[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 94 (Monday, May 16, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29710-29728]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-09589]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0049; FRL-8150-02-OAR]
RIN 2060-AU96


Standards of Performance for Steel Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces 
Constructed After 10/21/74 & On or Before 8/17/83; Standards of 
Performance for Steel Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces & Argon-Oxygen 
Decarburization Constructed After 8/17/83

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; amendments.

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

SUMMARY: In this action, the EPA is proposing new and revised standards 
of performance for electric arc furnaces (EAF) and argon-oxygen 
decarburization (AOD) vessels in the steel industry. The EPA is 
proposing that EAF facilities that begin construction, reconstruction 
or modification after May 16, 2022 would need to comply with a 
particulate matter (PM) standard in the format of facility-wide PM 
emitted per amount of steel produced and a melt shop opacity limit of 
zero. The proposal would limit emissions of PM and opacity from new, 
modified, or reconstructed EAF and AOD vessels. In addition, we are 
proposing that all emission limits apply at all times; periodic 
compliance testing at least once every 5 years; and electronic 
reporting. In this action, the EPA also is proposing amendments for 
certain provisions in the current new source performance standards 
(NSPS) that apply to EAF constructed after October 21, 1974, and on or 
before August 17, 1983, and EAF and AOD vessels constructed after 
August 17, 1983, and before May 16, 2022 to clarify and refine the 
current provisions.

DATES: 
    Comments. Comments must be received on or before July 15, 2022. 
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 June 15, 2022.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing 
on or before May 23, 2022, we will hold a virtual 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-2002-0049, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/ 
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
     Email: [email protected]. Include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2002-0049 in the subject line of the message.
     Fax: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2002-0049.
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket 
Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0049, 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

[[Page 29711]]

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 open to the public by appointment only to reduce the 
risk of transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket Center staff also continues 
to provide remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. Hand 
deliveries and couriers may be received by scheduled appointment only. 
For further information on the 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 Donna Lee Jones, Sector Policies and Programs Division 
(D243-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5251; fax number: (919) 541-3207; 
and email address: [email protected].

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 [email protected]. If 
requested, the virtual hearing will be held on June 6, 2022. The 
hearing will convene at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time (ET) and will conclude 
at 4:00 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/electric-arc-furnaces-eafs-and-argon-oxygen-decarburization-vessels.
    If a public hearing is requested, the EPA will begin pre-
registering speakers for the hearing no later than 1 business day after 
a request has been received. To register to speak at the virtual 
hearing, please use the online registration form available at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/electric-arc-furnaces-eafs-and-argon-oxygen-decarburization-vessels or contact the public 
hearing team at (888) 372-8699 or by email at 
[email protected]. The last day to pre-register to speak at the 
hearing will be May 31, 2022. Prior to the hearing, the EPA will post a 
general agenda that will list pre-registered speakers in approximate 
order at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/electric-arc-furnaces-eafs-and-argon-oxygen-decarburization-vessels.
    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 
[email protected]. 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/electric-arc-furnaces-eafs-and-argon-oxygen-decarburization-vessels. 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 [email protected] 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 pre-register for the 
hearing with the public hearing team and describe your needs by May 23, 
2022. 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-2002-0049. All documents in the docket are 
listed in the Regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, 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. Publicly available docket materials are available either 
electronically in Regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket 
Center, Room 3334, WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, 
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone 
number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone 
number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.
    Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2002-0049. 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 to https://www.regulations.gov 
any information that you consider to be CBI or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. This type of information should be 
submitted 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://www2.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

[[Page 29712]]

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.
    Out of an abundance of caution for members of the public and our 
staff, the EPA Docket Center and Reading Room are open to the public by 
appointment only to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19. Our 
Docket Center staff also continues to provide remote customer service 
via email, phone, and webform. Hand deliveries or couriers will be 
received by scheduled appointment only. For further information and 
updates on the EPA Docket Center services, please visit us online at 
https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA 
through https://www.regulations.gov/. Clearly mark the part or all the 
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on any 
digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, note the docket ID, 
mark the outside of the digital storage media as CBI, and 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 and note the docket ID. 
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.
    Our preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be transmitted 
electronically using email attachments, File Transfer Protocol (FTP), 
or other online file sharing services (e.g., Dropbox, OneDrive, Google 
Drive). Electronic submissions must be transmitted directly to the 
OAQPS CBI Office at the email address [email protected], and as 
described above, should include clear CBI markings and note the docket 
ID. If assistance is needed with submitting large electronic files that 
exceed the file size limit for email attachments, and if you do not 
have your own file sharing service, please email [email protected] to 
request a file transfer link. If sending CBI information through the 
postal service, please send it 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-2002-0049. The mailed CBI material should be double wrapped 
and clearly marked. Any CBI markings should not show through the outer 
envelope.
    Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and 
terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease 
the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA 
defines the following terms and acronyms here:

acfm actual cubic feet per minute
acmm actual cubic meters per minute
AOD argon-oxygen decarburization
BLDS bag leak detection systems
BID background information document
BPT benefits per ton
BSER best system of emissions reduction
CAA Clean Air Act
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulation
DEC direct shell evacuation control
dscf dry standard cubic feet
dscm dry standard cubic meters
EAF electric arc furnace
EAV equivalent annual value
EIA economic impact assessment
EJ environmental justice
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
[deg]F degrees Fahrenheit
g grams
gr grains
II&S integrated iron and steel industry
ISA Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter
kg kilograms
lb pounds
mg milligram
Mg megagram
Mg/yr megagram per year
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NSPS New Source Performance Standards
O&M operating and maintenance
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget
p. page
PM particulate matter
PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PV present value
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIA regulatory impacts analysis
RIN Regulatory Information Number
SMA Steel Manufacturers Association
tpy tons per year
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
U.S. United States
U.S.C. United States Code
VCS Voluntary Consensus Standards

    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 background for action?
    B. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    C. How does the EPA perform the NSPS review?
III. What actions are we proposing?
    A. Standards of Performance for Steel Plants: Electric Arc 
Furnaces and Argon-Oxygen Decarburization Vessels Constructed After 
May 16, 2022
    B. Amendments to Standards of Performance for Steel Plants: 
Electric Arc Furnaces Constructed After October 21, 1974, and On or 
Before August 17, 1983, and Standards of Performance for Steel 
Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces and Argon-Oxygen Decarburization 
Vessels Constructed After August 17, 1983, and On or Before May 16, 
2022
    C. Electronic Reporting
IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
    A. What are the air quality and other environmental impacts?
    B. What are the cost impacts?
    C. What are the economic impacts?
    D. What are the benefits?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act and 1 CFR 
Part 51

[[Page 29713]]

    J. 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 category that is the subject of this proposal is 
comprised of the steel manufacturing facilities that operate EAF and 
AOD vessels regulated under CAA section 111 New Source Performance 
Standards. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 
code for the source category is 331110. This NAICS code provides a 
guide for readers regarding the entities that this proposed action is 
likely to affect. The proposed standards, once promulgated, will be 
directly applicable to the affected sources. Federal, state, local and 
tribal government entities would not be affected by this action.

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/electric-arc-furnaces-eafs-and-argon-oxygen-decarburization-vessels. 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.
    Redline versions of the regulatory language that incorporate the 
changes proposed in this action to 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA and AAa 
are included in a memorandum titled EAF NSPS Redline Versions of 
Proposed Rule Changes for 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA and AAa, which is 
available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-
0049). In addition, another memorandum will be available in the same 
docket that will include the proposed rule 40 CFR part 60, subparts 
AAb, titled EAF NSPS Proposed Rule 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAb. 
Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA also will post 
copies of these memoranda to https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/electric-arc-furnaces-eafs-and-argon-oxygen-decarburization-vessels.

II. Background

A. What is the background for action?

    An electric arc furnace (EAF) is a metallurgical furnace used to 
produce carbon and alloy steels. The input material to an EAF is 
typically almost 100 percent scrap steel. Cylindrical, refractory-lined 
EAF are equipped with carbon electrodes to be raised or lowered through 
the furnace roof. With electrodes retracted, the furnace roof can be 
rotated to permit the charge of scrap steel by overhead crane. Alloying 
agents and fluxing materials usually are added through doors on the 
side of the furnace. Electric current is passed between the electrodes 
and through the scrap, producing an arc and generating enough heat to 
melt the scrap steel charge. After the melting and refining periods, 
impurities (in the form of slag \1\) and the refined steel are poured 
from the furnace. If argon-oxygen decarburization (AOD) vessels are 
present, they follow the EAF in the production sequence and are used to 
oxidize carbon, silicon, and impurities, such as sulfur. For these 
reasons, the AOD vessels reduce alloy additions compared to an EAF 
alone. Use of AOD vessels also reduce EAF heat times, improve quality 
control, and increase daily steel production. AOD vessels are primarily 
used in stainless steel making.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Slag is the molten metal oxides and other impurities that 
float to the surface of the molten steel product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The production of steel in an EAF is a batch process. Cycles, also 
called heats, range from about 1.5 to 5 hours to produce carbon steel 
and from 5 to 10 hours to produce alloy steel. Scrap steel is charged 
to begin a cycle, with alloying agents and slag forming materials added 
later in the process for refining purposes. Stages of each cycle 
normally are charging, melting, refining (which also usually includes 
oxygen blowing), and tapping. All these operations generate particulate 
matter (PM) emissions.
    Air emission control techniques typically involve an air emission 
capture system and a gas cleaning system. The air emission capture 
systems used in the EAF industry include direct shell evacuation 
control (DEC) systems, side draft hoods, combination hoods, canopy 
hoods, scavenger ducts, and furnace enclosures. The DEC system consists 
of ductwork attached to a separate opening, or ``fourth hole,'' in the 
furnace roof (top) that draws emissions from the furnace to a gas 
cleaner and which works only when the furnace is up-right and the roof 
is in place. Side draft hoods collect furnace exhaust gases from around 
the electrode holes and work doors after the gases leave the furnace. 
Combination hoods incorporate elements from the side draft and direct 
shell evacuation systems. Canopy hoods and scavenger ducts are used to 
address charging and tapping emissions. Baghouses are typically used as 
gas cleaning systems (i.e., emissions control devices).
    There are approximately 88 EAF in the United States of America 
(U.S.), with most (> 95 percent) EAF subject to one of the EAF NSPS 
that are described below. Thirty-one states have one or more EAF 
facilities, with most of the EAF facilities east of the Mississippi 
River. Pennsylvania (15), Ohio (10), Alabama (7), and Indiana (7) have 
the most EAF facilities per state (approximate number of EAF facilities 
in each state).
    In 1975, the first NSPS for EAF were promulgated (for EAF that 
commenced construction after October 21, 1974). (40 FR 43850). The 1975 
NSPS set PM standards for emissions from EAF control devices (12 mg/
dscm [0.0052 gr/dscf]), and set opacity limits for EAF melt shop 
emissions, which include but are not limited to emissions via roof 
vents, doors, cracks in walls, etc. (0 percent opacity, with 20 percent 
and 40 percent opacity allowed during charging and tapping, 
respectively); control device exhaust (3 percent opacity); and dust 
handling procedures (10 percent opacity).
    In 1984, the NSPS rule, 40 CFR part 60, subpart AA (for EAF 
constructed after October 21, 1974, and on or before August 17, 1983) 
was revised and a new subpart was created as 40 CFR part 60, subpart 
AAa to add AOD vessels as affected units for EAF and AOD vessels that 
commenced construction after August 17, 1983 (49 FR 43843). These 1984 
amendments to 40 CFR part 60, subpart AA raised the melt shop opacity 
from 0 percent to 6 percent opacity, keeping the exceptions for 
charging (20 percent opacity) and tapping (40 percent opacity). The EAF 
rule at 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAa set requirements for melt shop 
opacity at 6 percent with no exceptions. Both rules, 40 CFR part 60, 
subparts AA and AAa (and Appendix A to 40 CFR part 60) were revised in 
the 1984 amendments to include EPA Method 5D for the determination of 
PM emissions from positive-pressure fabric filters, which are common 
control devices for EAF and AOD vessels.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In the 1984 technology review of the 1975 EAF NSPS standards 
in subpart AA, test data were obtained from four facilities. The EPA 
at that time considered lowering the PM standard to 7.2 mg/dscm 
(0.0031 gr/dscf) from 12 mg/dscm (0.0052 gr/dscf), but the lower 
level was found by the EPA to be not cost-effective ($8,000/ton in 
1984).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 14, 1989 (54 FR 6672), 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA and 
AAa (and Appendix A to 40 CFR part 60)

[[Page 29714]]

were revised to consolidate the EPA test methods and delete repetitions 
of methods already referenced; and on May 17, 1989 (54 FR 21344), minor 
corrections were made to the February 1989 revisions. On March 2, 1999 
(64 FR 10109), as a result of recommendations made by the EPA's Common 
Sense Initiative, 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA and AAa were revised to 
add an option to monitor furnace static pressure instead of melt shop 
opacity; and to monitor baghouse fan amperage instead of baghouse 
flowrate. On October 17, 2000 (65 FR 61758), amendments were made to 40 
CFR part 60, subparts AA and AAa to promulgate Performance 
Specification (PS) 15 for certifying continuous emission monitoring 
systems (CEMS) with Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR); to 
reformat various methods as per recommendations by the Environmental 
Monitoring Management Council; and to make miscellaneous technical and 
editorial corrections. On February 22, 2005 (70 FR 8530), 40 CFR part 
60, subparts AA and AAa were amended as a result of a petition by the 
American Iron and Steel Institute, Steel Manufacturers Association 
(SMA), and Specialty Steel Industry of North America to add bag leak 
detection systems (BLDS) as an alternative monitoring method to the 
continuous opacity monitoring systems currently cited in the rules.

B. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    Section 111 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires the EPA 
Administrator to list categories of stationary sources that in the 
Administrator's judgement cause or contribute significantly to air 
pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health 
or welfare. 42 U.S.C. 7411(b)(1)(A). The EPA must then issue 
performance standards for new (and modified or reconstructed) sources 
in each source category. 42 U.S.C. 7411(b)(1)(B). These standards are 
referred to as new source performance standards (NSPS). On October 11, 
1974, the EPA Administrator identified and listed EAF that produce 
steel as such a source category for which NSPS should be developed and 
which were to be done within 120 days. (39 FR 37419). The EPA has the 
authority to define the scope of the source categories, determine the 
pollutants for which standards should be developed, set the emission 
level of the standards, and distinguish among classes, type, and sizes 
within categories in establishing the standards. 42 U.S.C. 7411(b). The 
CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) requires the Administrator to review and 
revise, if appropriate, the NSPS every 8 years. 42 U.S.C. 
7411(b)(l)(B).
    The CAA section 111(a)(1) provides that performance standards are 
to ``reflect the degree of emission limitation achievable through the 
application of the best system of emission reduction which (taking into 
account the cost of achieving such reduction and any nonair quality 
health and environmental impact and energy requirements) the 
Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated.'' 42 U.S.C. 
7411(a)(1). This definition makes clear that the standard of 
performance must be based on controls that constitute ``the best system 
of emission reduction . . . adequately demonstrated,'' which the EPA 
commonly refers to as ``BSER.'' The EPA reviewed the requirements of 40 
CFR part 60, subpart AAa and found that there were improvements in the 
performance of EAF, AOD, and their control devices since 1984. As 
explained in this preamble, the EPA has developed proposed performance 
standards for PM emissions and melt shop opacity that reflect BSER, 
considering the cost of achieving such emission reductions, and any 
nonair quality health and environmental impacts and energy 
requirements.

C. How does the EPA perform the NSPS review?

    As noted in the section II.B, CAA section 111 requires the EPA, at 
least every 8 years to review and, if appropriate revise the standards 
of performance applicable to new, modified, and reconstructed sources. 
If the EPA revises the standards of performance, they must reflect the 
degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the 
BSER taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction and any 
nonair quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements. 
CAA section 111(a)(1).
    In reviewing an NSPS to determine whether it is ``appropriate'' to 
revise the standards of performance, the EPA evaluates the statutory 
factors, including the following information:
     Expected growth for the source category, including how 
many new facilities, reconstructions, and modifications may trigger 
NSPS in the future.
     Pollution control measures, including advances in control 
technologies, process operations, design or efficiency improvements, or 
other systems of emission reduction, that are ``adequately 
demonstrated'' in the regulated industry.
     Available information from the implementation and 
enforcement of current requirements indicates that emission limitations 
and percent reductions beyond those required by the current standards 
are achieved in practice.
     Costs (including capital and annual costs) associated with 
implementation of the available pollution control measures.
     The amount of emission reductions achievable through 
application of such pollution control measures.
     Any nonair quality health and environmental impact and 
energy requirements associated with those control measures.
    In evaluating whether the cost of a particular system of emission 
reduction is reasonable, the EPA considers various costs associated 
with the particular air pollution control measure or a level of 
control, including capital costs and operating costs, and the emission 
reductions that the control measure or particular level of control can 
achieve. The agency considers these costs in the context of the 
industry's overall capital expenditures and revenues. The agency also 
considers cost-effectiveness analysis as a useful metric, and a means 
of evaluating whether a given control achieves emission reduction at a 
reasonable cost. A cost-effectiveness analysis allows comparisons of 
relative costs and outcomes (effects) of two or more options. In 
general, cost-effectiveness is a measure of the outcomes produced by 
resources spent. In the context of air pollution control options, cost-
effectiveness typically refers to the annualized cost of implementing 
an air pollution control option divided by the amount of pollutant 
reductions realized annually.
    After the EPA evaluates the factors described above, the EPA then 
compares the various systems of emission reductions and determines 
which system is ``best.'' The EPA then establishes a standard of 
performance that reflects the degree of emission limitation achievable 
through the implementation of the BSER. In doing this analysis, the EPA 
can determine whether subcategorization is appropriate based on 
classes, types, and sizes of sources, and may identify a different BSER 
and establish different performance standards for each subcategory. The 
result of the analysis and BSER determination leads to standards of 
performance that apply to facilities that begin construction, 
reconstruction, or modification after the date of publication of the 
proposed standards in the Federal Register. Because the new source 
performance

[[Page 29715]]

standards reflect the best system of emission reduction under 
conditions of proper operation and maintenance, in doing its review, 
the EPA also evaluates and determines the proper testing, monitoring, 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements needed to ensure compliance 
with the emission standards.
    See section III.A of this preamble for information on the specific 
data sources that were reviewed as part of this action.

III. What actions are we proposing?

A. Standards of Performance for Steel Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces and 
Argon-Oxygen Decarburization Vessels Constructed After May 16, 2022

    The proposed standards, as 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAb, would apply 
to all new, modified, or reconstructed EAF and AOD vessels, and their 
associated dust-handling systems in the steel industry, which commence 
construction, reconstruction, or modification after May 16, 2022. The 
proposed standards would limit total PM emissions from all pollution 
control devices (e.g., baghouses) installed on EAF and AOD vessels, in 
terms of total mass of PM emitted at the facility per total mass of 
steel produced, to 79 milligrams PM per kilogram steel (mg/kg) [0.16 
pounds (lb) PM per ton steel produced (lb/ton)]). Visible emissions 
from EAF and AOD that exit from the melt shop would be limited to an 
opacity of 0 percent during all phases of operation. Visible emissions 
from control devices on EAF and AOD would remain at less than 3 percent 
opacity, as in the current EAF NSPS for 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA and 
AAa. Opacity of the dust handling system also would remain at less than 
10 percent as in the current NSPS at 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA and 
AAa.
    Explanation of the procedures and data used to determine the format 
and values of the proposed standards as BSER for EAF are discussed 
below. Also discussed is the review of the standards for opacity for 
EAF control devices and dust handling systems in the current NSPS 
rules.
1. New Format for PM Baghouse Limits for 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart AAb
    From EAF PM test reports covering the period from 2005 through 
2017, the EPA obtained PM emissions and opacity data for 33 facilities, 
46 EAF, and 54 baghouses in 154 emission and opacity tests \3\ 
(hereafter referred to as the ``EAF dataset''). The test data showed a 
substantial improvement in EAF, AOD, and baghouse performance beyond 
the current NSPS PM standard. Among these 33 facilities (more than one-
third of the current industry) and their 54 baghouses, the highest 
baghouse PM emissions were 44 percent of the current standard (5.3 mg/
dscm [2.30E-03 gr/dscf]), the lowest emissions were 0.83 percent of the 
current standard (0.10 mg/dscm [4.33E-05 gr/dscf]), and the median 
emissions were 10 percent of the current standard (1.2 mg/dscm [5.11E-
04 gr/dscf]). From these test data, as well as the RACT/BACT/LAER 
Clearinghouse Data repository,\4\ the EPA identified 15 EAF facilities, 
approximately half of the EAF dataset, that reported 0 percent melt 
shop opacity. The number of opacity tests per facility with 0 percent 
melt shop opacity ranged from 1 test to 3 tests, with a median of 2 
tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For details of the EAF dataset, see the memorandum titled 
``Particulate Matter Emissions from Electric Arc Furnace 
Facilities'' located in the docket for this rule (Docket ID No. EPA-
OAR-2002-0049).
    \4\ See https://www.epa.gov/catc/ractbactlaer-clearinghouse-rblc-basic-information for more information. RACT, or reasonably 
available control technology, is required on existing sources in 
areas that are not meeting national ambient air quality standards 
(i.e., nonattainment areas); BACT, or best available control 
technology, is required on major new or modified sources in clean 
areas (i.e., attainment areas); and LAER, or lowest achievable 
emission rate, is required on major new or modified sources in 
nonattainment areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current EAF NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subparts AA and AAa) include 
numerical limits for PM emissions from EAF (and also AOD in 40 CFR part 
60, subpart AAa) control devices and apply to each individual control 
device, typically a baghouse, which is also known as a fabric filter. 
Some EAF or AOD vessel baghouses control the bulk of PM emissions, 
which occur during melting and refining, where the emissions are 
captured by hoods, canopies, or other mechanisms directly from the EAF 
or AOD vessel exhaust (and are called primary emissions); other 
baghouses control the fugitive PM emissions that are emitted during 
charging and tapping, from other melt shop processes such as ladling of 
alloys, or that escape the primary capture systems. Fugitive emissions 
also are called secondary emissions. A third type of baghouse controls 
both primary and secondary emissions. The above-mentioned baghouse 
types may control PM from one or more EAF/AOD, primary or secondary, in 
various combinations.
    The emissions, and, hence, collected PM, from baghouses that 
control only secondary emissions can be much lower than the other two 
types of baghouses, as seen in the EAF dataset where the baghouse with 
the lowest PM emissions controlled only secondary emissions.\5\ Because 
of the inherent lower baghouse PM input (loading), secondary baghouses 
can be operated inefficiently without exceeding the current NSPS limit, 
which is expressed in the units of mass PM per unit of control device 
exhaust air. In addition, where there is a standard in terms of mass PM 
per unit of total exhaust air, baghouse dilution air (added to EAF 
exhaust air) can be increased with the effect of lowering measured 
baghouse PM emission concentration and disguising the true performance 
of the baghouse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The baghouse with the lowest emissions in the EAF dataset 
was 0.83 percent of the current standard (0.10 mg/dscm [4.33E-05 gr/
dscf]).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is proposing to set a facility-wide PM limit instead of a 
limit that applies to each control device (the format of the current 
standard), because we think this form of standard will result in better 
control and provide greater assurance of compliance. Most importantly, 
if EAF emissions can be divided up into separate baghouses, for 
practical purposes or otherwise, with each device falling under the 
same NSPS PM limit, there is no accounting for the total PM emissions 
from the facility. A facility-wide total control device PM emissions 
limit in units of pounds of PM per ton of steel produced also would 
alleviate the potential disparity in control device emissions between 
low-and high-loading control devices, such as that for control devices 
for primary vs. secondary emissions, as well as for well-operated vs. 
inefficiently-operated control devices that both operate below the 
individual baghouse limit.
    To determine BSER for control device PM emissions, the EPA only 
used data from EAF facilities with 0 percent melt shop opacity. This 
was because facilities that control their melt shop opacity to 0 
percent are collecting more PM (specifically from the melt shop) than 
facilities that have a nonzero melt shop opacity and, as a result, are 
sending more PM to their control devices. Consequently, EAF facilities 
with 0 percent melt shop opacity are expected to have a slightly higher 
control device PM emission rate on average compared to EAF facilities 
with greater than 0 percent melt shop opacity, as evidenced by the EAF 
dataset of 33 EAF facilities. As a corollary, at EAF facilities with 6 
percent melt shop opacity, some of the PM generated by the EAF is not 
captured, avoids the control device, and can exit through the melt shop 
roof, thus raising the melt shop opacity to above zero. In turn, 
facilities with 6

[[Page 29716]]

percent melt shop opacity collect less PM and, therefore, less PM is 
sent to control device, which results in (slightly) lower PM emissions 
in the control device exhaust. Overall, because of the large amount of 
PM emission differential between 6 percent and 0 percent melt shop 
opacity, much less PM is emitted to the environment with 0 percent melt 
shop opacity than with 6 percent opacity, despite the higher level of 
control device emissions with 0 percent melt shop opacity. This effect 
is described quantitatively below in section 2.c.
    Of the 15 EAF facilities in the EPA dataset with 0 percent melt 
shop opacity, control device PM emissions data and steel production 
values needed to develop an emission standard in mass of PM per mass of 
steel production were available for 13 of the 15 facilities; these data 
included 51 individual tests from 23 baghouses and 21 EAF. The 13 EAF 
facilities and their PM emissions were used to demonstrate that 0 
percent melt shop opacity is BSER and to develop a facility-wide total 
PM control device emission standard that is BSER for new, modified, and 
reconstructed EAF.
2. Analyses To Determine BSER for Melt Shop Opacity and PM Emissions 
From Control Devices
    The PM and opacity test data for 13 EAF facilities with 0 percent 
melt shop opacity were used as a major input to determine the BSER for 
melt shop opacity and for total facility-wide PM control device 
emissions (in units of mass of PM emissions per mass of steel 
produced). The cost, emissions reduction analyses, and other factors 
used in the determination of BSER are discussed below and in more 
detail in the memorandum titled Cost and Other Analyses to Determine 
BSER for PM Emissions and Opacity from EAF Facilities,6 
hereafter referred to as the Cost Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Cost Analyses to Determine BSER for PM Emissions and Opacity 
from EAF Facilities. D.L. Jones, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research 
Triangle Park, North Carolina, and G.E. Raymond, RTI International, 
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. March 1, 2022 (Docket ID No. 
EPA-OAR-2002-0049.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. BSER for Melt Shop Opacity
    To determine if 0 percent opacity is BSER for the EAF melt shop, an 
estimate of the PM emissions reductions compared to the baseline level 
of the current standards (40 CFR part 60, subparts AA and AAa), at 6 
percent, was made along with the costs to achieve the additional PM 
control and opacity reduction from 6 percent to 0 percent. We also 
considered other factors, such as the findings that the proposed melt 
shop opacity of 0 percent was being achieved by 19 of the 31 facilities 
for which the EPA has opacity data (from 2010), and that for the 
remaining 12 facilities, average opacity in the test data was no higher 
than 1.2 percent (with a range of 0.1 percent to 1.2 percent). Based on 
these data, we conclude that an opacity limit of 0 percent is feasible 
and well demonstrated.
    To determine the PM emission reductions, emissions data from the 
EAF dataset were used along with emission factors and EAF control 
information in an EPA background information document (BID) about the 
EAF industry prepared for the 1984 EAF NSPS.\7\ For assessing the costs 
of the reductions, it was assumed that facilities achieving 0 percent 
melt shop opacity have better fugitive collection than facilities with 
higher melt shop opacities. Consequently, for the BSER calculations, 
costs were assessed for adding a partial roof canopy (segmented canopy 
hood, closed roof over furnace, open roof monitor elsewhere) to collect 
PM emissions that might otherwise escape through the melt shop roof 
vents to achieve complete control of melt shop fugitives. The 
procedures used to determine whether 0 percent opacity using new canopy 
hooding is BSER are summarized below. Details of the BSER cost 
procedures can be found in the Cost Memorandum.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Electric Arc Furnaces and Argon-Oxygen Decarburization 
Vessels in Steel Industry--Background Information for Proposed 
Revisions to Standards--Draft EIS, Preliminary (EPA-450/3-82-020a). 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning 
and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. July 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PM Emission Reductions with 0 percent Opacity: Two approaches were 
used to develop estimates of PM emission reductions with the addition 
of a partial roof canopy in order to reduce melt shop opacity from 6 
percent to 0 percent. The resulting average PM emission reduction of 
the two estimates, at 660 megagram per year (Mg/yr) [730 tons per year 
(tpy)], was used in the final BSER calculation. The methodology for 
each of the two approaches is described below and in more detail in the 
Cost Memorandum.\6\
    The first method to estimate PM reductions to compare PM emissions 
with 0 percent melt shop opacity to emissions with 6 percent was 
partially based on data from the EAF BID.\7\ The average uncontrolled 
EAF PM emissions of 15 g/kg [29 lb/ton] from the EAF BID \8\ was used 
along with the average capture efficiency of a ``segmented canopy hood, 
closed roof over furnace, open roof monitor elsewhere,'' at 90 
percent,\9\ and the estimated steel production at an average EAF 
facility, at 490,000 Mg/yr [540,000 tpy] \10\ to estimate the roof vent 
PM emission rate of 630 Mg/yr [700 tpy]. This value was assumed to be 
the melt shop PM fugitive emission rate from the roof vent of a melt 
shop with 6 percent opacity, the current EAF NSPS opacity standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Electric Arc Furnaces and Argon-Oxygen Decarburization 
Vessels in Steel Industry--Background Information for Proposed 
Revisions to Standards--Draft EIS, Preliminary (EPA-450/3-82-020a). 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning 
and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 1982. Table 
3-7, p. 3-37.
    \9\ Electric Arc Furnaces and Argon-Oxygen Decarburization 
Vessels in Steel Industry--Background Information for Proposed 
Revisions to Standards--Draft EIS, Preliminary (EPA-450/3-82-010a). 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning 
and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Table 4-2, 
combination 2, p. 4-23.
    \10\ From the median of industry capacity data for EAF 
facilities provided to the EPA by SMA in 2018, assuming 70 percent 
capacity utilization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second method used to estimate PM emission reductions to 
compare PM emissions with 0 percent melt shop opacity to PM emissions 
with 6 percent opacity was based on data obtained from the EPA dataset 
for facilities with 0 or 6 percent melt shop opacity.\3\ Opacity and PM 
emission data were available for 9 EAF facilities, 12 EAF/AOD, 13 
baghouses, and 33 tests where 6 percent melt shop opacity was achieved; 
and 13 facilities, 21 EAF/AOD, 23 baghouses, and 51 individual tests 
where 0 percent melt shop opacity was achieved.\3\ The annual baghouse 
stack emissions for facilities with 6 percent melt shop opacity was 
estimated at 11,000 Mg/yr [12 tpy] PM based on an average emission rate 
of 22 mg/kg [4.4E-02 lb/ton] for nine facilities using an average steel 
production rate of 490,000 Mg/yr [540,000 tpy] steel, as discussed 
above.\10\ The total PM emissions generated by the EAF are the PM 
emissions sent to the baghouse plus the uncaptured emissions emanating 
from the melt shop as opacity, if not controlled to 0 percent opacity. 
The captured PM emissions routed to the baghouse can be calculated from 
the average PM emitted from the baghouse (11 Mg/yr [12 tpy]) in the EPA 
dataset and the assumption of baghouse control efficiency of 99.8 
percent, to produce an estimate of 5,500 Mg/yr [6,000 tpy] PM routed to 
the baghouse at a facility where 6 percent melt shop opacity was 
achieved.
    Further, in the second approach, to calculate total PM emissions 
generated (uncontrolled) by the EAF, the estimate of 5,500 Mg/yr [6,000 
tpy] uncaptured

[[Page 29717]]

PM routed to the baghouse estimated above, is added to an estimate of 
uncaptured PM emitted from the melt shop where there is 6 percent melt 
shop opacity. Using the estimate of 90 percent captured PM at a melt 
shop with 6 percent opacity, the total PM emissions generated by the 
EAF is calculated as 6,000 Mg/yr [6,700 tpy PM]. The difference between 
the PM generated and the PM captured, at 600 Mg/yr [670 tpy] is the 
second estimate of the amount of PM that is controlled when comparing 
the PM emitted from 6 percent melt shop opacity compared to 0 percent 
opacity, because all PM is captured at a 0 percent melt shop opacity 
facility.
    As a check on the estimate of 6,700 tpy total uncontrolled PM from 
the EAF, an emission factor in format of PM emitted per ton steel is 
calculated from the average steel production used in the calculations. 
The result, at 13 g/kg [25 lb/ton] PM emitted per ton steel, is in the 
expected range as that cited above in the first method, between 8.5 and 
21 g/kg [17 to 42 lb/ton]) from the EAF BID.\8\ This result also 
confirms that the baghouse efficiency value at 99.8 percent, used in 
the calculation is appropriate. The average of the results with the two 
methods, at 660 Mg PM/yr [730 tpy] controlled, is used in the BSER 
analysis as the additional PM controlled between 0 percent melt shop 
opacity and 6 percent.
    Costs for Installing and Operating a Partition Roof Canopy: Canopy 
hoods are a common method of controlling fugitive EAF emissions.\11\ To 
estimate the costs for EAF facilities to reduce their PM emissions and 
melt shop opacity from 6 percent to 0 percent opacity, the costs for 
addition of a partition roof canopy (above the crane rails) were 
estimated using the procedure and information from the Ferroalloys 
NESHAP, where EAF also are used and shop fugitives also are a 
concern.\12\ Detailed cost information from or about EAF facilities was 
not available to the EPA to directly calculate cost estimates for a 
canopy at steel-making EAF facilities; whereas, the ferroalloy cost 
estimates do include detailed cost input parameters from the ferroalloy 
industry which we used to estimate such costs at an EAF facility. The 
EPA seeks comment regarding this cost analysis and seeks detailed 
information on EAF source category-specific costs to further inform the 
development of the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Electric Arc Furnaces and Argon-Oxygen Decarburization 
Vessels in Steel Industry--Background Information for Proposed 
Revisions to Standards--Draft EIS, Preliminary (EPA-450/3-82-010a). 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning 
and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 1982.
    \12\ Cost Impacts of Control Options Considered for the 
Ferroalloys Production NESHAP to Address Fugitive HAP Emissions. 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning 
and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0895-0177. August 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To adapt the ferroalloy cost-estimating procedure to steelmaking 
EAF, equipment costs and other parameters were scaled by the ratio of 
the ferroalloys EAF flowrate at 200 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F) (9,400 
actual cubic meters per minute (acmm) [330,000 actual cubic feet per 
minute (acfm)] to EAF flowrate at 200[deg]F (18,000 acmm [640,000 
acfm]) for a medium-sized steel facility in the EAF data, which 
corresponded to 15,000 standard cubic meters per minute [530,000 
standard cubic feet per minute]. Using the ferroalloy cost estimates 
with the flowrate of a medium-sized steelmaking EAF produced capital 
costs for a partial canopy hood of $6,800,000; operating and 
maintenance costs are $340,000; and total annualized costs are $800,000 
in 2020 dollars for a medium-sized EAF. Similar cost analyses were done 
for a small and large EAF facility using flowrates from the EAF data. 
Table 1 shows the cost estimates for small, medium, and large EAF 
baghouses and melt shops to achieve 0 percent melt shop opacity with a 
partial roof canopy hood above the crane rails compared to model plants 
meeting the rule requirement of 6 percent opacity.

  Table 1--Model Plant Costs and Parameters for Achieving 0 Percent Melt Shop Opacity Compared to Model Plants
  Operating at the Current Rule Requirement of 6 Percent Opacity by Adding a Partial Roof Canopy Hood Above the
                                                   Crane Rails
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Model plant size
                     Cost parameter                     --------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Small              Medium             Large
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air flow, acmm [acfm]..................................     1,300 [45,000]   18,000 [640,000]             91,000
                                                                                                     [3,200,000]
Capital Costs..........................................           $480,000         $6,800,000        $34,000,000
Operating and Maintenance Costs........................            $27,000           $340,000         $1,700,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
    Total Annualized Costs.............................            $60,000           $800,000         $4,000,000
PM Removed 6% opacity to 0% opacity, Mg/yr [tpy].......            51 [56]          660 [730]      3,600 [4,000]
Cost-effectiveness, $/Mg [$/ton].......................    $1,200 [$1,100]    $1,200 [$1,100]    $1,100 [$1,000]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Numbers have been rounded and, therefore, may not calculate exactly.

    However, new, modified, or reconstructed facilities would need to 
comply with applicable state requirements, and programs such as New 
Source Review (NSR), if the NSR applicability criteria are met. Under 
NSR, certain technology requirements apply depending on the location of 
the facility (i.e., lowest achievable emission rates (LAER) in 
nonattainment areas, or best achievable control technology (BACT) in 
attainment areas). Therefore, the cost estimates shown in Table 1 are 
considered conservative (i.e., more likely to be overestimates than 
underestimates). We estimate that the actual cost impacts of the 
proposed 0 percent opacity limit likely would be lower because we 
expect any new, modified, or reconstructed facility would be able to 
meet the proposed opacity and PM limits without any additional control 
equipment beyond those already required by NSR or applicable state 
requirements, or by minor process changes to improve capture of exhaust 
flows or other process parameters, if needed.
    Overall Cost Effectiveness to Achieve 0 percent Melt Shop Opacity: 
Using the annual costs of $800,000 per year (described above), for a 
partition roof canopy (above the crane rails) for a medium-sized 
steelmaking EAF and a PM reduction of 660 Mg/yr [730 tpy] for achieving 
0 percent melt shop opacity compared to 6 percent opacity (also 
described above) the cost-effectiveness is $1,210 per Mg [$1,100 per 
ton] PM

[[Page 29718]]

removed for a medium-sized EAF and melt shop. The same analyses 
performed for small and large EAF baghouses and melt shops produced 
similar cost-effectiveness estimates, at $1,200 per Mg [$1,100 per ton] 
and $1,100 per Mg [$1,000 per ton] for small and large EAF baghouses, 
respectively, as shown in Table 1. The values of $1,200 per Mg [$1,100 
per ton] and lower are well within the range of what the EPA has 
considered cost-effective for the control of PM emissions, and, 
therefore, 0 percent melt shop opacity is considered BSER for EAF.
b. Facility-Wide Total PM Control Device Emission Limit
    The PM emissions data in the EAF dataset from the 13 EAF facilities 
with 0 percent opacity were used to determine BSER for EAF and AOD 
facilities along with the estimated costs of control. The number of PM 
test reports used per facility ranged from one (3-run) test to 10 
tests, with a median of three tests. The EAF facility total baghouse PM 
emissions per mass of steel produced from the 13 facilities with 0 
percent melt shop opacity ranged from a low of 6.5 mg/kg [0.013 lb/ton] 
to a high of 79 mg/kg [0.016 lb/ton] with a median of 26 mg/kg [0.052 
lb/ton].
    The control costs for a range of baghouse performance levels were 
estimated based on baghouse air-to-cloth (A/C) ratio, which is 
expressed in units of volume of air flow per unit bag area (i.e., 
cloth), or meters [feet] per unit of time. The A/C ratio is generally 
accepted as the most important design parameter between baghouses of 
different performance levels, where a low A/C ratio is considered to be 
the best level of control (less air and more baghouse filter cloth) and 
a high A/C ratio is a low or poor level control (high air volume and 
low baghouse filter area).\13\ Because no A/C ratio data were available 
in the EAF PM test reports, values for A/C from CAA section 114 
responses submitted by the integrated iron and steel (II&S) industry 
for the risk and technology review for 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF 
(85 FR 42074) \14\ ratio were used in the EAF BSER PM cost analysis. 
The baghouses used for emissions from furnaces in the II&S industry are 
expected to be similar in operation as the baghouses used at EAF/AOD 
for the purposes of this analysis. The A/C ratio in the II&S data 
ranged from a low of 24 m/s [1.3 ft/min] to a high of 130 m/s [7.2 ft/
min].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, Sixth Edition, EPA/
42/B-02-001. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research 
Triangle Park, NC. January 2002. Section 6, Particulate Matter 
Controls, Chapter 1, Baghouses and Filters. Available at: https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/catc/dir1/c_allchs.pdf.
    \14\ Summary of Questionnaire (Enclosure 1) Responses to EPA 
Information Collection Requests from Integrated Iron & Steel 
Facilities. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North 
Carolina. (Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083-0614).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to explore what level of PM emissions per mass of steel 
produced derived from the dataset would be BSER, five evenly-spaced 
points in the ranked PM mass rate data in the EAF data and five evenly-
spaced points in the ranked A/C ratios were matched to represent five 
model facilities of various levels of baghouse-controlled PM emissions, 
with the lowest (best) PM mass emission rate matched to the lowest 
(best) A/C ratio and labeled Model Plant A, and the highest in both 
variables labelled Model Plant E. The intermediary facilities were 
matched similarly so that there were five distinct operating levels to 
produce five model plants.
    In addition, a ``baseline'' model plant was developed using a PM 
mass emission rate (in mass PM per mass steel) that was estimated as 
equivalent to the current NSPS standard (in mass per unit flowrate) 
using the EAF dataset, where data in both mass emissions per mass of 
steel produced and in mass per unit flowrate were available. The PM 
mass emission rate for the baseline model plant was estimated using the 
ratio of the mass per unit flowrate of the highest emitting facility in 
the dataset (Model Plant E) at 9.2 mg/dscm [0.0040 gr/dscf] to the NSPS 
standard (12 mg/kg [0.0052 gr/dscf]) for a ratio of 0.77 (9.2/12 mg/kg 
[0.0040/0.0052 gr/dscf]), and back calculating an equivalent mass value 
using the 0.77 ratio and the PM mass rate of Model Plant E in units of 
mass PM per mass of steel produced (79 mg/kg [0.16 lb/ton]/0.77). The 
resulting value of 100 mg/kg [0.20 lb/ton] was used as an estimate of 
the PM mass emission rate per mass of steel produced for the NSPS 
baseline model plant. An A/C ratio of 8.0 was used for the baseline 
model plant, as the highest A/C ratio that realistically could be 
expected.\13\
    Table 2 shows the PM mass emission rates and A/C ratios for the 
five model plants and the baseline model plant. Details of the analysis 
are described in the Cost Memorandum.\6\

                                         Table 2--Model Plant Parameters
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  PM emission rate (PM per steel             A/C ratio
                                                             produced)           -------------------------------
                  Model plants                   --------------------------------
                                                       mg/kg          lb/ton           m/min          ft/min
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A...............................................             6.5           0.013            0.40             1.3
B...............................................              17           0.034            0.88             2.9
C...............................................              40            0.08             1.2             4.0
D...............................................              50            0.10             1.5             4.9
E...............................................              79            0.16             2.2             7.2
Baseline........................................             100            0.20             2.4             8.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The baseline model facility emissions are based on an estimate in units of mg/kg (lb/ton) of the current
  limit, which is in units of mg/dscm (gr/dscf).

    Steel production for each model facility size was taken from 
industry capacity data \15\ and corresponded to 45,000, 700,000, and 
3,100,000 Mg/yr [50,000, 780,000, and 3,500,000 tpy] \16\ for small, 
medium or ``average,'' and large facilities, respectively, where medium 
was determined from the median of industry data, and small and large 
were the smallest and largest facilities. Estimates of baghouse 
flowrate were taken from the EAF data, at 1,300, 18,000, and 91,000 
acmm [45,000, 640,000, and 3,200,000 acfm] \16\ for small, medium, and 
large facility-level baghouses, respectively. At these operating levels 
and the emission rate per mass of steel produced developed

[[Page 29719]]

from the PM emissions in the EAF data, as described above, the PM 
emissions for the Model Plants A through E range from 0.27 to 3.5 Mg/
yr, 4.6 to 55 Mg/yr, and 20 to 250 Mg/yr [0.30 to 3.9 tpy, 5.1 to 61 
tpy, and 23 to 270 tpy], for small, medium, and large facilities, 
respectively. For the baseline model plant, PM emissions were estimated 
to be 4.6, 72, and 320 Mg/yr [5.1, 72, and 350 tpy] for small, medium, 
and large facilities, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ From the industry capacity data for EAF facilities provided 
to the EPA by SMA in 2018.
    \16\ Numbers have been rounded and may not exactly match 
calculations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Costs of control were estimated using the EPA cost-estimating 
procedures \13\ based on model baghouses with flows and production 
levels for baghouses at small, medium, and large facilities, as 
described above. Differences in capital costs for the model plants 
mainly reflect the cost of bags needed for each A/C ratio. The 
operating and maintenance (O&M) costs reflect periodic replacement of 
bags, along with other typical baghouse O&M costs. Annual costs include 
the annualized capital costs combined with the annual operating and 
maintenance costs.
    Capital, annual O&M, and annualized costs were estimated for new 
baghouses at new facilities corresponding to the five model plants and 
the baseline model plant for small, medium or ``average,'' and large 
model facilities following the procedures in the EPA Cost Manual \13\ 
to meet each level of model plant PM emissions and A/C ratios, and for 
all three facility sizes. In this analysis, Model Plant A has the 
lowest emissions, the lowest A/C ratio, and the highest costs for a new 
baghouse at a new facility; and Model Plant E, has the highest 
emissions, highest A/C ratio, and lowest costs, for a new baghouse at a 
new facility; all model plants emit less PM emissions than a (new) 
baseline model plant, have lower A/C ratios, and have higher costs for 
a new baghouse at a new facility. The BSER PM level is determined by 
comparing the (new) baseline model plant costs and emissions to each 
model plant, starting with the model plant with the highest estimated 
emissions and lowest costs (Model Plant E), and ending with the model 
plant with the lowest emissions and highest costs (Model Plant A), and 
repeating the analysis for each of the three facility sizes, small, 
medium, and large.
    Estimated capital costs \6\ for new baghouses for Model Plants A 
through E ranged from $710,000 to $1,900,000 for a small facility; 
$4,300,000 to $21,000,000 for a medium facility; and $20,000,000 to 
$100,000,000 for a large facility. Operating and maintenance costs for 
the five model plants ranged from $190,000 to $260,000 for a small 
facility; $1,300,000 to $2,200,000 for a medium facility; and 
$5,500,000 to $10,000,000 for a large facility. Annual costs for the 
five model plants ranged from $238,000 to $380,000 for a small 
facility; $1,600,000 to $3,600,000 for a medium facility; and 
$6,800,000 to $17,000,000 for a large facility.
    Capital costs for the baseline facility were estimated to be 
$680,000 for a small facility, $3,900,000 for a medium facility, and 
$18,000,000 for a large facility. Operating and maintenance costs for 
the baseline facility were estimated to be $190,000 for a small 
facility, $1,300,000 for a medium facility, and $5,400,000 for a large 
facility. Annual costs for the baseline facility were estimated to be 
$236,000 for a small facility, $1,500,000 for a medium facility, and 
$6,600,000 for a large facility.\6\
    The results of the cost analyses in Table 3 for a medium-sized 
model facility show the estimated costs, PM emissions reduced, and 
cost-effectiveness for Model Plants A through E and the baseline model 
plant for a medium-size facility. The cost analyses in Table 3 indicate 
that the highest emitting model plant (E) in the cost analysis, at 79 
mg/kg [1.6E-01 lb/ton], is within the range of what the EPA has 
considered to be a cost-effective level of control for PM emissions 
relative to the baseline model plant, at approximately $2,000 per Mg PM 
removed [$1,800 per ton PM removed] for a medium-sized facility. This 
level reflects an estimated 22 percent reduction in emissions from the 
baseline model plant (100 mg/kg [0.20 lb/ton]). The cost impacts of the 
next level of emission control in the cost analysis for medium-sized 
facilities, for Model D (50 mg/kg (0.10 lb/ton)), is $6,100/Mg PM 
removed [$5,500/ton PM removed], which is at the higher end of the 
range that is considered cost-effective. Table 4 shows the estimated 
cost-effectiveness of increased PM control over the baseline for Model 
Plant E for all three facility sizes (small, medium, and large), which 
have approximately the same cost-effectiveness values as medium-sized 
facilities, at approximately $2,200 $/Mg [$2,000 per ton PM removed] 
for both small and large model facilities.

                                                  Table 3--Emissions, Costs and Cost-Effectiveness for a Medium-Size Model EAF Facility \1\ \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Cost for new baghouse at new
                                                                                  facility
 
                                                                       Cost-effectiveness
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model plant \3\ \4\                                                       EAF       Capital       Annual       Annual       Annual   Additional
                                                                     facility                        O&M        costs         cost           PM
                                                                           PM                                           difference   controlled
                                                                     emission                                                 from         from
                                                                         rate                                             baseline     baseline
                                                                                                                            (Delta   (Delta PM)   Delta Cost/Delta PM
                                                                                                                             Cost)                   from baseline
                                                                       Incremental cost-
                                                                     effectiveness to next
                                                                          model plant
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Mg/yr             $         $/yr         $/yr         $/yr        Mg/yr       $/Mg      $/ton       $/Mg           $/ton
                                                                        [tpy]                                                             [tpy]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A.................................................................  4.6 [5.1]   $21,000,000   $2,200,000   $3,600,000   $2,100,000      67 [74]    $31,000    $28,000   $194,000        $176,000
B.................................................................    12 [13]    10,000,000    1,600,000    2,200,000      700,000      60 [66]     12,000     11,000     20,000          18,000
C.................................................................    28 [31]     7,300,000    1,400,000    1,900,000      370,000      43 [48]      8,500      7,700     21,000          19,000
D.................................................................    35 [39]     6,100,000    1,300,000    1,700,000      220,000      36 [40]      6,100      5,500      9,400           8,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E \4\.............................................................    55 [61]     4,300,000    1,270,000    1,600,000       32,000      16 [18]      2,000      1,800              NA
Baseline \5\......................................................    72 [79]     3,900,000    1,260,000    1,500,000           NA           NA         NA         NA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 \1\ A medium-size facility is estimated to produce 700,000 Mg/yr [775,000 tpy] steel at capacity.
\2\ Numbers may not calculate exactly due to rounding.
\3\ The standards for the model plants are as follows: A = 6.5 mg/kg (0.013 lb/ton); B = 17 mg/kg (0.034 lb/ton); C = 40 mg/kg (0.08 lb/ton); D = 50 mg/kg (0.10 lb/ton); E = 79 mg/kg (0.16 lb/
  ton). See Table 2. Model Facility E represents the standard being proposed.
\4\ See Table 2 for additional model plant parameters.
\5\ The baseline model facility emissions are based on an estimate in units of mg/kg (lb/ton) of the current limit, which is in units of mg/dscm (gr/dscf).


[[Page 29720]]


      Table 4--Costs for New Baghouses at New Facilities for Model Plant E (BSER) Compared to Baseline at Small, Medium, and Large Model Facilities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Cost for new baghouse \2\                Additional
                                         EAF     -----------------------------------------------------      PM                         Incremental cost-
                                     facility PM                                             Annual     controlled        Cost-         effectiveness to
         Model facility \1\            emission                                 Annual    costs Delta      from     effectiveness \2\   next model plant
                                         rate        Capital     Annual O&M     costs         from       baseline                         (D) \1\ \2\
                                                                                            baseline      level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Mg/yr             $         $/yr         $/yr         $/yr        Mg/yr         Delta $/Mg               $/Mg
                                           [tpy]                                                             [tpy]            [$/ton]            [$/ton]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Small Facility \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model E............................    3.6 [3.9]      $710,000     $190,000     $238,000       $2,290    1.1 [1.2]    $2,200 [$2,000]   $10,000 [$9,300]
Baseline...........................    4.6 [5.1]       680,000      190,000      236,000  ...........  ...........  .................  .................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Medium Facility \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model E............................      55 [61]     4,300,000    1,270,000    1,550,000       32,400      16 [18]      2,000 [1,800]      9,400 [8,500]
Baseline...........................      72 [79]     3,900,000    1,260,000    1,520,000  ...........  ...........  .................  .................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Large Facility \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model E............................    246 [271]    20,000,000    5,500,000    6,730,000      162,000      73 [80]      2,200 [2,000]     11,000 [9,600]
Baseline...........................    318 [351]    18,000,000    5,400,000    6,570,000  ...........  ...........  .................  .................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The baseline model facility emissions are based on emissions in units of mg/kg (lb/ton) of the current limit, which is in units of mg/dscm (gr/
  dscf). Model Facility E represents the standard being proposed (79 mg/kg [0.16 lb/ton]). Model D is the next higher level of control (50 mg/kg [0.10
  lb/ton]). See Table 2.
\2\ Cost numbers may not calculate exactly due to rounding.
\3\ Production levels are 45,000, 700,000, and 3,100,000 Mg/yr [45,000, 775,000, 3,450,000 tpy] at small, medium, and large model facilities,
  respectively.

    Tables 3 and 4 also show that the incremental cost-effectiveness of 
the model plants compared to the next level of emissions control. In 
Table 4, the incremental cost difference between Model E compared to 
Model Plant D, the next level of emission control, is shown for all 
three sizes of model plants. For a medium-sized model plant, the 
incremental cost-effectiveness comparing Model Plant E to Model Plant D 
is at the higher end of the range that is considered cost-effective, at 
$9,400/Mg [$8,500/ton]. The incremental cost-effectiveness is even 
greater for small and large facilities, at greater than or equal to 
$10,000/Mg ($9,300/ton), also shown in Table 4. Because the control 
costs for the BSER analysis were derived from A/C ratios taken from 
integrated iron and steel baghouses, there is some uncertainty 
regarding the A/C ratios and costs for EAF facilities. For this reason, 
in the BSER determination, we have selected Model Plant E to ensure the 
BSER control level is feasible for new, modified, or reconstructed EAF 
facilities. Detailed cost information for Model Plants A through E for 
all three sizes of facilities are shown in the Cost Memorandum.\6\
c. Overall Reduction in EAF Emissions With Facility-Wide PM Limit at 79 
mg/kg (0.16 lb/ton) and 0 Percent Melt Shop Opacity Standard
    The baghouses at EAF facilities with 0 percent melt shop opacity 
under the proposed standard (79 mg/kg (0.16 lb/ton)), would emit an 
estimated 39 Mg/yr [43 tpy] PM emissions for an average facility 
producing 492,100 Mg/yr (542,500 tpy steel).\10\ By contrast, the 
estimated PM emissions from a baghouse where there is 6 percent melt 
shop opacity are 11 Mg/yr (12 tpy) for an average facility.\10\ [See 
the example provided in section III.A.2.a (BSER for Melt Shop Opacity)] 
Because the PM prevented from exiting the roof vent is instead 
collected and sent to the baghouses, this results in an additional 28 
Mg/yr (31 tpy) PM emissions (39 Mg/yr minus 11 Mg/yr [43 tpy minus 12 
tpy]) emitted from the baghouse at a 0 percent melt shop opacity 
(average-sized) facility as compared to a melt shop at 6 percent 
opacity. The total PM emissions prevented from being emitted with 0 
percent melt shop opacity compared to 6 percent opacity are 663 Mg/yr 
(731 tpy). However, baghouses have high efficiencies of 98 percent and 
higher; therefore, the additional baghouse PM emissions of 28 Mg/yr [31 
tpy] are much lower than the PM that would have otherwise been emitted 
out the roof vents. Therefore, despite the additional baghouse 
emissions, the net amount of PM prevented from being emitted at the 
average facility is 635 Mg/yr (700 tpy), or 663 Mg/yr minus 28 Mg/yr 
(731 tpy minus 31 tpy), presenting a clear case of effective overall 
emissions prevention.
    The NSPS general provisions (CAA section 60.11(c)) currently 
excludes opacity requirements during periods of startup, shutdown and 
malfunction. We are proposing that opacity limits in 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart AAb would apply at all times along with all other emissions 
limits and standards because there are no technical limitations known 
to prevent new, reconstructed, or modified facilities from meeting all 
standards at all times.
3. Requirement for Compliance Testing Every Five Years
    We are proposing that sources complying with 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart AAb would be required to perform compliance testing every 5 
years after the initial testing performed upon startup, as required 
under 40 CFR part 60.8. This requirement already is required in many of 
the permits for existing EAF in the EAF dataset and in the industry, 
and is a standard requirement for testing for other sources of PM 
emissions for many other industrial sectors.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 40 CFR part 63 (National Emission Standards for Hazardous 
Air Pollutants) subparts: FFFFF (Integrated Iron and Steel 
Manufacturing); DDDD (Plywood and Composite Wood Products 
Manufacture); LLLLL (Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing 
Manufacturing); RRRRR (Taconite Iron Ore Processing); UUU (Petroleum 
Refineries: Catalytic Cracking Units, Catalytic Reforming Units, and 
Sulfur Recovery Units).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Review of EAF NSPS Standards for Opacity From EAF Control Devices 
and Dust Handling Systems
    The current NSPS standards for EAF in 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA 
and AAa, require less than 3 percent opacity from control device 
(baghouse) exhaust and less than 10 percent for dust handling 
procedures. In the EAF dataset discussed above, no facilities reported 
lower levels of opacity for these sources nor were lower levels 
required in any permits for these or any other EAF

[[Page 29721]]

facilities. In addition, in determinations reported in the RACT/BACT/
LAER Clearinghouse,\4\ only the current levels in the rule for baghouse 
exhaust (9 facilities) and dust handling systems (3 facilities) were 
considered BACT. Therefore, the conclusion of this review is that the 
opacity standards for control device exhaust and dust handling systems 
should remain the same.
5. Proposal of 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart AAb Without Startup, Shutdown, 
Malfunction Exemptions
    In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. 
Cir. 2008), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit (the court) vacated portions of two provisions in the 
EPA's CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during 
periods of SSM. 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 section 112 standards apply continuously. 
Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, we are proposing standards in this 
rule that apply at all times. The NSPS general provisions in 40 CFR 
60.11 (c) currently exclude opacity requirements during periods of 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction and the provision in 40 CFR 60.8(c) 
contains an exemption from nonopacity standards. We are proposing in 40 
CFR part 60, subpart AAb a specific requirement at 60.272b (c) that 
overrides the general provisions for SSM. As provided in 60.11(f), we 
are proposing that all standards in 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAb apply 
at all times, including both opacity and nonopacity limits.
    The EPA has attempted to ensure that the general provisions we are 
proposing to override are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in 
the absence of the SSM exemption. We are specifically seeking comment 
on whether we have successfully done so.
    In proposing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into 
account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained 
below, is not proposing alternate standards for those periods because 
we believe both the PM and opacity standards can be met at all times. 
With regard to malfunctions, these events are described in the 
following paragraph.
    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 60.2). 
The EPA interprets CAA section 111 as not requiring emissions that 
occur during periods of malfunction to be factored into development of 
CAA section 111 standards. Nothing in CAA section 111 or in case law 
requires that the EPA consider malfunctions when determining what 
standards of performance reflect the degree of emission limitation 
achievable through ``the application of the best system of emission 
reduction'' that the EPA determines is adequately demonstrated. While 
the EPA accounts for variability in setting emissions standards. 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 section 111 standards of performance. 
The EPA's approach to malfunctions in the analogous circumstances 
(setting ``achievable'' standards under section 112) has been upheld as 
reasonable by the D.C Circuit in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 
606-610 (D.C. Cir. 2016).

B. Amendments to Standards of Performance for Steel Plants: Electric 
Arc Furnaces Constructed After October 21, 1974, and on or Before 
August 17, 1983, and Standards of Performance for Steel Plants: 
Electric Arc Furnaces and Argon-Oxygen Decarburization Vessels 
Constructed After August 17, 1983, and on or Before May 16, 2022

    Amendments to 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA and AAa are being 
proposed to clarify and refine the rule requirements by adding, 
removing, or revising ambiguous or outdated definitions, compliance, 
measurement, monitoring, and reporting requirements; specifically, 40 
CFR part 60, sections 60.271 and 60.271a ``Definitions'', 60.272 and 
60.272a ``Standard for particulate matter'', 60.273 and 60.273a 
``Emission monitoring'', 60.274a ``Monitoring of operations'', 60.275a 
``Test methods and procedures'', and 60.276a ``Recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements''.
    We are proposing minor revisions to 40 CFR part 63, subparts AA and 
AAa (and also include in proposed subpart AAb) in the above-mentioned 
sections to clarify the rule and enhance compliance and enforcement. 
One change being considered but not proposed is discussed in further 
detail in the following paragraphs. The EPA requests comments as to the 
appropriateness of all the revisions proposed or considered.
    The current rules, 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA and AAa, require 
facilities to respond to a BLDS alarm and complete corrective action 
for the cause of the alarm within 3 hours. However, the industry has 
stated that there have been instances where there was insufficient time 
to respond to a BLDS alarm within 3 hours to both find and fix the 
cause of a BLDS alarm. According to the SMA, facility owners and 
operators report that determining the cause of the alarm often requires 
operators to undertake a multi-step troubleshooting process that 
requires numerous physical inspections and other diagnostic efforts 
that sometimes takes longer than 3 hours.
    Some baghouses in the industry can have more than 25 compartments 
housing 5,000 or more individual bags. In these instances, facilities 
may have to sequentially isolate compartments to determine which 
compartment might have caused the BLDS alarm. The facility must then 
physically examine each of the compartments. If a bag has a significant 
rupture, the cause of the alarm likely will be apparent during that 
inspection. However, given the sensitivity of BLDS, the alarms can be 
triggered by extremely small holes in bags. The SMA claims that, in 
these cases, even physical observation can fail to find any leak within 
the allocated time period. In the case of a false alarm, which can 
happen in some cases due to the sensitivity of the BLDS, the careful 
search of the isolated compartment(s) will yield no useful information, 
as per the SMA. However, it is important that baghouses work properly 
on a continuous basis to minimize PM emissions and that leaks, if 
present, are identified and fixed in a timely manner.
    Given the concerns raised by the SMA, we are soliciting comments as 
to whether the EPA should allow owners and operators a longer time 
period (e.g., 8 hours, 12 hours, or 24 hours) to find and fix the cause 
of a BLDS alarm, which would be more consistent with the time period 
permitted in some other related rules, such as in the Integrated Iron 
and Steel NESHAP, as promulgated in 2003, 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF 
(see https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2015-title40-vol14/pdf/CFR-2015-title40-vol14-part63-subpartFFFFF.pdf), and the Taconite Iron 
Ore Processing NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRRR, also promulgated 
in 2003 (see https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2015-title40-
vol15/pdf/CFR-2015-

[[Page 29722]]

title40-vol15-part63-subpartRRRRR.pdf), which both allow a 24-hour 
response time to address BLDS alarms.
    We are soliciting comments, data, and other information regarding 
this issue and whether the EPA should change the time to both find and 
fix the cause of a BLDS alarm from 3 hours to a longer timeframe (e.g., 
24 hours as in other rules, or some other duration), including whether 
this change would be an appropriate amount of time to allow for such 
action, and information supporting this change. We also solicit 
comments or suggestions regarding potential measures that could be 
required to be taken by facility owners or operators during the time 
the BLDS alarm is being investigated to ensure that the increase in 
time allowed to address a BLDS alarm does not result in an increase in 
emissions beyond the level allowable under the rule. For example, if we 
provided additional time to find and repair the cause of the alarm, are 
there additional steps that could be taken to ensure that the facility 
continues to comply with the current emissions standards (e.g., opacity 
limit of less than 3 percent) during that period such as by requiring 
the facility to conduct an opacity test (EPA Method 9) or visible 
emissions test (EPA Method 21) on a regular basis (e.g., once every 
hour) until the cause of the alarm is found and fixed.

C. Electronic Reporting

    The EPA is proposing that owners or operators of EAF facilities 
submit electronic copies of required performance test/demonstration of 
compliance reports and semiannual 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 would require that 
performance test/demonstration of compliance results collected using 
test methods that are supported by the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool 
(ERT) as listed on the ERT website \18\ 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/demonstration of compliance results be submitted 
in portable document format (PDF) using the attachment module of the 
ERT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For semiannual reports, the proposed rule would require that owners 
or operators use the appropriate spreadsheet template to submit 
information to CEDRI. A draft version of the proposed templates for 
these reports is included in the docket for this action.\19\ The EPA 
specifically requests comment on the content, layout, and overall 
design of the template.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See 40 CFR part 60, subpart A, AAa, and AAb, Standards of 
Performance for Steel Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces and Argon-Oxygen 
Decarburization Vessels, 40 CFR part 60.276(g) Semiannual Compliance 
Report Spreadsheet Template, available at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2002-0049.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 or 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 or 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, equipment 
failure, or safety hazards beyond the control of the facility. The EPA 
is providing these potential extensions to protect owners or 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 would increase the usefulness of the data contained in those 
reports and is keeping with current trends in data availability and 
transparency. Electronic submittal would further assist in the 
protection of public health and the environment by improving 
compliance, 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. Ultimately, electronic 
reporting would reduce the burden on regulated facilities, delegated 
air agencies, and the EPA by making the data easy to record and read. 
Electronic reporting also eliminates paper waste and redundancies and 
minimizes data reporting errors. The resulting electronic data are more 
quickly and accurately accessible to the affected facilities, air 
agencies, the EPA, and the public. Moreover, electronic reporting is 
consistent with the EPA's plan \20\ to implement Executive Order 13563 
and is in keeping with the EPA's agency-wide policy \21\ developed in 
response to the White House's Digital Government Strategy.\22\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews. August 
2011. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156-0154.
    \21\ E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA Regulations. September 
2013. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-2013-09-30.pdf.
    \22\ Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to 
Better Serve the American People. May 2012. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digital-government.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the air quality and other environmental impacts?

    For proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAb, the reductions in PM 
potentially emitted would have a beneficial air impact when comparing 6 
percent melt shop opacity in the baseline to the 0 percent opacity 
proposed for 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAb. Similarly, reductions in PM 
less than 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5) potentially emitted also 
are estimated from new, modified and reconstructed EAF under the 
proposed NSPS rule, 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAb, compared to the 
emissions that are allowed under the current NSPS with 6 percent melt 
shop opacity.
    Based on the actual emissions emitted by 31 facilities in the EAF 
data, where the actual average opacity was 0.14 percent, the emissions 
impact for PM from nine new facilities projected in the next 10 years 
(estimated to reflect three small, four medium, and two large) is 
estimated to be an emissions reduction of 142 Mg (157 tons) PM that 
would otherwise be emitted in 2032. Using an estimate of 0.218 \23\ for 
the ratio of PM2.5

[[Page 29723]]

to PM the emissions impact for PM2.5 from nine new 
facilities projected in the next 10 years, as above, would be an 
emissions reduction of 30 Mg (33 tons) of PM2.5 in 2032. 
Details of the emissions estimates can be found in the memorandum 
titled ``Particulate Matter Emissions from Electric Arc Furnace 
Facilities'' located in the docket for this rule (Docket ID No. EPA-
OAR-2002-0049) and hereafter referred to as the ``Emissions 
Memorandum.'' No PM emission reductions are estimated for the new PM 
limit for facility-wide total baghouse emissions in mg/Mg (lb/ton) 
because all facilities in the 2010 EAF data could meet the new limit 
and, therefore, we expect that all new facilities also would be able to 
meet the limit. The EPA asks for comments on these assumptions and for 
emission test reports, where appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The PM2.5 to PM ratio is an average of similar 
uncontrolled sources, as cited in ``Evaluation of PM2.5 
Emissions and Controls at Two Michigan Steel Mills and a Coke Oven 
Battery.'' Final Report. Work Assignment 4-12 under EPA Contract No. 
68-D-01-073 by RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC. U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. 
February 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Solid wastes would increase slightly, approximately 17 tons per 
facility, on average, with the additional PM collected to meet 0 
percent melt shop opacity limit under proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart 
AAb as compared to current facilities meeting opacity limits under 40 
CFR part 60, subparts AA and AAa. The small increase in solid wastes 
would be the same for both the carbon and specialty steel shops. 
However, most EAF dust is recycled to reclaim zinc.24 25
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Proven Waelz Kiln Technology. Accessed 2/18/22. http://www.globalsteeldust.com/waelz_kiln_technology.
    \25\ R[uuml]tten, J. Application of the Waelz Technology on 
Resource Recycling of Steel Mill Dust. D[uuml]sseldorf: GmbH. D-
40225, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A relatively small increase in energy results from the use of 
electricity to power fans that draw EAF exhaust air into the canopy 
hood that captures the PM and sends PM-laden air to the baghouse, at 
66, 940, 4,700 MW-hr per year for small, medium, and large facilities, 
respectively. Some decrease in energy use may occur if the A/C ratio of 
the fabric filters to meet the proposed facility baghouse standard is 
lowered due to an increase in number of bags.
    Finally, there would be no water or noise impacts with the proposed 
40 CFR part 60, subpart AAb.

B. What are the cost impacts?

    Costs are estimated for regular testing every 5 years for nine new 
facilities projected in the 10 years after proposal. Annual testing 
costs are $6,672 per year for conducting EPA Method 5 for PM emissions 
at each baghouse's exhaust for each facility over a 5-year period, 
using an estimate of 1.64 baghouses per facility based on the EAF data. 
While new sources that start up after proposal would be subject to 
testing every five years under the proposed NSPS, 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart AAb, EPA Method 5 testing is required upon initial startup 
under 40 CFR part 60.8. Therefore, in the first 5 years after startup 
there would be no testing costs as a result of the proposed rule for 
new sources that start up in this period. In the sixth year through the 
tenth year after initial startup, the new sources estimated to start up 
in the first five years after proposal would incur costs of 
approximately $6,000 per year for testing, based on an estimate of 0.9 
new facilities per year (0.9 x $6,672). Because the startup of new 
facilities is estimated to be staggered, with 0.9 new facilities 
starting each year after proposal, the total costs for testing under 
this rule after the initial testing required under 40 CFR part 60.8 
would range from approximately $6,000 in the sixth year after proposal 
to a total of approximately $30,000 in the tenth year after proposal 
(reflecting costs for 4.5 facilities (0.9 x 5 years)), where the 
testing costs that would occur in years six through ten are for the new 
facilities that start up in years one through five after proposal.
    Based on information from 2010 through 2017 obtained by the EPA for 
31 EAF facilities, the EPA found the average opacity to be 0.14 
percent, with about half of the units achieving 0 percent opacity in 
the tests. Because opacity in the baseline in already low, the EPA 
expects any new, modified or reconstructed facility would be able to 
meet the proposed opacity and PM limits without any additional control 
devices beyond those already required by the NSR program or applicable 
state requirements or by minor process changes to improve capture of 
exhaust flows or other process parameters, if needed. While the actual 
cost impacts of the proposed 0 percent opacity limit would likely be 
substantially lower, the EPA developed an upper bound estimate of 
potential compliance costs based upon the assumption that affected 
units would install a partial roof canopy above the crane rails to 
ensure 0 percent melt shop opacity compared to a hypothetical baseline 
model facility meeting 6 percent opacity. These costs are estimated to 
be $60,000, $800,000, and $4,000,000 per year per facility for small, 
medium, and large model facilities, respectively.
    Total annual costs for 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAb, based on nine 
new facilities in the first 10 years after proposal are $180,000 per 
year for three small facilities, $3,200,000 per year for four medium 
facilities, and $8,000,000 per year for two large facilities for a 
total of $11,380,000 per year by the tenth year after proposal using 
the same staggered startup rate described above for testing costs. 
Details of the cost estimates can be found in the Cost Memorandum.\6\
    For the proposed mass-based PM standard in mg/kg (lb/ton) for 
facility-wide total baghouse PM emissions, we estimated the capital and 
annual costs between a baseline scenario based on the current NSPS 
individual baghouse limit (in mg/dscm (gr/dscf)) and a scenario based 
on a lower total facility-wide baghouse PM emissions in mg/kg (lb/ton), 
the format for the BSER we are proposing. Because data from the 31 
existing EAF facilities in the 2010 data acquired by the EPA that was 
used to develop the facility-wide PM limit show these facilities 
already could meet the 79 mg/kg (0.16 lb/ton) total facility baghouse 
PM limit, we expect the proposed mass-based standard applied to future 
new, modified, and reconstructed EAF facilities would be feasible and 
pose minimal cost impacts, if any. The EPA asks for comments on these 
cost assumptions and for emission test reports, where appropriate.
    Additional cost analysis, including calculation of costs using the 
upper bound cost estimates for the installation of partial roof 
canopies, can be found in the Economic Impact Analysis (EIA) associated 
with this proposal, which is available in the docket for this rule. The 
EIA additionally presents costs in terms of the present value and 
equivalent annual value of projected compliance costs over the 2023 to 
2032 period discounted at 3 and 7 percent.

C. 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 regulatory requirement. As discussed in section 
IV.B., the cost analysis incorporates the assumption that units 
affected by the new subpart AAb would install a partial roof canopy 
above the crane rails to ensure 0 percent melt shop opacity compared to 
a hypothetical baseline model facility meeting 6 percent opacity. The 
costs should be viewed as upper bound

[[Page 29724]]

estimates on the potential compliance costs as the EPA expects any new, 
modified or reconstructed facility would be able to meet the proposed 
opacity and PM limits without any additional control devices beyond 
those already required by the NSR program or applicable state 
requirements or by minor process changes to improve capture of exhaust 
flows or other process parameters, if needed. As discussed in the EIA, 
even under the upper bound cost assumptions described above, the EPA 
expects the potential economic impacts of this proposal will be small.
    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), we performed 
an analysis to determine if any small entities might be 
disproportionately impacts the proposed requirements. The EPA does not 
know what firms will construct new facilities in the future and, as a 
result, cannot perform a cost-to-sales analysis with the same 
confidence as we do with firms owning existing facilities. However, 
based on an assessment of the new units built during the 2011 to 2020 
period and the units that have been announced, which are all owned by 
firms that are not considered to be small businesses, the EPA does not 
believe it is likely that any future facilities will be built by a 
small business. See the EIA in the docket for this action for 
additional information on the analysis presented in this section.

D. What are the benefits?

    The proposed revisions to 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA and AAa would 
both clarify the rule and enhance compliance and enforcement. 
Implementing the proposed subpart, 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAb, is 
expected to reduce PM emissions, including PM2.5. As 
explained in section IV.A, the proposed requirements are projected to 
reduce 30 Mg (33 tons) of PM2.5 in 2032. These emissions 
reductions would be expected to produce health benefits in the affected 
locations. The Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter 
(ISA) report \26\ contains synthesized toxicological, clinical, and 
epidemiological evidence that the EPA uses to determine whether each 
pollutant is causally related to an array of adverse human health 
outcomes associated with either acute (i.e., hours or days-long) or 
chronic (i.e., years-long) exposure. For each outcome, the ISA report 
includes the EPA conclusions as to whether this relationship is causal, 
likely to be causal, suggestive of a causal relationship, inadequate to 
infer a causal relationship, or not likely to be a causal relationship.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final 
Report, 2019). EPA/600/R-19/188. U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Washington, DC. 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the ISA report it was found that acute exposure to 
PM2.5 was causally related to cardiovascular effects and 
mortality (i.e., premature death), and respiratory effects as likely-
to-be-causally related. In the ISA report, the EPA identified 
cardiovascular effects and total mortality as causally related to long-
term exposure to PM2.5 and respiratory effects as likely-to-
be-causal; and the evidence was suggestive of a causal relationship for 
reproductive and developmental effects as well as cancer, mutagenicity, 
and genotoxicity.
    The benefits per ton (BPT) of the PM2.5 emissions 
reductions cited above for years 2025 and 2030 and at 3 percent and 7 
percent discount rates are presented in Table 5 below in 2020 dollars. 
Information regarding the process by which these BPTs were calculated 
is available in the technical support document Estimating the Benefit 
per Ton of Reducing Directly-Emitted PM2.5, PM2.5 
Precursors and Ozone Precursors from 21 Sectors.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Estimating the Benefit per Ton of Reducing Directly-emitted 
PM2.5, PM2.5 Precursors and Ozone Precursors 
from 21 Sectors. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air 
and Radiation, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. 2022. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-10/source-apportionment-tsd-oct-2021_0.pdf.

                                   Table 5--Benefits per Ton of PM2.5 Reduced
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              $/ton PM2.5 emission reductions--$2020
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                      Year                            3 Percent discount rate         7 Percent discount rate
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Low            High             Low            High
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2025............................................        $407,000        $413,000        $366,000        $371,000
2030............................................         431,000         449,000         388,000         404,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The range reported here reflects the use of risk estimates from two alternative long-term exposure PM-
  mortality studies.

E. What are the environmental justice impacts?

    Consistent with the EPA's commitment to integrating environmental 
justice (EJ) in the agency's actions, and following the directives set 
forth in multiple Executive Orders,\28\ the Agency has carefully 
considered the impacts of this action on communities with EJ concerns, 
as per Executive Order 12898 (see section V.J below for more 
discussion). We do not know the locations of future new, modified, or 
reconstructed facilities that are affected by this rule, therefore, we 
assessed the population living in areas around existing EAF facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations. 59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Demographic proximity analyses allow one to assess the proximity of 
vulnerable populations to environmental hazards as a proxy for exposure 
and the potential for adverse health impacts that may occur at a local 
scale due to economic activity at a given location such as noise, 
odors, and traffic. We include the following proximity screening 
analyses to characterize the potential for communities with EJ concerns 
to be impacted by emissions sources covered under this EPA action.
    Although baseline proximity analyses are presented here, several 
important caveats should be noted. Emissions are not expected to 
increase from the proposed rulemaking, so most communities nearby 
affected facilities should not experience increases in exposure from 
directly-emitted pollutants. However, facilities may vary widely in 
terms of the risk they already pose to nearby populations; therefore, 
proximity to affected facilities does not capture the variation in 
baseline exposure across communities. Nor does it indicate that any 
exposures or impacts would occur and should not be interpreted as a 
direct measure of exposure or impact. These points limit the usefulness 
of proximity analyses when attempting to answer question 1

[[Page 29725]]

or 2 from the EPA's EJ technical guidance: (1) [Does the rule] ``create 
new disproportionate impacts on minority populations, low-income 
populations, and/or indigenous peoples''; and (2) [Does the rule] 
``exacerbate existing disproportionate impacts on minority populations, 
low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples.'' \29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in 
Regulatory Actions. Section 3: Key Analytic Considerations, 3.1 
Analyzing Differential Impacts. U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Washington, DC. June 2016. p. 11. See https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-06/documents/ejtg_5_6_16_v5.1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that while the total proportion of people of color in 
proximity to existing EAF facilities is similar to the national 
average, the population of African Americans is higher than the 
national average. Also, the education level of populations near 
existing sources is similar to the national average; however, the 
percent of population living below the poverty level is above the 
national average.
    For the new EAF proposed rule, subpart, 40 CFR part AAb, the EPA 
expects that the proposed rule would enhance compliance by increasing 
the frequency of emissions testing, reducing emissions of PM by meeting 
a lower opacity limit for melt shop roof vents, improving the reporting 
of total facility-wide baghouse emissions, and requiring facilities to 
meet the proposed standards, including opacity, at all times, thereby 
overriding compliance exemptions in the General Provisions to CAA part 
60 (part 60.11(c)) provided for opacity during periods of startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction.
    Following is a more detailed description of how the agency 
considers EJ in the context of regulatory development, and specific 
actions taken to address EJ concerns for this action.
    Executive Order 12898 directs the EPA to identify the populations 
of concern who are most likely to experience unequal burdens from 
environmental harms; specifically, minority populations, low-income 
populations, and indigenous peoples (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 
Additionally, Executive Order 13985 is intended to advance racial 
equity and support underserved communities through federal government 
actions (86 FR 7009, January 20, 2021). The EPA defines EJ as ``the 
fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of 
race, color, national origin, or income, with respect to the 
development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, 
regulations, and policies.'' \30\ The EPA further defines the term fair 
treatment to mean that ``no group of people should bear a 
disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including 
those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of 
industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and 
policies.'' In recognizing that minority and low-income populations 
often bear an unequal burden of environmental harms and risks, the EPA 
continues to consider ways of protecting them from adverse public 
health and environmental effects of air pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To examine some population demographics of communities residing 
nearby existing sources, we performed a demographic analysis, which is 
an assessment of individual demographic groups of the populations 
living within 5 kilometers (km) and within 50 km of the facilities. The 
EPA then compared the data from this analysis to the national average 
for each of the demographic groups.
    This action proposes standards of performance for new, modified, 
and reconstructed EAF sources that commence construction after the rule 
is proposed. Therefore, the locations of the construction of new EAF 
facilities are not known. In addition, it is not known which of the 
existing EAF facilities would be modified or reconstructed in the 
future. Therefore, the demographic analysis was conducted for the 88 
existing EAF facilities as a characterization of the demographics in 
areas where these facilities are now located.
    The results of the demographic analysis (see Table 6) indicate 
that, for populations within 5 km of the 88 existing EAF facilities, 
the percent minority population (being the total population minus the 
white population) is below the national average (37 percent versus 40 
percent). This difference is largely driven by the percent Hispanic or 
Latino population that is lower than the national average (14 percent 
versus 19 percent). However, the percent of the population that is 
African American is above the national average (17 percent versus 12 
percent). The percent of people living below the poverty level is 
higher than the national average (17 percent versus 13 percent). The 
percent of the population over 25 without a high school diploma and the 
percent of the population in linguistic isolation are similar to the 
national averages.
    The results of the analysis of populations within 50 km of the 88 
EAF facilities is similar to the 5 km analysis for minorities, with 
lower total minorities being driven by a smaller Hispanic or Latino 
population and the African American population being slightly above the 
national average. However, the percent of the population living below 
the poverty level, over 25 without a high school diploma, and in 
linguistic isolation were all similar to the national averages.
    A summary of the demographic assessment performed for the EAF 
facilities is included as Table 6. The methodology and the results of 
the demographic analysis are presented in a technical report, Analysis 
of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Electric Arc Furnace 
Facilities, available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2002-0049).

                           Table 6--Demographic Assessment Results for EAF Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Population      Population
                                                                                   within 50 km   within 5 km of
                        Demographic group                           Nationwide    of 88 existing    88 existing
                                                                                  EAF facilities  EAF facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population................................................     328,016,242      71,577,375       2,781,377
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          White and Minority by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White...........................................................             60%             62%             63%
Minority........................................................             40%             38%             37%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 29726]]

 
                                               Minority by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
African American................................................             12%             15%             17%
Native American.................................................            0.7%            0.3%            0.3%
Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite)................             19%             15%             14%
Other and Multiracial...........................................              8%              8%              7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Income by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level.............................................             13%             13%             17%
Above Poverty Level.............................................             87%             87%             83%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Education by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without a High School Diploma.......................             12%             11%             11%
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma..........................             88%             89%             89%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Linguistically Isolated by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated.........................................              5%              5%              4%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
1. The nationwide population count and all demographic percentages are based on the Census' 2015-2019 American
  Community Survey five-year block group averages and include Puerto Rico. Demographic percentages based on
  different averages may differ. The total population counts within 5 km and 50 km of all facilities are based
  on the 2010 Decennial Census block populations.
2. Minority population is the total population minus the white population.
3. To avoid double counting, the ``Hispanic or Latino'' category is treated as a distinct demographic category
  for these analyses. A person is identified as one of five racial/ethnic categories above: White, African
  American, Native American, Other and Multiracial, or Hispanic/Latino. A person who identifies as Hispanic or
  Latino is counted as Hispanic/Latino for this analysis, regardless of what race this person may have also
  identified as in the Census.
4. This action proposes standards of performance for new, modified, and reconstructed sources that commence
  construction after the rule is proposed. Therefore, the locations of the construction of new EAF facilities
  are not known. In addition, it is not known which of the existing EAF facilities would be modified or
  reconstructed in the future. Therefore, the demographic analysis was conducted for the 88 existing EAF
  facilities as a characterization of the demographics in areas where these facilities are now located.

    The EPA expects that the Standards of Performance for Steel Plants: 
Electric Arc Furnaces and Argon-Oxygen Decarburization Vessels 
Constructed After May 16, 2022 would ensure compliance via frequent 
testing and reduce emissions via a lower opacity limit for melt shop 
roof vents and by meeting all the proposed standards at all times 
(including periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunctions). Therefore, 
there may be a positive, beneficial effect for populations in proximity 
to any future affected sources, including in communities potentially 
overburdened by pollution, which are often minority, low-income and 
indigenous communities.
    The EPA is asking for comment on the list of the current 88 EAF 
facilities thought to be subject to the NSPS. The ExcelTM 
file document named ``EAF NSPS Facility List 2022'' in the docket for 
this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0049) contains the list of the 88 EAF 
NSPS facilities and is formatted to allow for public comments. Please 
follow the instructions in the file's first worksheet, called ``How to 
Comment,'' that describes the procedures to comment and submit the 
edited file back to the EPA.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders 
can be found at https://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was, 
therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection activities in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The ICR document that 
the EPA prepared has been assigned the EPA ICR number 1060.19. You can 
find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly 
summarized here. The information collection requirements are not 
enforceable until OMB approves them.
    We are proposing amendments to 40 CFR part 60, AA and AAa that 
require electronic reporting, and editorial and clarifying changes to 
rule language that are estimated to reduce time spent and paperwork for 
rule. We are proposing a new subpart for new, modified, or 
reconstructed facilities that start up after this proposal (40 CFR part 
60, subpart AAb) with similar reporting, recordkeeping, and compliance 
requirements as 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA and AAa.
    Respondents/affected entities: EAF facilities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60, 
subparts AA; AAa; and AAb).
    Estimated number of respondents: 90, includes 88 estimated current 
facilities subject to 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA and AAa, and three 
new facilities that would be subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAb in 
the three years after proposal.
    Frequency of Response: One time.
    Total estimated burden: The annual recordkeeping and reporting 
burden for facilities to comply with all the requirements in the NSPS 
is estimated to be 57,100 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 
1320.3(b).

[[Page 29727]]

    Total estimated cost: The annual recordkeeping and reporting costs 
for all facilities to comply with all of the requirements in the NSPS 
is estimated to be $6,950,000 (per year), of which $61,617 (per year) 
is for this proposed rule ($60,964 for Method 5 compliance and $653 for 
electronic reporting), and $6,690,000 for other costs related to 
continued compliance with the NSPS, including $200,000 for paperwork 
associated with operation and maintenance requirements. The total rule 
costs reflect a reduction cost of $400,000 (per year) from the previous 
ICR that reflects savings due to electronic reporting.
    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the 
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB 
approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the 
Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to 
display the OMB control number for the approved information collection 
activities contained in this final rule. You may 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 docket identified at the beginning of this 
rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments to OMB's Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to 
[email protected], 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 June 15, 
2022. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related comments in the final 
rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    I certify that this action would not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This 
action is not expected to impose any requirements on the three 
identified small entities among the approximately 90 EAF facilities (36 
companies), because most facilities are likely to be performing regular 
compliance tests as part of their permit renewal process. Additionally, 
no facilities are expected to be built by small entities over the next 
10 years based on past industry growth and small business starts. The 
three current facilities owned by small businesses were started in 
1912, 1968, and 1994, respectively. Further discussion is included in 
the EIA for this proposal.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (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. While this action 
creates an enforceable duty on the private sector, the cost does not 
exceed $100 million or more.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. It would not have substantial direct effects on 
tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government 
and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the Federal government and Indian tribes. No tribal governments 
own facilities that are the subject of this rulemaking. Thus, Executive 
Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because the EPA 
does not believe there are any environmental health or safety risks 
that disproportionately affects children due to this action. In 
addition, we believe there would be a positive, beneficial health 
effect for children as well as others living in proximity to new 
affected sources as a result of the specific aspects of the proposed 
rule not in the current rules, such as ensuring compliance via frequent 
testing, meeting a lower opacity limit for melt shop roof vents, 
reporting baghouse emissions as a facility-wide total, and meeting all 
the proposed standards at all times, including periods of startup, 
shutdown, and malfunctions.

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

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

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

    This action involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA 
conducted searches for the EAF NSPS through the Enhanced National 
Standards Systems Network Database managed by the American National 
Standards Institute (ANSI). We also contacted voluntary consensus 
standards (VCS)organizations and accessed and searched their databases. 
We conducted searches for EPA Methods 1, 2, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 5D, and 22 
of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. During the EPA's VCS search, if the 
title or abstract (if provided) of the VCS described technical sampling 
and analytical procedures that are similar to the EPA's reference 
method, the EPA reviewed it as a potential equivalent method. We 
reviewed all potential standards to determine the practicality of the 
VCS for this rule. This review requires significant method validation 
data that meet the requirements of EPA Method 301 for accepting 
alternative methods or scientific, engineering and policy equivalence 
to procedures in the EPA reference methods. The EPA may reconsider 
determinations of impracticality when additional information is 
available for a particular VCS. No applicable VCS were identified for 
EPA Methods 5D and 22.
    The EPA is incorporating by reference the VCS ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-
1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' to provide that the manual 
procedures (but not instrumental procedures) of VCS ANSI/ASME PTC 
19.10-1981--Part 10 may be used as an alternative to EPA Method 3B. The 
manual procedures (but not instrumental procedures) of VCS ANSI/ASME 
PTC 19.10-1981--Part 10 (incorporated by reference--see 40 CFR 63.14) 
may be used as an alternative to EPA Method 3B for measuring the oxygen 
or carbon dioxide content of the exhaust gas. This standard is 
acceptable as an alternative to EPA Method 3B and is available from 
ASME at https://www.asme.org; by mail at Three Park Avenue, New York, 
NY 10016-5990; or by telephone at (800) 843-2763. This method 
determines quantitatively the gaseous constituents of exhausts 
resulting from stationary combustion

[[Page 29728]]

sources. The gases covered in ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 are oxygen, 
carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, sulfur 
trioxide, nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, and 
hydrocarbons; however, the use in this rule is only applicable to 
oxygen and carbon dioxide.
    In the proposed rule, the EPA is incorporating by reference the VCS 
ASTM D7520-16, Standard Test Method for Determining the Opacity of a 
Plume in the Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere, as an acceptable alternative 
to EPA Method 9 with the following caveats:
     During the DCOT certification procedure outlined in 
Section 9.2 of ASTM D7520-16, the facility or the DCOT vendor must 
present the plumes in front of various backgrounds of color and 
contrast representing conditions anticipated during field use such as 
blue sky, trees, and mixed backgrounds (clouds or a sparse tree stand).
     The facility must also have standard operating procedures 
in place including daily or other frequency quality checks to ensure 
the equipment is within manufacturing specifications as outlined in 
Section 8.1 of ASTM D7520-16.
     The facility must follow the recordkeeping procedures 
outlined in 40 CFR 63.10(b)(1) for the DCOT certification, compliance 
report, data sheets, and all raw unaltered JPEGs used for opacity and 
certification determination.
     The facility or the DCOT vendor must have a minimum of 
four independent technology users apply the software to determine the 
visible opacity of the 300 certification plumes. For each set of 25 
plumes, the user may not exceed 15-percent opacity of anyone reading 
and the average error must not exceed 7.5-percent opacity.
     This approval does not provide or imply a certification or 
validation of any vendor's hardware or software. The onus to maintain 
and verify the certification or training of the DCOT camera, software, 
and operator in accordance with ASTM D7520-16 is on the facility, DCOT 
operator, and DCOT vendor. This method describes procedures to 
determine the opacity of a plume, using digital imagery and associated 
hardware and software, where opacity is caused by PM emitted from a 
stationary point source in the outdoor ambient environment. The opacity 
of emissions is determined by the application of a DCOT that consists 
of a digital still camera, analysis software, and the output function's 
content to obtain and interpret digital images to determine and report 
plume opacity. The ASTM D7520-16 document is available from ASTM at 
https://www.astm.org or l100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 
19428-2959, telephone number: (610) 832-9500, fax number: (610) 8329555 
at [email protected].
    The EPA is finalizing the use of the guidance document, Fabric 
Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, EPA-454/R-98-015, Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, September 1997. This 
document provides guidance on the use of triboelectric monitors as 
fabric filter bag leak detectors. The document includes fabric filter 
and monitoring system descriptions; guidance on monitor selection, 
installation, setup, adjustment, and operation; and quality assurance 
procedures. The document is available at https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=2000D5T6.PDF.
    Additional information for the VCS search and determinations can be 
found in the three memoranda titled Voluntary Consensus Standard 
Results for Standards of Performance for Steel Plants: Electric Arc 
Furnaces Constructed After October 21, 1974, and On or Before August 
17, 1983; Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for Standards of 
Performance for Steel Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces and Argon-Oxygen 
Decarburization Vessels Constructed After August 17, 1983, and On or 
Before May 16, 2022; and Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for 
Standards of Performance for Steel Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces and 
Argon-Oxygen Decarburization Vessels Constructed After May 16, 2022, 
available in the docket for this proposed rule.

J. 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 and indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The impacts of these proposed 
rules are to clarify current rules and, for new sources built after 
publication of this proposal, to ensure compliance via frequent 
testing, to meet a lower opacity limit for melt shop roof vents, to 
report baghouse emissions as a facility-wide total, and to meet all the 
proposed standards at all times, including periods of startup, 
shutdown, and malfunctions. The documentation for this decision is 
contained in section IV.E of this preamble and in a technical report, 
Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Electric 
Arc Furnace Facilities, located in the docket for this rule.

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-09589 Filed 5-13-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P