normal or 

usual manner’’ and no statutory 

language compels the EPA to consider 

such events in setting CAA section 112 

standards. 

As the D.C. Circuit Court recognized 

in United States Sugar Corp v. EPA, 

accounting for malfunctions in setting 

standards would be difficult, if not 

impossible, given the myriad different 

types of malfunctions that can occur 

across all sources in the category and 

given the difficulties associated with 

predicting or accounting for the 

frequency, degree, and duration of 

various malfunctions that might occur. 

See United States Sugar Corp., 830 F.3d 

at 608 (discussing work practice 

standards and explaining that ‘‘the EPA 

would have to conceive of a standard 

that could apply equally to the wide 

range of possible boiler malfunctions, 

ranging from an explosion to minor 

mechanical defects. Any possible 

standard is likely to be hopelessly 

generic to govern such a wide array of 

circumstances.’’). As such, the 

performance of units that are 

malfunctioning is not ‘‘reasonably’’ 

foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. 

EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) 

(‘‘The EPA typically has wide latitude 

in determining the extent of datagathering necessary to solve a problem. 

We generally defer to an agency’s 

decision to proceed on the basis of 

imperfect scientific information, rather 

than to ‘invest the resources to conduct 

the perfect study.’ ’’). See also 

Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 

1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (‘‘In the nature of 

things, no general limit, individual 

permit, or even any upset provision can 

anticipate all upset situations. After a 

certain point, the transgression of 

regulatory limits caused by 

‘uncontrollable acts of third parties,’ 

such as strikes, sabotage, operator 

intoxication or insanity, and a variety of 

other eventualities, must be a matter for 

the administrative exercise of case-bycase enforcement discretion, not for 

specification in advance by 

regulation.’’). In addition, emissions 

during a malfunction event can be 

significantly higher than emissions at 

any other time of source operation. For 

example, if an air pollution control 

device with 99-percent pollutant 

removal goes off-line as a result of a 

malfunction (as might happen if, for 

example, the bags in a baghouse catch 

fire) and the emission unit is a steady 

state type unit that would take days to 

shut down, the source would go from 

99-percent control to zero control until 

the control device was repaired. The 

source’s emissions during the 

malfunction would be 100 times higher 

than during normal operations. As such, 

the emissions over a 4-day malfunction 

period would exceed the annual 

emissions of the source during normal 

operations. As this example illustrates, 

accounting for malfunctions could lead 

to standards that are not reflective of, 

and significantly less stringent than, 

levels that are achieved by a wellperforming non-malfunctioning source. 

It is reasonable to interpret CAA section 

112 in a way as to avoid such a result. 

The EPA’s approach to malfunctions is 

consistent with CAA section 112 and is 

a reasonable interpretation of the 

statute. 

Although no statutory language 

compels the EPA to set standards for 

malfunctions, the EPA has the 

discretion to do so where feasible. For 

example, in the Petroleum Refinery 

Sector RTR, the EPA established a work 

practice standard for unique types of 

malfunction that result in releases from 

pressure relief devices or emergency 

flaring events because the EPA had 

information to determine that such work 

practices reflected the level of control 

that applies to the best performers. 80 

FR 75178, 75211 through 14 (December 

1, 2015). The EPA will consider whether 

circumstances warrant setting standards 

for a particular type of malfunction and, 

if so, whether the EPA has sufficient 

information to identify the relevant best 

performing sources and establish a 

standard for such malfunctions. We also 

encourage commenters to provide any 

such information. 

In the unlikely event that a source 

fails to comply with the applicable CAA 

section 112(d) standards as a result of a 

malfunction event, the EPA would 

determine an appropriate response 

based on, among other things, the good 

faith efforts of the source to minimize 

emissions during malfunction periods, 

including preventative and corrective 

actions, as well as root cause analyses 

to ascertain and rectify excess 

emissions. The EPA would also 

consider whether the source’s failure to 

comply with the CAA section 112(d) 

standard was, in fact, sudden, 

infrequent, not reasonably preventable, 

and was not instead caused, in part, by 

poor maintenance or careless operation. 

40 CFR 63.2 (definition of malfunction). 

If the EPA determines in a particular 

case that an enforcement action against 

a source for violation of an emission 

standard is warranted, the source can 

raise any and all defenses in that 

enforcement action and the federal 

district court will determine what, if 

any, relief is appropriate. The same is 

true for citizen enforcement actions. 

Similarly, the presiding officer in an 

administrative proceeding can consider 

any defense raised and determine 

whether administrative penalties are 

appropriate. 

In summary, the EPA interpretation of 

the CAA and, in particular, CAA section 

112, is reasonable and encourages 

practices that will avoid malfunctions. 

Administrative and judicial procedures 

for addressing exceedances of the 

standards fully recognize that violations 

may occur despite good faith efforts to 

comply and can accommodate those 

situations. U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 

F.3d 579, 606–610 (2016). 

b. Proposed Revisions to 40 CFR Part 63, 

Subpart YY (and Referenced 40 CFR 

Part 63, Subpart SS) 

The EPA assessed existing applicable 

provisions that apply to carbon black 

production affected sources under 40 

CFR part 63, subpart YY (including 

references to 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

SS), and we are proposing to eliminate 

the applicability of provisions that are 

no longer appropriate, unnecessary, or 

redundant in the absence of the SSM 

exemption. The revisions to 40 CFR part 

63, subpart YY are discussed in sections 

IV.E.1.c through i of this section. The 

revisions to 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY 

related specifically to references to 40 

CFR part 63, subpart SS are discussed 

in section IV.E.1.j of this preamble. 

c. General Duty 

Section 63.1108(a)(5) states that the 

emission standards of 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart YY (including the Carbon Black 

MACT standards) do not apply during 

periods of SSM. However, the paragraph 

maintains that owners and operators 

still have a general duty to implement 

measures to prevent or minimize excess 

emissions and that the measures to be 

taken to minimize excess emissions 

during these times shall be identified in 

the SSM plan (if applicable). 

Similarly, 40 CFR 63.1111(a)(2) states 

that, during ‘‘periods of startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction, the owner 

or operator of an affected source subject 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 3073 

to this subpart YY shall operate and 

maintain such affected source 

(including associated air pollution 

control equipment and [continuous 

parament monitoring systems] (CPMS)) 

in a manner consistent with safety and 

good air pollution control practices for 

minimizing emissions to the extent 

practical. The general duty to minimize 

emissions during a period of startup, 

shutdown, or malfunction does not 

require the owner or operator to achieve 

emission levels that would be required 

by the applicable standard at other 

times if this is not consistent with safety 

and good air pollution control practices, 

nor does it require the owner or operator 

to make any further efforts to reduce 

emissions if levels required by the 

applicable standard have been 

achieved.’’ 

The current language in 40 CFR 

63.1108(a)(5) and 40 CFR 63.1111(a)(2) 

characterizes the general duty to 

minimize emissions during periods of 

SSM. With the elimination of the SSM 

exemption, there is no longer a need to 

maintain the general duty language of 

40 CFR 63.1108(a)(5) and 63.1111(a)(2) 

as owners and operators would be 

required to comply with the Carbon 

Black emission standards at all times 

(including during periods of SSM). 

Therefore, the EPA is proposing to 

remove the applicability of 

requirements at 40 CFR 63.1108(a)(5) (as 

specified in the proposed 40 CFR 

63.1108(a) introductory text revisions) 

and 40 CFR 63.1111(a)(2) (as specified 

in the proposed 40 CFR 63.1111(a) 

introductory text revisions). 

d. SSM Plan 

We are proposing to remove the 

applicability of requirements at 40 CFR 

63.1111(a) (as specified in the proposed 

40 CFR 63.1111(a) introductory text 

revisions) requiring owners and 

operators to develop an SSM plan and 

specify SSM recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements related to the 

SSM plan. As noted, the EPA is 

proposing to remove the applicability of 

the SSM exemptions. Therefore, affected 

units will be subject to emission 

standards during such events. The 

applicability of a standard during such 

events will ensure that sources have 

ample incentive to plan for and achieve 

compliance and, thus, the SSM plan 

requirements are no longer necessary. 

e. Compliance With Standards 

We are proposing to remove the 

applicability of the provisions of 40 CFR 

63.1108(a)(1) and (2) (as specified in the 

proposed 40 CFR 63.1108(a) 

introductory text revisions) which 

exempts sources from standards during 

periods of SSM. As discussed above, the 

D.C. Circuit Court in Sierra Club vacated 

the exemptions contained in this 

provision and held that the CAA 

requires that some CAA section 112 

standards apply continuously. 

Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is 

proposing to revise standards in this 

rule to apply at all times. 

f. Performance Testing 

The proposal does not include the 

language that precludes startup and 

shutdown periods from being 

considered ‘‘representative’’ for 

purposes of performance testing, and 

instead allows performance testing 

during periods of startup or shutdown if 

specified by the Administrator. As in 40 

CFR 63.997(e)(1), performance tests 

conducted under this subpart should 

not be conducted during malfunctions 

because conditions during malfunctions 

are often not representative of normal 

operating conditions. The EPA is also 

proposing to add the applicability of the 

requirements at 40 CFR 

63.1108(b)(4)(ii)(B) (as specified in the 

proposed 40 CFR 63.1108(b)(4)(ii)(B) 

revisions) that require the owner and 

operator maintain records of process 

information that is necessary to 

document operating conditions during 

the test and include in such record an 

explanation to support that such 

conditions represent normal operation. 

Finally, the EPA is proposing to add the 

applicability of language clarifying that 

the owner and operator make such 

records available to the Administrator 

upon request (as specified in the 

proposed 40 CFR 63.1108(b)(4)(ii)(B) 

revisions). 

g. Recordkeeping 

We are not proposing to change the 

language at 40 CFR 63.1109(a) requiring 

owners and operators of each affected 

source to keep copies of reports. 

However, we are proposing to 

completely remove the applicability of 

the requirements at 40 CFR 63.1111(b) 

(as specified in the proposed 40 CFR 

63.1111(b) introductory text revisions), 

which eliminates periodic SSM reports, 

consequently eliminating the 

requirement to keep a copy of this 

report. These requirements are no longer 

appropriate for startup and shutdown 

because SSM plans will no longer be 

required and the EPA is proposing that 

recordkeeping and reporting applicable 

to normal operations will apply to 

startup and shutdown. In the absence of 

special provisions applicable to startup 

and shutdown, such as a startup and 

shutdown plan, there is no reason to 

retain additional recordkeeping for 

startup and shutdown periods. 

Furthermore, in lieu of the requirements 

applicable to malfunctions in 40 CFR 

63.1111(b), we are proposing the 

applicability of the recordkeeping 

requirements at 40 CFR 63.1111(c)(1). 

The regulatory text we are proposing to 

apply at 40 CFR 63.1111(c)(1)(i) differs 

from 40 CFR 63.1111(b) in that 40 CFR 

63.1111(b) requires the creation and 

retention of a record for each 

malfunction during which excess 

emissions occurred, including total 

duration of all malfunctions for a 

reporting period. The EPA is proposing 

that this requirement apply to any 

failure to meet an applicable standard 

and is requiring that the source record 

the date, time, and duration of the 

failure rather than the total duration of 

all malfunctions with which excess 

emissions occurred. For each failure to 

meet an applicable standard, the EPA is 

also proposing to revise the rule to 

include the applicability of the 

requirements at 40 CFR 63.1111(c)(1)(ii) 

(as specified in the proposed 40 CFR 

63.1111(c) introductory text revisions). 

This provision requires that sources 

keep records that include a list of the 

affected source or equipment, an 

estimate of the quantity of each 

regulated pollutant emitted over the 

standard for which the source failed to 

meet the standard, and a description of 

the method used to estimate the 

emissions. Examples of such methods 

would include product-loss 

calculations, mass balance calculations, 

measurements when available, or 

engineering judgment based on known 

process parameters. Furthermore, the 

EPA is proposing to add the 

applicability of the requirements at 40 

CFR 63.1111(c)(1)(iii) (as specified in 

the proposed 40 CFR 63.1111(c) 

introductory text revisions) requiring 

sources keep records of any corrective 

actions taken to return the affected unit 

to its normal or usual manner of 

operations, and actions taken to 

minimize emissions in accordance with 

the general duty regulatory text at 40 

CFR 63.1108(a)(4)(ii). The EPA is 

proposing to require that sources keep 

records of this information to ensure 

that there is adequate information to 

allow the EPA to determine the severity 

of any failure to meet a standard, and to 

provide data that may document how 

the source met the general duty to 

minimize emissions when the source 

has failed to meet an applicable 

standard. 

h. Reporting 

We are proposing to remove the 

applicability of the requirements at 40 

CFR 63.1111(b) (as specified in the 

proposed 40 CFR 63.1111(b) 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
3074 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

introductory text revisions) which 

describes the reporting requirements for 

SSM. When applicable, 40 CFR 

63.1111(b)(1) requires sources to report 

actions taken during SSM events to 

show that actions taken were consistent 

with their SSM plan. When applicable, 

40 CFR 63.1111(b)(2) requires sources to 

report actions taken during SSM events 

when actions were inconsistent with 

their SSM plan. The proposed 

amendments, therefore, eliminate the 

applicability of the requirements at 40 

CFR 63.1111(b)(2) that require reporting 

of whether the source deviated from its 

SSM plan, including required actions to 

communicate with the Administrator, 

and the cross-reference to 40 CFR 

63.1111(b)(1) that contains the 

description of the previously required 

SSM report format and submittal 

schedule from this section. These 

specifications are no longer necessary 

because the events will be reported in 

otherwise required reports with similar 

format and submittal requirements. We 

are proposing to remove the 

applicability of the requirements at 40 

CFR 63.1111(b)(2) for reasons discussed 

above and because 40 CFR 63.1111(b)(2) 

describes an immediate report for 

startups, shutdown, and malfunctions 

when a source failed to meet an 

applicable standard but did not follow 

the SSM plan. We will no longer require 

owners and operators to report when 

actions taken during SSM were not 

consistent with an SSM plan, because 

plans would no longer be required. 

i. Proposed 13-Minute Startup Control 

Device Bypass Provision 

In order to address safety concerns 

related to the elimination of 

applicability of the SSM-related 

provisions when demonstrating 

compliance with standards under the 

Carbon Black Production NESHAP, we 

are proposing that the provisions 

specified in 40 CFR 63.983(a)(1) of 

subpart SS, that each closed vent system 

shall be designed and operated to 

collect the regulated material vapors 

from the emission point shall apply at 

all times, unless complying with the 13- 

minute startup control device bypass 

provision. In accordance with the 

requirements of CAA section 112(h), we 

are proposing a work practice standard 

to apply as follows: During periods of 

startup, when the percent excess oxygen 

of the collected vapor is greater than or 

equal to 3 percent, the closed vent 

system to the control device may be 

bypassed for the period when the excess 

oxygen concentration is greater than or 

equal to 3 percent or for 13 minutes, 

whichever time is shorter. At all other 

times, the use of a bypass line on a 

closed vent system to divert emissions 

subject to the requirements in Table 8 to 

40 CFR 63.1103(f) to the atmosphere or 

to a control device not meeting the 

requirements specified in Table 8 of this 

subpart is an emissions standards 

violation. 

We are proposing this work practice 

standard because it is not feasible to 

enforce or prescribe an emission 

standard during startup. Due to the 

combustible nature of the tail gas 

contained in the ductwork and primary 

bag filter at carbon black facilities, a 

CCD cannot be safely operated until the 

contents of the ductwork and primary 

bag filter are below 3-percent excess 

oxygen. If a CCD is used while the 

excess oxygen content is 3 percent or 

above, this could lead to an explosion 

at the facility. 

After further discussions with the 

ICBA, we determined that the 13-minute 

allotment to bypass the CCD, 

corresponds with the minimum time 

necessary to completely purge the 

ductwork and primary bag filter of the 

facility representing the lowest 

production rate. A lower production 

rate results in a lower flow rate through 

the ductwork, leading to a longer period 

of time to completely purge the 

ductwork and primary bag filter. Some 

facilities that operate using a higher 

production rate, will be able to purge 

the line in less than the 13-minute 

allotment. To address this variability, 

we are proposing to require that once 

facilities are under 3-percent excess 

oxygen content, they must start 

controlling emissions to meet the 

applicable emission limit. This 

requirement minimizes emissions from 

higher production rate facilities, that 

can properly purge the ductwork and 

primary bag filter in less than the 13- 

minute period. 

In order to further reduce emissions 

during the 13-minute startup work 

practice period, we are proposing to 

require that facilities operate using the 

minimum load for standard starting 

operating procedures. This requirement 

will reduce the amount of new HAP 

being generated during the 13-minute 

startup period, by limiting the quantity 

of tail gas being produced, thus, 

reducing the amount of HAP being 

released. 

All facilities in this source category 

bypass the combustion control device 

until the excess oxygen concentration 

drops below 3-percent and use the 

minimum load for standard starting 

operating procedures during startup, 

therefore, this practice represents the 

best performers and represents the 

MACT floor. We did not identify 

additional measures to reduce emissions 

during this period, and, therefore, are 

proposing a standard based on the 

MACT floor. Based on conversations 

with industry, there are no other 

provisions that would need to be 

proposed as a result of the elimination 

of the SSM-related provisions being 

proposed with this action. For 

additional information on the proposed 

work practice requirement during 

periods of startup, see the file, SSM 

Email correspondence with ICBA, 

available in the docket for this action. 

j. 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart SS Revisions 

In keeping with the elimination of the 

SSM exemption, we are also proposing 

in the Carbon Black Production MACT 

standards at 40 CFR 63.1103(f)(4) to 

remove the applicability of SSM-related 

exemption provisions from 40 CFR part 

63, subpart SS referenced by the Carbon 

Black Production MACT standards 

under 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY, 

similar to the revisions to 40 CFR part 

63, subpart YY discussed under sections 

IV.1.E.c through h of this preamble. 

SSM-exemption related language being 

proposed for removal includes specific 

compliance SSM-related provisions/ 

language such as ‘‘except during periods 

of start-up, shutdown and malfunction 

specified in a referencing subpart’’; 

‘‘other than periods of startups, 

shutdowns, and malfunctions’’; 

language requiring that an SSM plan be 

prepared and followed; language 

referencing operations during periods of 

SSM not constituting representative 

conditions for the purpose of a 

performance test; language allowing the 

exclusion of SSM data when 

determining compliance with a 

standard; excursion language related to 

SSM periods; and SSM-related record 

requirements. 

2. Electronic Reporting 

The EPA is proposing that owners and 

operators of carbon black production 

facilities submit electronic copies of 

required performance test reports, 

Notification of Compliance Status 

(NOCS), and periodic reports through 

the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) 

using the Compliance and Emissions 

Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). A 

description of the electronic data 

submission process is provided in the 

memorandum, Electronic Reporting 

Requirements for New Source 

Performance Standards (NSPS) and 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) 

Rules, available in the docket for this 

action. 

The proposed rule requires that 

performance test results collected using 

test methods that are supported by the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 3075 

23https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-airemissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert. 

24See Proposal Form 5900–484 Carbon Black 

Periodic Report, available at Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2020–0505. 

25The EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective 

Reviews, August 2011. Available at: https://

www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA2011-0156-0154. 

26E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA 

Regulations, September 2013. Available at: https:// 

www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/ 

documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-2013- 

09-30.pdf. 

27 Digital Government: Building a 21st Century 

Platform to Better Serve the American People, May 

2012. Available at: https://

obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/ 

omb/egov/digital-government/digitalgovernment.html. 

EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) 

as listed on the ERT website 23 at the 

time of the test be submitted in the 

format generated through the use of the 

ERT or an electronic file consistent with 

the xml schema on the ERT website, and 

other performance test results be 

submitted in portable document format 

(PDF) using the attachment module of 

the ERT. The proposed rule requires 

that NOCS reports be submitted as a 

PDF upload in CEDRI. 

For periodic reports, the proposed 

rule requires that owners and operators 

use the appropriate spreadsheet 

template to submit information to 

CEDRI. A draft version of the proposed 

template for these reports is included in 

the docket for this action.24 The EPA 

specifically requests comment on the 

content, layout, and overall design of 

the template. 

Additionally, the EPA has identified 

two broad circumstances in which 

electronic reporting extensions may be 

provided. These circumstances are (1) 

outages of the EPA’s CDX or CEDRI 

which preclude an owner and operator 

from accessing the system and 

submitting required reports and (2) force 

majeure events, which are defined as 

events that will be or have been caused 

by circumstances beyond the control of 

the affected facility, its contractors, or 

any entity controlled by the affected 

facility that prevent an owner and 

operator from complying with the 

requirement to submit a report 

electronically. Examples of force 

majeure events are acts of nature, acts 

of war or terrorism, or equipment failure 

or safety hazards beyond the control of 

the facility. The EPA is providing these 

potential extensions to protect owners 

and operators from noncompliance in 

cases where they cannot successfully 

submit a report by the reporting 

deadline for reasons outside of their 

control. In both circumstances, the 

decision to accept the claim of needing 

additional time to report is within the 

discretion of the Administrator, and 

reporting should occur as soon as 

possible. 

The electronic submittal of the reports 

addressed in this proposed rulemaking 

will increase the usefulness of the data 

contained in those reports, is in keeping 

with current trends in data availability 

and transparency, will further assist in 

the protection of public health and the 

environment, will improve compliance 

by facilitating the ability of regulated 

facilities to demonstrate compliance 

with requirements, and by facilitating 

the ability of delegated state, local, 

tribal, and territorial air agencies and 

the EPA to assess and determine 

compliance, and will ultimately reduce 

burden on regulated facilities, delegated 

air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic 

reporting also eliminates paper-based, 

manual processes, thereby saving time 

and resources, simplifying data entry, 

eliminating redundancies, minimizing 

data reporting errors, and providing data 

quickly and accurately to the affected 

facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the 

public. Moreover, electronic reporting is 

consistent with the EPA’s plan 25 to 

implement Executive Order 13563 and 

is in keeping with the EPA’s Agencywide policy 26 developed in response to 

the White House’s Digital Government 

Strategy.27 For more information on the 

benefits of electronic reporting, see the 

memorandum, Electronic Reporting 

Requirements for New Source 

Performance Standards (NSPS) and 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) 

Rules, referenced earlier in this section. 

3. Boiler and Process Heater Provisions 

As a result of the EPA’s assessment of 

the MACT standards that currently 

apply to the Carbon Black Production 

source category under 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart YY, the EPA was made aware 

that there may be instances where 

carbon black production process vents 

at affected sources, route emissions to a 

boiler/process heater for use as fuel gas 

may not be subject to any requirements. 

Under the existing standards, although 

emission streams may be subject to the 

Carbon Black Production MACT, these 

streams are exempt from any 

requirements under the rule when 

emissions are routed to a boiler/process 

heater for use as fuel gas. The EPA 

assumed that these boilers/process 

heaters would be subject to the 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart DDDDD, Industrial, 

Commercial, and Institutional Boilers 

and Process Heaters NESHAP (Boiler 

MACT). However, under the Boiler 

MACT, process heaters/boilers covered 

under another standard (as with the 

Carbon Black Production MACT) would 

not be subject to the Boiler MACT. 

Specifically, boilers that are used as 

control devices for other NESHAP 

standards, where at least 50 percent of 

the heat input to the boiler is provided 

by the NESHAP-regulated gas stream 

would not be subject to the Boiler 

MACT. This was an unintended 

consequence of the Carbon Black 

Production MACT rule. We are, 

therefore, proposing that applicable 

boilers/process heaters that receive tail 

gas for use as fuel gas must comply with 

annual tune up requirements specified 

in 40 CFR 63.1103(f)(3)(iii). The 

proposed annual boiler/process heater 

tune-up requirements are similar to 

what is included for gas 1 units under 

the Boiler MACT. 

4. Performance Test Frequency 

The EPA is proposing to revise the 

MACT standard compliance provisions 

for the Carbon Black Production source 

category to require owners and 

operators of carbon black production 

affected source process vents subject to 

the rule conduct performance tests 

every 5 years. The EPA has determined 

that an initial performance test is 

insufficient to demonstrate continued 

compliance over time. Thus, this 

proposed revision is necessary to ensure 

continued compliance with standards. 

F. What compliance dates are we 

proposing? 

Amendments to the Carbon Black 

Production standards proposed in this 

rulemaking for adoption under CAA 

section 112(d)(2) and (3) and CAA 

section 112(d)(6) are subject to the 

compliance deadlines outlined in the 

CAA under CAA section 112(i). New 

sources, (i.e., sources that commence 

construction or reconstruction after 

proposal of the standard) must comply 

with the standard immediately upon 

start-up. Existing sources, as described 

in CAA section 112(i) provides that the 

compliance date shall provide for 

compliance as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than 3 years 

after the effective date of the standard. 

(‘‘Section 112(i)(3)’s three-year 

maximum compliance period applies 

generally to any emission standard . . . 

Association of Battery Recyclers v. EPA, 

716 F.3d 667, 672 (D.C. Cir. 2013).) In 

determining what compliance period is 

as expeditious as practicable, we 

consider the amount of time needed to 

plan and construct projects and change 

operating procedures by affected 

sources. The final action is not expected 

to be a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 

U.S.C. 804(2), so the effective date of the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
3076 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

28Section 63.983(a)(1) of 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

SS requires that each closed vent system be 

designed and operated to collect the regulated 

material vapors from the emission point, and to 

route the collected vapors to a control device, apply 

at all times. 

final rule will be the promulgation date 

as specified in CAA section 112(d)(10). 

The EPA is proposing several changes 

that would impact new and ongoing 

compliance requirements for carbon 

black production affected sources under 

40 CFR part 63, subpart YY. These 

changes include: (1) Process vent 

emission standards being expanded to 

cover all applicable (based on an 

applicability threshold) carbon black 

production process vents; (2) the 

requirement to conduct performance 

tests every 5 years when demonstrating 

compliance with process vent emission 

control requirements; (3) boiler and 

process heater tune up requirements; (4) 

several SSM-related changes (changes 

proposed as a result of removing the 

applicability of the SSM exemption 

from the requirements); (5) the 

alternative work practice standard 

specified in 40 CFR 63.1103(f)(5) related 

to the requirement that a closed vent 

system route the collected vapors to a 

control device when demonstrating 

compliance, and (6) the addition of 

requirements to submit reports 

electronically. The compliance 

applicability dates vary for listed items 

one through three, and four and five. 

The EPA is proposing that, if 

applicable, all carbon black production 

affected sources that commenced 

construction or reconstruction on or 

before January 14, 2021, must be in 

compliance with the: (1) Process vent 

emission standards being expanded to 

cover all applicable (based on an 

applicability threshold) carbon black 

production process vents; (2) the 

requirement to conduct performance 

tests every 5 years when demonstrating 

compliance with process vent emission 

control requirements; and (3) boiler and 

process heater tune up requirements by 

1 year after the date the final rule is 

published in the Federal Register. The 

1-year allowance for existing sources to 

comply with the rule is based on the 

EPA’s assessment that owners and 

operators will need time to plan, 

determine applicability of process vent 

requirements, and implement 

performance testing and control 

requirements (which could include 

equipment/retrofit investments to 

comply with new requirements). The 

EPA is also proposing that, if applicable, 

all carbon black production affected 

sources that commenced construction or 

reconstruction after January 14, 2021, 

must be in compliance with the: (1) 

Process vent emission standards being 

expanded to cover all applicable (based 

on an applicability threshold) carbon 

black production process vents; (2) the 

requirement to conduct performance 

tests every 5 years when demonstrating 

compliance with process vent emission 

control requirements; and (3) boiler and 

process heater tune up requirements 

upon initial startup, or the date of 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register, whichever is later. 

For other proposed requirements 

related to SSM-related changes and 

electronic reporting, the EPA is 

proposing that all carbon black 

production affected sources that 

commenced construction or 

reconstruction on or before January 14, 

2021, must be in compliance with the: 

(1) SSM-related changes (changes 

proposed as a result of removing the 

SSM exemption from the requirements); 

(2) the alternative work practice 

standard specified in 40 CFR 

63.1103(f)(5) related to the requirement 

that a closed vent system route the 

collected vapors to a control device 

when demonstrating compliance; and 

(3) the addition of requirements to 

submit reports electronically 180 days 

after publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register. All carbon black 

production affected sources that 

commenced construction or 

reconstruction after January 14, 2021, 

must be in compliance with the: (1) 

SSM-related changes; (2) the alternative 

work practice standard specified in 40 

CFR 63.1103(f)(5) related to the 

requirement that a closed vent system 

route the collected vapors to a control 

device when demonstrating compliance; 

and (3) the addition of requirements to 

submit reports electronically upon 

initial startup, or the date of publication 

of the final rule in the Federal Register, 

whichever is later. Based on our 

assessment, for existing sources, the 

EPA considers a period of 180 days to 

be the most expeditious compliance 

period practicable for complying with 

SSM-related and electronic reporting 

requirement change planning and 

implementation. 

For SSM-related requirement changes, 

we believe 180 days is sufficient for 

owners and operators of affected sources 

to familiarize themselves with the 

operational, monitoring, reporting, and 

recordkeeping changes associated with 

the SSM-related requirement changes. 

Additionally, 180 days is sufficient for 

owners and operators of affected sources 

to comply with the alternative work 

practice standard that addresses safety 

concerns as a result of removing the 

applicability of SSM-related provisions 

when demonstrating compliance with 

standards under the Carbon Black 

Production NESHAP.28

We are also proposing to change the 

applicability of requirements for SSM 

by removing the applicability of the 

exemption from the requirements to 

meet the standard during SSM periods 

and by removing the requirement to 

develop and implement an SSM plan. 

Our experience with similar industries 

that are required to convert reporting 

mechanisms to install necessary 

hardware and software, become familiar 

with the process of submitting 

performance test results electronically 

through the EPA’s CEDRI, test these new 

electronic submission capabilities, and 

reliably employ electronic reporting 

shows that a time period of a minimum 

of 90 days, and, more typically, 180 

days is generally necessary to 

successfully accomplish these revisions. 

Our experience with similar industries 

further shows that owners and operators 

generally require a time period of 180 

days to read and understand the 

amended rule requirements; to evaluate 

their operations to ensure that they can 

meet the standards during periods of 

startup and shutdown as defined in the 

rule and make any necessary 

adjustments; and to update their 

operation, maintenance, and monitoring 

plan to reflect the revised requirements. 

For electronic reporting changes, the 

EPA’s experience with similar 

industries that are required to convert 

reporting mechanisms, to install 

necessary hardware and software, 

become familiar with the process of 

submitting performance test results 

electronically through the EPA’s CEDRI, 

test these new electronic submission 

capabilities, and reliably employ 

electronic reporting shows that a time 

period of a minimum of 90 days, and, 

more typically, 180 days, is generally 

necessary to successfully accomplish 

these revisions. Our experience with 

similar industries further shows that 

this sort of regulated facility generally 

requires a time period of 180 days to 

read and understand the amended rule 

requirements; to evaluate their 

operations to ensure that they can meet 

the standards during periods of startup 

and shutdown as defined in the rule and 

make any necessary adjustments; and to 

update their operation, maintenance, 

and monitoring plan to reflect the 

revised requirements. 

We solicit comment on the proposed 

compliance periods. Specifically, we 

request that comments in support of, 

and in opposition to, the proposed 

compliance periods for the differing 

requirements provide supporting 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 3077 

information as to why or why not the 

compliance periods proposed are 

sufficient/insufficient. 

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, 

and Economic Impacts 

A. What are the affected sources? 

The EPA estimates that there are 15 

production facilities in the Carbon Black 

Production major source category that 

will be subject to the Carbon Black 

Production NESHAP affected by the 

proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 

63, subpart YY. The basis of our 

estimates of affected facilities is 

provided in the memorandum, 

Identification of Major Sources for the 

Carbon Black Production NESHAP, 

which is available in the docket for this 

action. We are not currently aware of 

any planned or potential new or 

reconstructed carbon black production 

facilities in the source category. 

B. What are the air quality impacts? 

While we are broadening the scope of 

the current standard, setting annual 

tune up requirements for process 

heaters/boilers, removing the SSM 

exemption, and establishing a work 

practice standard for periods of startup, 

we do not have data to determine 

quantitatively the reduction in HAP 

emissions resulting from this action. 

Nevertheless, we do not anticipate that 

this action will result in significant HAP 

emission reductions. 

C. What are the cost impacts? 

Costs were developed on a per facility 

basis, and all facilities were determined 

to have similar costs. Costs were valued 

in 2019 dollars. Costs were broken into 

three separate categories based on 

proposed requirements: Initial 

Applicability Test, Performance Test, 

and Boiler/Process Heater Maintenance 

Costs. 

Initial applicability testing costs 

include costs associated with the 

proposed requirement that process vents 

located after the MUF meet the 

standard, which will require facilities to 

determine whether emissions control is 

needed for process vents after the MUF 

process vent. We estimate this to be a 

one-time cost of $21, 350 per facility, 

due to the assumption that the majority 

of HAP is removed and controlled at the 

MUF, which results in the vent stream 

concentration located after the MUF to 

fall below the HAP applicability 

concentration threshold (260 ppmv). 

Performance test costs include costs 

associated with the proposed 

requirement to conduct emissions tests 

at the subject process vents every 5 

years starting in the first year of the 

proposed requirement. We estimate that 

20 percent of subject facilities will 

conduct a performance test each year 

resulting in an annual cost of $15,241 

per facility. 

Boiler/process heater maintenance 

costs include costs associated with the 

proposed requirement to ensure that 

boilers and process heaters are operating 

at peak efficiency and not creating 

excess emissions through inefficient 

operation. Initial tune-up costs are 

assumed to be higher to get the units 

back to peak efficiency. We assume that 

following year costs would be lower 

because less maintenance would be 

needed. As such, we estimate the initial 

tune-up cost to be $6,750 per facility 

and subsequent annual tune-ups to cost 

$1,350 per facility. 

Costs were based primarily on labor, 

equipment, and travel costs. Labor costs 

are based on Bureau of Labor Statistics 

data for relevant employees necessary to 

perform the tests and maintenance. A 

detailed cost analysis can be found in 

the memorandum, Carbon Black Cost 

Memorandum, available in the docket 

for this action. 

D. What are the economic impacts? 

Economic impact analyses focus on 

changes in market prices and output 

levels. If changes in market prices and 

output levels in the primary markets are 

significant enough, impacts on other 

markets may also be examined. Both the 

magnitude of costs associated with the 

proposed requirements and the 

distribution of these costs among 

affected facilities can have a role in 

determining how the market will change 

in response to a proposed rule. 

Economic costs to carbon black 

producers were measured in Present 

Value (PV) total costs and Equivalent 

Annual Value (EAV) costs. All producer 

facilities were estimated to have similar 

costs. All costs are presented in 2019 

dollars. Refer to the memorandum, 

Carbon Black Economic Impact 

Analysis, in the docket for this 

rulemaking for more information. PV 

total costs and EAV costs were 

measured at the 3-percent and 7-percent 

discount rate. The duration of analysis 

was 10 years which represented two full 

cycles of cost analysis for the proposed 

requirements. Per facility PV total costs 

were estimated to be $70,000 and 

$63,000 at the 3-percent and 7-percent 

discount rates, respectively. EAV costs 

per facility were estimated to be $8,000 

and $9,000 at the 3-percent and 7- 

percent discount rates, respectively. The 

combined PV total cost of the proposed 

requirements for all facilities was 

estimated to be $1,005,000 and $945,000 

at the 3-percent and 7-percent discount 

rates, respectively. The combined EAV 

cost of the proposed requirements for all 

facilities was estimated to be $118,000 

and $135,000 at the 3-percent and 7- 

percent discount rates, respectively. 

All carbon black producers subject to 

this rule were determined to be large 

entities based on Small Business 

Administration standards. Because the 

PV and EAV costs associated with the 

proposed revisions are minimal, no 

significant economic impacts from the 

proposed amendments are anticipated. 

Refer to the Carbon Black Economic 

Impact Memorandum, available in the 

docket, for more information. 

E. What are the benefits? 

Although the EPA does not anticipate 

any significant reductions in HAP 

emissions as a result of the proposed 

amendments, we believe that the action, 

if finalized as proposed, would result in 

improvements to the rule, by 

broadening the current emission limit, 

requiring an annual tune-up for boilers/ 

process heaters, and revising the SSM 

standards such that a standard applies 

at all times, including periods covered 

by the proposed work practice standard. 

Additionally, the proposed amendments 

requiring electronic submittal of NOCS 

reports, performance test results, and 

periodic reports will increase the 

usefulness of the data, are in keeping 

with current trends of data availability, 

will further assist in the protection of 

public health and the environment, and 

will ultimately result in reduced 

reporting burden on the regulated 

community. See section IV.D.3 of this 

preamble for more information. 

VI. Request for Comments 

We solicit comments on this proposed 

action. In addition to general comments 

on this proposed action, we are also 

interested in additional data that may 

improve the risk assessments and other 

analyses. We are specifically interested 

in receiving any improvements to the 

data used in the site-specific emissions 

profiles used for risk modeling. Such 

data should include supporting 

documentation in sufficient detail to 

allow characterization of the quality and 

representativeness of the data or 

information. Section VII of this 

preamble provides more information on 

submitting data. 

VII. Submitting Data Corrections 

The site-specific emissions profiles 

used in the source category risk and 

demographic analyses and instructions 

are available for download on the RTR 

website at https://www.epa.gov/ 

stationary-sources-air-pollution/acetalresins-acrylic-modacrylic-fibers-carbonVerDate Sep<11>2014 18:47 Jan 13, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JAP1.SGM 14JAP1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
3078 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

black-hydrogen. The data files include 

detailed information for each HAP 

emissions release point for the facilities 

in the source category. 

If you believe that the data are not 

representative or are inaccurate, please 

identify the data in question, provide 

your reason for concern, and provide 

any ‘‘improved’’ data that you have, if 

available. When you submit data, we 

request that you provide documentation 

of the basis for the revised values to 

support your suggested changes. To 

submit comments on the data 

downloaded from the RTR website, 

complete the following steps: 

1. Within this downloaded file, enter 

suggested revisions to the data fields 

appropriate for that information. 

2. Fill in the commenter information 

fields for each suggested revision (i.e., 

commenter name, commenter 

organization, commenter email address, 

commenter phone number, and revision 

comments). 

3. Gather documentation for any 

suggested emissions revisions (e.g., 

performance test reports, material 

balance calculations). 

4. Send the entire downloaded file 

with suggested revisions in Microsoft®

Access format and all accompanying 

documentation to Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2020–0505 (through the 

method described in the ADDRESSES

section of this preamble). 

5. If you are providing comments on 

a single facility or multiple facilities, 

you need only submit one file for all 

facilities. The file should contain all 

suggested changes for all sources at that 

facility (or facilities). We request that all 

data revision comments be submitted in 

the form of updated Microsoft® Excel 

files that are generated by the 

Microsoft® Access file. These files are 

provided on the project website at 

https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sourcesair-pollution/acetal-resins-acrylicmodacrylic-fibers-carbon-blackhydrogen. 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was, therefore, not 

submitted to OMB for review. 

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing 

Regulations and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs 

This action is not expected to be an 

Executive Order 13771 regulatory action 

because this action is not significant 

under Executive Order 12866. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

The information collection activities 

in this proposed rule have been 

submitted for approval to the OMB 

under the PRA. The Information 

Collection Request (ICR) document 

that the EPA prepared has been 

assigned EPA ICR number 2677.01. You 

can find a copy of the ICR in the docket 

for this rule, and it is briefly 

summarized here. 

We are proposing changes to the 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements associated with 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart YY, in the form of 

eliminating the SSM plan and reporting 

requirements; broadening the initial 

emission limit to include process vents 

located after the MUF; and including 

the requirement for electronic submittal 

of reports. In addition, the number of 

facilities subject to the standards 

changed. The number of respondents 

was reduced from 18 to 15 based on 

consultation with industry 

representatives and state/local agencies. 

Respondents/affected entities: The 

respondents to the recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements are owners and 

operators of carbon black production 

facilities subject to 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart YY. 

Respondent’s obligation to respond: 

Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart 

YY). 

Estimated number of respondents: 15 

facilities. 

Frequency of response: The frequency 

of responses varies depending on the 

burden item. Responses include onetime review of rule amendments, reports 

of periodic performance tests, and 

semiannual compliance reports. 

Total estimated burden: The annual 

recordkeeping and reporting burden for 

responding facilities to comply with all 

of the requirements in the NESHAP, 

averaged over the 3 years of this ICR, is 

estimated to be 289 hours (per year). 

The average annual burden to the 

Agency over the 3 years after the 

amendments are final is estimated to be 

213 hours (per year) for the Agency. 

Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

Total estimated cost: The annual 

recordkeeping and reporting cost for 

responding facilities to comply with all 

of the requirements in the NESHAP, 

averaged over the 3 years of this ICR, is 

estimated to be $180,928 (rounded, per 

year). There are no estimated capital 

and operation and maintenance costs. 

The total average annual Agency cost 

over the first 3 years after the 

amendments are final is estimated to be 

$10,247. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

Submit your comments on the 

Agency’s need for this information, the 

accuracy of the provided burden 

estimates, and any suggested methods 

for minimizing respondent burden to 

the EPA using the dockets identified at 

the beginning of this rule. You may also 

send your ICR-related comments to 

OMB’s Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs via email to OIRA_

submission@omb.eop.gov, Attention: 

Desk Officer for the EPA. Since OMB is 

required to make a decision concerning 

the ICR between 30 and 60 days after 

receipt, OMB must receive comments no 

later than February 16, 2021. The EPA 

will respond to any ICR-related 

comments in the final rule. 

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. This action will not 

impose any requirements on small 

entities, since there are no small entities 

in the source category. 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain an 

unfunded mandate of $100 million or 

more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538, and does not significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. The 

action imposes no enforceable duty on 

any state, local, or tribal governments or 

the private sector. 

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. No tribal facilities are 

known to be engaged in the Carbon 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 3079 

Black Production source category and 

would not be affected by this action. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because the 

EPA does not believe the environmental 

health or safety risks addressed by this 

action present a disproportionate risk to 

children. This action’s health and risk 

assessments are contained in sections 

III.A and IV.A and B of this preamble. 

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

J. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. 

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

The EPA believes that this action does 

not have disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority populations, lowincome populations, and/or indigenous 

peoples, as specified in Executive Order 

12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

The documentation for this decision 

is contained in sections IV.A, IV.B, IV.F, 

and IV.G of this preamble. As discussed 

in sections IV.A, IV.B, IV.F, and IV.G of 

this preamble, we performed a 

demographic analysis for each source 

category, which is an assessment of 

risks to individual demographic groups, 

of the population close to the facilities 

(within 50 km and within 5 km). In our 

analysis, we evaluated the distribution 

of HAP-related cancer risks and 

noncancer hazards from the Carbon 

Black Production source category across 

different social, demographic, and 

economic groups within the populations 

living near operations identified as 

having the highest risks. 

Results of the demographic analysis 

performed for the Carbon Black 

Production source category indicate 

that, for four of the 11 demographic 

groups, African American, people age 

65 and up, people living below the 

poverty level, and adults over 25 

without a high school diploma that 

reside within 5 km of facilities in the 

source category is greater than the 

corresponding national percentage for 

the same demographic groups. When 

examining the risk levels of those 

exposed to emissions from carbon black 

production facilities, we find nobody is 

exposed to a cancer risk at or above 1- 

in-1 million and nobody is exposed to 

a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 

1. For additional information see the 

memorandum, Risk and Technology 

Review—Analysis of Demographic 

Factors For Populations Living Near 

Carbon Black Production Source 

Category Operations, available in the 

docket for this action. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Andrew Wheeler, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2021–00233 Filed 1–13–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2020–0148; FRL–10018–66– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AU67 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Refractory 

Products Manufacturing Residual Risk 

and Technology Review 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing 

amendments to address the results of 

the residual risk and technology review 

(RTR) that the EPA is required to 

conduct in accordance with the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) with regard to the 

National Emissions Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for 

Refractory Products Manufacturing. The 

EPA is proposing to find the risks due 

to emissions of air toxics from this 

source category under the current 

standards to be acceptable and that the 

standards provide an ample margin of 

safety to protect public health. We are 

proposing no revisions to the existing 

numerical emission limits based on 

these analyses; however, we are 

proposing new provisions for certain 

hazardous air pollutants (HAP). The 

EPA is also proposing to amend 

provisions addressing emissions during 

periods of startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction (SSM) and provisions 

addressing emissions during periods of 

scheduled maintenance; to amend 

provisions regarding electronic 

reporting of performance test results; 

and to make miscellaneous clarifying 

and technical corrections. 

DATES: Comments. 

Comments must be received on or 

before March 1, 2021. Under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 

comments on the information collection 

provisions are best assured of 

consideration if the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

receives a copy of your comments on or 

before February 16, 2021. 

Public hearing. If anyone contacts us 

requesting a public hearing on or before 

January 19, 2021, we will hold a virtual 

public hearing. See SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION for information on 

requesting and registering for a public 

hearing. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2020–0148, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

https://www.regulations.gov/ (our 

preferred method). Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

Include Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2020–0148 in the subject line of the 

message. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744. Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2020– 

0148. 

• Mail: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2020– 

0148, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20460. 

• Hand/Courier Delivery (by 

scheduled appointment only): EPA 

Docket Center, WJC West Building, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue 

NW, Washington, DC 20004. The Docket 

Center’s hours of operation are 8:30 

a.m.–4:30 p.m., Monday–Friday (except 

federal holidays). 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the Docket ID No. for this 

rulemaking. Comments received may be 

posted without change to https://

www.regulations.gov/, including any 

personal information provided. For 

detailed instructions on sending 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. Out of an abundance of 

caution for members of the public and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS