[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 164 (Friday, August 25, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58442-58494]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-16747]



[[Page 58441]]

Vol. 88

Friday,

No. 164

August 25, 2023

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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





40 CFR Part 60





New Source Performance Standards Review for Steel Plants: Electric Arc 
Furnaces and Argon-Oxygen Decarburization Vessels; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 88 , No. 164 / Friday, August 25, 2023 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 58442]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0049; FRL-8150-01-OAR]
RIN 2060-AU96


New Source Performance Standards Review for Steel Plants: 
Electric Arc Furnaces and Argon-Oxygen Decarburization Vessels

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing 
amendments to the new source performance standards (NSPS) for electric 
arc furnaces (EAF) and argon-oxygen decarburization (AOD) vessels in 
the steel industry pursuant to the review required by the Clean Air 
Act.

DATES: 
    Effective date: This final rule is effective August 25, 2023. The 
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule 
is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of August 25, 
2023.
    Compliance dates: Affected sources that commence construction, 
reconstruction, or modification after May16, 2022, must comply with all 
requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAb no later than August 25, 
2023 or upon startup, whichever is later. The date for complying with 
the changes in the current rules, 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA and AAa 
is February 21, 2024 publication of the final rule. The date for 
complying with the ERT submission requirements is February 21, 2024.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0049. All documents in the docket are 
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed, 
some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business 
Information (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 form. Publicly available docket materials are available 
electronically through https://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna Lee Jones, Sector Policies and 
Programs Division (D243-02), P.O. Box 12055, Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research 
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5251; 
and email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. Throughout this document the 
use of ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is intended to refer to the EPA. 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:

A/C air-to-cloth
ANSI American National Standards Institute
AOD argon-oxygen decarburization
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
BACT best available control technology
BID background information document
BLDS bag leak detection systems
BPT benefits per ton
BSER best system of emissions reduction
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI confidential business information
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CEMS continuous emission monitoring systems
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CO carbon monoxide
COMS continuous opacity monitoring systems
DCOT digital camera opacity technique
DEC direct shell evacuation control
EAF electric arc furnace
EIA economic impact assessment
EJ environmental justice
E.O. executive order
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERT electronic reporting tool
FR Federal Register
FRED Federal Reserve Economic Data
GASP Group Against Smog and Pollution
gr grains
gr/dscf grans per dry standard cubic feet
HAP hazardous air pollutants
ICR information collection request
II&S integrated iron and steel industry
ISA Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter
LAER Lowest Achievable Emission Rate
lb pounds
lb/ton pounds per ton
mg/dscm milligrams per dry standard cubic meters
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NAPCTAC National Air Pollution Control Technical Advisory Committee
NOX nitrogen oxides
NSPS new source performance standards
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PDF portable document format
PM particulate matter
PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PS performance specification
RACT reasonably available control technology
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIN regulatory information number
SMA Steel Manufacturers Association
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
tpy tons per year
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
U.S. United States
U.S.C. United States Code
VCS voluntary consensus standard
VE visible emissions

    Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is 
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?
    C. Judicial Review and Administrative Review
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this final action?
    B. How does the EPA perform the NSPS review?
    C. What is the source category regulated in this final action?
    D. What outreach and engagement did the EPA conduct?
III. What changes did we propose for the steel plants: Electric Arc 
Furnaces (EAF) and argon-oxygen decarburization vessels NSPS?
    A. Standards of Performance for Steel Plants: Electric Arc 
Furnaces and Argon-Oxygen Decarburization Vessels Constructed, 
Reconstructed, or Modified After May 16, 2022
    B. Proposed Changes to Current NSPS, 40 CFR Part 60, Subparts AA 
and AAa
IV. What actions are we finalizing, and what is our rationale for 
such decisions?
    A. NSPS Requirements for PM Emissions From Control Devices for 
Electric Arc Furnaces and Argon-Oxygen Decarburization Vessels 
Constructed After May 16, 2022
    B. NSPS Requirements for Opacity From Melt Shops for Electric 
Arc Furnaces and Argon-Oxygen Decarburization Vessels Constructed 
After May 16, 2022
    C. NSPS Requirements for Opacity From Control Devices and Dust 
Handling for Electric Arc Furnaces and Argon-Oxygen Decarburization 
Vessels Constructed After May 16, 2022
    D. Startup, Shutdown, Malfunctions Requirements for Electric Arc 
Furnaces and Argon-Oxygen Decarburization Vessels Modified, 
Reconstructed, or Constructed After May 16, 2022
    E. Testing and Monitoring Requirements for Electric Arc Furnaces 
and Argon-Oxygen Decarburization Vessels
    F. Electronic Reporting
    G. Effective Date and Compliance Dates
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
    A. What are the air quality impacts?
    B. What are the secondary impacts?
    C. What are the cost impacts?

[[Page 58443]]

    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the benefits?
    F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 
1 CFR Part 51
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    The source category that is the subject of this final action is 
composed of steel manufacturing facilities that operate electric arc 
furnaces (EAF) and argon-oxygen decarburization (AOD) vessels regulated 
under CAA section 111 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS). The 2022 
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for the 
source category is 331110 for ``Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy 
Manufacturing'' processes. The NAICS code serves as a guide for readers 
outlining the type of entities that this final action is likely to 
affect. The NSPS codified in 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAb are directly 
applicable to affected facilities that begin construction, 
reconstruction, or modification after May 16, 2022. Final amendments to 
40 CFR part 60, subpart AA are applicable to affected EAF and AOD 
facilities that begin construction, reconstruction, or modification 
after October 21, 1974, and on or before August 17, 1983. Final 
amendments to 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAa are applicable to affected 
EAF and AOD vessels facilities that begin construction, reconstruction, 
or modification after August 17, 1983, and on or before May 16, 2022. 
Federal, state, local and Tribal government entities would not be 
affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the 
applicability of this action to a particular entity, you should 
carefully examine the applicability criteria found in 40 CFR part 60, 
subparts AA, AAa, and AAb, and consult the person listed in the FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble, your state air 
pollution control agency with delegated authority for NSPS, or your EPA 
Regional Office.

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 final action is available on the internet at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/electric-arc-furnaces-eafs-and-argon-oxygen-decarburization. Following publication in the Federal Register, 
the EPA will post the Federal Register version of the final rule and 
key technical documents at this same website.

C. Judicial Review and Administrative Review

    Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of 
this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in 
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
by October 24, 2023. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements 
established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any 
civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the 
requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ``[o]nly an 
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable 
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public 
hearing) may be raised during judicial review.'' This section also 
provides a mechanism for the EPA to convene a proceeding for 
reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate 
to the EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within 
[the period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection 
arose after the period for public comment, (but within the time 
specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central 
relevance to the outcome of the rule.'' Any person seeking to make such 
a demonstration to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to 
the Office of the Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Room 3000, WJC West Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 
20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the preceding FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel 
for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail 
Code 2344A), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this final action?

    The EPA's authority for this final rule is CAA section 111, which 
governs the establishment of standards of performance for stationary 
sources. Section 111(b)(1)(A) of the CAA requires the EPA Administrator 
to list categories of stationary sources that in the Administrator's 
judgment cause or contribute significantly to air pollution that may 
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. The EPA 
must then issue performance standards for new (and modified or 
reconstructed) sources in each source category pursuant to CAA section 
111(b)(1)(B). These standards are referred to as NSPS. 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, types, and sizes 
within categories in establishing the standards.
    CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) requires the EPA to ``at least every 8 
years review and, if appropriate, revise'' NSPS. However, the 
Administrator need not review any such standard if the ``Administrator 
determines that such review is not appropriate in light of readily 
available information on the efficacy'' of the standard. When 
conducting a review of an existing performance standard, the EPA has 
the discretion and authority to add emission limits for pollutants or 
emission sources not currently regulated for that source category.
    In setting or revising a performance standard, 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.'' The term ``standard of 
performance'' in CAA section 111(a)(1) makes clear that the EPA is to 
determine both the best system of emission reduction (BSER) for the 
regulated sources in the source category and the degree of emission 
limitation achievable through application of the BSER. The EPA must 
then, under CAA section

[[Page 58444]]

111(b)(1)(B), promulgate standards of performance for new sources that 
reflect that level of stringency. CAA section 111(b)(5) generally 
precludes the EPA from prescribing a particular technological system 
that must be used to comply with a standard of performance. Rather, 
sources can select any measure or combination of measures that will 
achieve the standard. CAA section 111(h)(1) authorizes the 
Administrator to promulgate ``a design, equipment, work practice, or 
operational standard, or combination thereof'' if in his or her 
judgment, ``it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a standard of 
performance.'' CAA section 111(h)(2) provides the circumstances under 
which prescribing or enforcing a standard of performance is ``not 
feasible,'' such as, when the pollutant cannot be emitted through a 
conveyance designed to emit or capture the pollutant, or when there is 
no practicable measurement methodology for the particular class of 
sources.
    Pursuant to the definition of new source in CAA section 111(a)(2), 
standards of performance apply to facilities that begin construction, 
reconstruction, or modification after the date of publication of the 
proposed standards in the Federal Register. Under CAA section 
111(a)(4), ``modification'' means any physical change in, or change in 
the method of operation of, a stationary source which increases the 
amount of any air pollutant emitted by such source or which results in 
the emission of any air pollutant not previously emitted. Changes to an 
existing facility that do not result in an increase in emissions are 
not considered modifications. Under the provisions in 40 CFR 60.15, 
reconstruction means the replacement of components of an existing 
facility such that: (1) The fixed capital cost of the new components 
exceeds 50 percent of the fixed capital cost that would be required to 
construct a comparable entirely new facility; and (2) it is 
technologically and economically feasible to meet the applicable 
standards. Pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), the standards of 
performance or revisions thereof shall become effective upon 
promulgation.

B. How does the EPA perform the NSPS review?

    As noted in section II. A of this preamble, CAA section 111 
requires the EPA to, at least every 8 years 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 considering 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, which may include consideration of 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 2 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 statutory factors, the EPA compares the 
various systems of emission reductions and determines which system is 
``best,'' and therefore represents the BSER. 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 NSPS 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.

C. What is the source category regulated in this final action?

    The EPA first promulgated NSPS under CAA section 111 for EAF at 
steel plants source category on September 23, 1975 (40 FR 43850). These 
standards of performance are codified in 40 CFR part 60, subpart AA and 
are applicable to sources that commence construction, modification, or 
reconstruction after October 21, 1974, and on or before August 17, 
1983. These standards of performance regulate emissions of particulate 
matter (PM) from EAF capture systems and control devices with a PM 
concentration limit of 12 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter (mg/
dscm) [0.0052 grains per dry standard cubic feet (gr/dscf)] and set 
opacity limits for using capture technology controlling EAF melt shop 
emissions, which include, but are not limited to, emissions via roof 
vents, doors, and cracks in walls of 6 percent opacity, with 20 percent 
and 40 percent opacity allowed during charging and tapping, 
respectively; control device exhaust at 3 percent opacity due to proper 
operation of control devices; and dust handling procedures due to 
proper handling of captured PM at 10 percent opacity.
    In 1984, the NSPS rule, 40 CFR part 60, subpart AA (for EAF 
constructed

[[Page 58445]]

after October 21, 1974, and on or before August 17, 1983) was reviewed 
and revised as part of NSPS statutory review (49 FR 43838; October 31, 
1984). The 1984 action amended 40 CFR part 60, subpart AA to include 
AOD and raise 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 1984 action also codified a new NSPS 
subpart, 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAa, to regulate EAF and AOD vessels 
that commenced construction after August 17, 1983 (49 FR 43843). The 
NSPS codified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAa set requirements for melt 
shop opacity at 6 percent with no exceptions. Finally, the 1984 action 
promulgated requirements to include EPA Method 5D (Appendix A to 40 CFR 
part 60) for the determination of PM emissions from positive-pressure 
fabric filters, which are common control devices for EAF and AOD 
vessels for both 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA and AAa.
    On February 14, 1989, 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA and AAa (and 
Appendix A to 40 CFR part 60) were amended to consolidate the EPA test 
methods and delete repetitions of methods already referenced (54 FR 
6672). Then, on May 17, 1989, minor clarifications and corrections were 
made to the February 1989 revisions (54 FR 21344). On March 2, 1999, as 
a result of recommendations made by the EPA's sector policy established 
in 1994,\1\ called the ``Common Sense Initiative,'' 40 CFR part 60, 
subparts AA and AAa were amended to add an option to monitor furnace 
static pressure instead of melt shop opacity and to monitor baghouse 
(fabric filter) fan amperage instead of baghouse flowrate (64 FR 
10109). On October 17, 2000, 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 clarifications and technical and editorial 
corrections (65 FR 61758). On February 22, 2005, 40 CFR part 60, 
subparts AA and AAa were amended in response to 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 (70 
FR 8523).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Analysis and Evaluation of the EPA Common Sense 
Initiative. Prepared by: Kerr Greiner, Andersen, and April, Inc. 
Funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under PO No. No. 
9W-0753-NTSA. 1999. Available at https://NEPIS.epa.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An 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 
charging scrap steel into the EAF 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 \2\) and the refined steel are poured 
from the furnace, in a process called ``tapping.'' If 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 additions of alloying material 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 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. The stages of each cycle 
normally include charging, melting, refining (which also usually 
includes oxygen blowing), and tapping, all of which generate 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, also called fabric 
filters, are typically used as gas cleaning systems (i.e., emissions 
control devices).
    There are approximately 88 EAF in the United States (U.S.), with 
most (>95 percent) EAF subject to one of the EAF NSPS subparts. 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).
    The EPA proposed amendments to the NSPS subparts AA and AAa, and a 
new subpart AAb, based on the current review on May 16, 2022 (87 FR 
29710). We received 11 comments from industry, environmental groups, 
state environmental agencies, and others during the comment period. A 
summary of the more significant comments we timely received regarding 
the proposed rule and our responses are provided in this preamble. A 
summary of all other public comments on the proposal and the EPA's 
responses to those comments is available in the document Summary of 
Public Comments and Responses for 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, 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0049 located in the docket for this rule. 
In this action, the EPA is finalizing decisions and revisions pursuant 
to CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) review for Steel Plants: Electric Arc 
Furnaces (EAF) and Argon-Oxygen Decarburization Vessels NSPS (40 CFR 
part 60, subpart AAa) after our considerations of all the comments 
received.

D. What outreach and engagement did the EPA conduct?

    As part of this rulemaking, and pursuant to multiple Executive 
Orders addressing environmental justice, the EPA engaged and consulted 
with the public, including populations of overburdened communities and 
low-income populations, through interactions, such as a letter sent on

[[Page 58446]]

May 17, 2022, to 40 leaders of Tribal nations (see Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2002-0049). The EPA received comments from the following 
environmental groups during the comment period: Group Against Smog and 
Pollution (GASP), Fairfield Environmental Justice Action Coalition 
(FEJA), Sierra Club, California Communities Against Toxics, and Greater 
Birmingham Alliance to Stop Pollution, et al. These opportunities gave 
the EPA a chance to hear from the public, especially communities 
potentially impacted by this final action.
    Some of the key issues raised by environmental justice stakeholders 
included a specific area of the country where there are PM problems and 
where there are 2 EAF facilities; and regulating other pollutants, such 
as sulfur dioxide (SO2) and greenhouse gases (GHG). Section 
V of the preamble provides a description of how the Agency considered 
these comments in the context of regulatory development.

III. What changes did we propose for the Steel Plants: Electric Arc 
Furnaces (EAF) and Argon-Oxygen Decarburization Vessels NSPS?

    On May 16, 2022, the EPA proposed the results of the review of the 
EAF and AOD source category standards of performance to determine if 
revisions were warranted pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(B).
    Pursuant to this review, we proposed to revise the NSPS for EAF and 
AOD vessels. We also proposed several clarifications and corrections to 
existing NSPS rules (40 CFR part 60, subparts AA and AAa). These 
proposed actions are discussed below in sections III.A and III.B. We 
also proposed: periodic compliance testing at least once every 5 years; 
results of the review of opacity from control device exhaust and from 
dust handling systems to keep same BSER and limits as in 40 CFR part 6, 
subpart AAa of 3 percent and 10 percent, respectively; that the 
emission limits would apply at all times; and electronic reporting.

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

1. Analyses To Determine BSER for Melt Shop Opacity and PM Emissions 
From Control Devices
    The EPA proposed to determine that the use of a baghouse with a 
fabric filter is the BSER for EAF and AOD vessels. The EPA proposed 
that a limit of at 0.16 pounds (lb) PM emitted per ton steel produced 
(lb/ton) reflects the degree of emission limitation achievable through 
application of the BSER. The EPA also proposed to determine using a 
partial roof canopy to control visible fugitive emissions (VE) from EAF 
and AOD in the melt shop is BSER. The EPA proposed that a limit of 0 
percent opacity during all phases of EAF operation reflects the degree 
of emission limitation achievable through application of the BSER.
    The BSER and proposed standards of performance for PM emissions 
from capture systems and fabric filters, and for capture of emissions 
from melt shops was developed from an analysis of EAF PM test reports 
from 2005 through 2017 obtained by the EPA. The PM data contained in 
these reports reflected 33 facilities, 46 EAF, 5 AOD, and 54 baghouses 
in 154 emission and opacity tests (hereafter referred to as the ``EAF 
dataset''). The EAF dataset showed a substantial improvement in EAF, 
AOD, and baghouse performance beyond the current NSPS PM standards (40 
CFR part 60, subparts AA, AAa) for control devices as well as for melt 
shop opacity. The costs of control, emissions reductions, and other 
factors were used in the determination of BSER, as explained in next 
sections.
a. BSER for Melt Shop Opacity
    From the EAF dataset described earlier in this preamble, the EPA 
identified 15 EAF facilities, approximately half of the EAF dataset, 
that reported 0 percent melt shop opacity. To determine BSER and its 
costs to reduce melt shop opacity at EAF facilities from 6 percent to 0 
percent opacity, the costs for an addition of a partition roof canopy 
(above the crane rails) were estimated for the proposal. Canopy hoods 
are a common method of controlling fugitive EAF emissions. In the 
proposal cost analysis, we estimated that the annual costs would be 
$800,000 ($2020 \3\) for a medium-sized steelmaking EAF with 
installation of a partition roof canopy (above the crane rails). With 
an estimated PM reduction of 730 tpy to achieve 0 percent melt shop 
opacity down from the current 6 percent opacity (in 40 CFR part 60, 
subparts AA, AAa), the cost effectiveness in $2020 was estimated to be 
$1,100 per ton PM removed ($2020). Similar results were obtained for 
both small and large EAF. Based on the BSER analysis as explained at 
proposal, the EPA proposed that BSER for melt shop is a partition roof 
canopy (above the crane rails) and proposed in 40 CFR part 60, subpart 
AAb to revise the opacity limit to 0 percent to limit visible emissions 
from EAF and AOD that exit from the melt shop during all phases of 
operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The cost analyses for the 2022 proposal used a 3.25 percent 
interest rate. Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED). Bank Prime Loan 
Rate Changes: Historical Dates of Changes and Rates. Available at: 
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PRIME. Accessed 11/6/2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Capture System, Baghouse, and Facility-Wide Total PM Control Device 
Emission Limit
    The EPA proposed as the BSER a capture system and fabric filter. 
For the standard, we proposed a facility-wide mass-based PM limit from 
all EAF and AOD capture systems and control devices of 0.16 lb total PM 
per ton steel instead of a PM concentration limit that applies to each 
capture system and control device, which is the format of the current 
standards in 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA, AAa. As explained in the 
proposal, the EPA proposed a facility-wide mass-based PM limit because 
this form of standard was thought to result in better overall PM 
control and provide greater assurance of limiting PM emissions from the 
facility. 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 based on air flow in gr/
dscf, there is no accounting for the total PM emissions from the 
facility. A facility-wide total control device PM emissions limit in 
units of lb PM/ton of steel produced was expected to eliminate the 
disparity in control device emissions between low- and high-PM 
concentration exhaust, such as that for control devices for primary 
emissions (i.e., directly from the EAF or AOD) v. secondary emissions 
(i.e., from fugitive emissions), as well as the disparity between well-
operated v. inefficiently-operated control devices in the cases where 
both types of control devices operate below the current individual 
baghouse limit in 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA, AAa.
    To evaluate the BSER to reduce emissions from EAF and AOD capture 
systems and control devices, the EPA evaluated the baghouse air-to-
cloth (A/C) ratio, expressed in units of volume of air flow per unit 
bag area (i.e., cloth), using EAF facility baghouse model plants 
developed from the EPA dataset describe earlier in this preamble (87 FR 
29718-29720). This was done to evaluate BSER, of which cost is a 
factor. The A/C ratio is generally accepted as the most important 
design parameter between baghouses of different performance levels, 
where a low A/C

[[Page 58447]]

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).
    Using model plants developed from the EAF dataset and the EPA cost-
estimating procedures,\4\ an A/C ratio of 2.2 m/min (7.2 ft/min) 
leading to a value of 0.16 lb total PM per ton steel produced was 
determined to be cost effective (87 FR29710). For a medium-sized model 
plant consisting of an EAF and all its baghouses, i.e., EAF facility, 
emitting 0.16 lb PM/ton steel produced, the cost effectiveness at this 
lb/ton level was approximately $1,800 per ton PM removed $2020, an 
acceptable cost effectiveness, with an incremental cost effectiveness 
compared to a model plant at the next higher level of control (A/C 
ratio of 4.9 ft/min) at $8,500/ton $2020, which was not considered 
reasonable. Similar results were obtained for small and large EAF. 
Therefore, a facility-wide total 0.16 lb PM/ton steel produced limit 
from capture systems and control devices was proposed to represent 
performance level for the BSER for EAF and AOD capture systems and 
fabric filters for 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 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. May 1, 2023 (Docket ID No. 
EPA-OAR-2002-0049).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Requirement for Compliance Testing Every Five Years
    We proposed 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 also is a 
standard requirement for testing for other sources of PM emissions for 
many other industrial sectors.
3. 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. We proposed to retain these limits in 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart AAb. (87 FR 29720-29721). In reviewing the EAF dataset, the EPA 
based these limits on the fact that no facilities reported lower levels 
of opacity for these sources, nor were lower levels required in any 
permits for these or any other EAF facilities. In addition, 
commensurate with determinations reported in the RACT/BACT/LAER 
Clearinghouse,\5\ the current levels for baghouse exhaust (9 
facilities) and dust handling systems (3 facilities) in 40 CFR part 60, 
subparts AA, AAa were considered BACT. Therefore, we concluded in the 
proposal that the opacity standards for control device exhaust and dust 
handling systems would remain the same.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See https://www.epa.gov/catc/ractbactlaerclearinghouse-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. See the RACT/BACT/LAER determinations made for 
EAF in the cost memorandum prepared for proposal (03-01-22); Docket 
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0049-0060.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction Exemption Removal From 40 CFR Part 
60, Subpart AAb
    The NSPS general provisions (40 CFR 60.11(c)) currently exclude 
opacity requirements during periods of startup, shutdown and 
malfunction (SSM). We proposed that opacity limits in 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart AAb would apply at all times along with all other emissions 
limits and standards, as provided in 40 CFR 60.11(f), because we 
concluded in the proposal that there were no technical limitations 
known to prevent new, reconstructed, or modified facilities from 
meeting all standards at all times. The language overriding the general 
provisions SSM opacity exemption was proposed for 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart AAb at 40 CFR 60.272b(c).
    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 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 CAA section 112 standards apply continuously. The 
EPA has determined the reasoning in the court's decision in Sierra Club 
applies equally to CAA section 111 because the definition of emission 
or standard in CAA section 302(k), and the embedded requirement for 
continuous standards, also applies to the NSPS. Therefore, consistent 
with Sierra Club, we proposed the NSPS standards in the 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart AAb would apply at all times.
5. Electronic Reporting for 40 CFR Part 60, Subparts AA, AAa, and AAb
    The EPA proposed the requirement that owners and operators of EAF 
and AOD subject to the current and new NSPS at 40 CFR part 60, subparts 
AA, AAa, and AAb submit electronic copies of required performance test 
reports and any semiannual excess emissions and continuous monitoring 
system performance and summary reports, through the EPA's Central Data 
Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting 
Interface (CEDRI). The proposed rule required 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 \6\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For semiannual reports, the proposed rule required that owners and 
operators use the appropriate spreadsheet template to submit 
information to CEDRI. The final versions of the templates for these 
reports are included in the docket for this action.\7\ Additionally, 
the EPA identified the circumstances in which electronic reporting 
extensions may be provided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 40 CFR part 60, subpart AA, 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-
2002-0049-0064.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Proposed Changes to Current NSPS, 40 CFR Part 60, Subparts AA and 
AAa

    We proposed the following amendments and requested comments on the 
existing NSPS rules for EAF, 40 CFR part 60, subpart AA, and EAF and 
AOD, 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAa, to update, correct, or clarify these 
rules to enhance compliance and enforcement.
     Amendments to clarify and refine the rule requirements in 
40 CFR part 60, sections 60.271 and 60.271a ``Definitions'', 60.272 and 
60.272a

[[Page 58448]]

``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''.
     Minor revisions to clarify the rule and enhance compliance 
and enforcement.
     Solicited comments, data, and other information on 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.
     Requirement that owners and operators of EAF facilities 
submit electronic copies of required performance test/demonstration of 
compliance reports and semiannual reports through the EPA's CDX using 
the CEDRI and ERT.
     Requirement that performance test/demonstration of 
compliance results collected using test methods that are supported by 
the EPA's ERT as listed on the ERT website \8\ 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 PDF using the attachment module of the ERT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     For semiannual reports, requirement that owners and 
operators use the appropriate spreadsheet template to submit 
information to CEDRI.

IV. What actions are we finalizing, and what is our rationale for such 
decisions?

    The EPA is finalizing revisions to the NSPS for EAF and AOD at 
steel plants pursuant the CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) review. The EPA is 
promulgating the NSPS revisions in a new subpart, 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart AAb that are applicable to affected facilities constructed, 
modified, or reconstructed after May 16, 2022. The new subpart reflects 
a BSER for a PM capture system and fabric filter, and a total facility 
limit for PM from control devices in units of lb PM/ton steel produced, 
and a canopy hood to capture melt shop VE, and a 0 percent opacity 
limit during melting and refining.
    We also are finalizing results of the review of opacity from 
control device exhaust and from dust handling systems to keep same BSER 
and limits as in 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAa of 3 percent and 10 
percent, respectively; that the emission limits would apply at all 
times; periodic compliance testing at least once every 5 years; and 
electronic reporting.
    The facility-wide PM limit of 0.16 lb/ton as finalized will apply 
to all EAF and AOD control devices subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart 
AAb and also all the air pollution control equipment used to remove 
particulate matter from the effluent gas stream generated by the EAF 
and AOD. The melt shop opacity standard of 0 percent as finalized will 
apply during the melting and refining period, and a 6 percent opacity 
limit will apply during the charging period and during the tapping 
period, with daily opacity or VE testing required during all 3 periods. 
We are finalizing that the PM limit of 0.16 lb/ton standard apply at 
all times, including during SSM, and that an opacity limit will also 
apply at all times (i.e., 6 percent opacity during charging and tapping 
and 0 percent opacity at all other times). We are finalizing the 
requirement to submit the required compliance test reports through CDX 
using CEDRI and the ERT.
    We also are finalizing clarifications and corrections to the 2 
existing EAF rules: 40 CFR 60 subpart AA, Standards of Performance for 
Steel Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces Constructed After 10/21/74 & On or 
Before 8/17/83; and 40 CFR 60 subpart AAa, Standards of Performance for 
Steel Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces & Argon-Oxygen Decarburization 
Constructed After 8/17/83 and On or Before May 16, 2022. For these 
rules, we are finalizing amendments to certain parts of the current 
NSPS standards and to allow 24 hours for owners and operators a find 
and fix the cause of a BLDS alarm.

A. NSPS Requirements for PM Emissions From Control Devices for Electric 
Arc Furnaces and Argon-Oxygen Decarburization Vessels Constructed After 
May 16, 2022

1. What did we propose as the BSER determination and standard of 
performance for PM emissions from EAF control devices?
    We proposed that BSER for new, modified, and reconstructed EAF and 
AOD sources is a capture system and fabric filter. We proposed that the 
PM limit that reflects BSER is a total facility emission rate of 0.16 
lb PM/ton of steel from control devices at an affected facility. The 
EPA proposed a facility-wide mass-based PM limit from all EAF and AOD 
control devices per ton of steel produced instead of a PM concentration 
limit based on mass of PM per control device air flow that applies to 
each control device, which is the format of the standards in 40 CFR 
part 60, subparts AA, AAa.
2. What significant comments did we receive and what are our responses?
    Comment: One commenter asserted that the form of the standard 
should not be changed from the original form of the standard in NSPS 
subpart AAa. The commenter stated for the NSPS subpart AAa rulemaking, 
the EPA rejected a production-based (or mass-based) standard in favor 
of a concentration-based limit in a NSPS proposed rule that was 
published on August 17, 1983. The commenter notes that, in that 1983 FR 
document, the EPA stated:
    ``A process weight format is based on a direct relationship between 
the quantity of pollutant emitted and the amount of input material 
consumed or product produced. Because of wide differences between EAF 
and AOD shops in operating procedures, such as the length of the steel 
production cycle, grade of steel produced, control technologies, vessel 
capacities, and other operating parameters, a simple direct 
relationship between mass emissions and steel production does not 
exist. Therefore, a process weight format was not selected for control 
devices regulated by the proposed standards.''
    ``Methodology to measure the concentration of emissions discharged 
to the atmosphere from control devices is readily available and well 
demonstrated. Concentration measurements are obtained directly from the 
stack emission test data. A concentration standard can be met equally 
well by a large or a small shop and by carbon and specialty steel 
shops. Consequently, a concentration format (i.e., mass emissions per 
unit volume of gas) was selected for control devices regulated by the 
proposed standards to ensure control of captured process and fugitive 
emissions.'' (48 FR 37347)
    The commenter continued that the EPA provides no explanation for 
the change in its position and fails to address the rationale the 
Agency provided in 1983 for adopting the current grain-loading 
standards in NSPS subpart AA and NSPS subpart AAa.
    Another commenter added that the EPA's failure to justify this 
``depart[ure] from a prior policy'' would render abandonment of the 
current concentration-based standard ``arbitrary and capricious,'' 
citing to FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 515-16 
(2009).
    EPA Response: The EPA disagrees with the comment that the EPA did 
not provide an adequate explanation for changing the form of the 
standard from

[[Page 58449]]

concentration-based to a production-based limit. The new format of the 
EAF NSPS subpart AAb, in units of lb/ton, ensures compliance as well as 
ensures that every facility is accountable for the total PM 
contribution from its EAF to the environment in the nearby community 
for every unit of steel produced. The EPA fully explained its 
justification for use of lb/ton format in the 2022 proposal, as follows 
here.
    In the 2022 proposal, we explained that 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 (87 FR 29715). We also explained that 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.
    Further, at 87 FR 29715, the EPA proposed 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 lb 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 v. secondary emissions, as well as for 
well-operated v. inefficiently-operated control devices that both 
operate below the individual baghouse limit (87 FR 29715). Therefore, 
we did adequately explain our change in position at the proposal and 
also explained why we now think a facility-wide limit is more 
protective than a concentration-based limit, thereby satisfying the 
standard in Fox Television. See 556 U.S. at 515-16 (when the Agency 
acknowledges change in position, ``it suffices that the new policy is 
permissible under the statute, that there are good reasons for it, and 
that the Agency believes it to be better, which the conscious change of 
course adequately indicates'').
    The commenter did not include any current data showing the lack of 
a direct relationship between mass emissions and steel production. The 
graphs in Figure 1 from the memorandum titled Particulate Matter 
Emissions from Electric Arc Furnace Facilities,\9\ hereafter called the 
``Emissions Memorandum,'' show a similar curve shape when data for the 
total EAF facility average concentration of PM in gr/dscf from the 2010 
EPA/EAF data set \10\ are plotted compared to the same PM data 
expressed as lb/ton PM emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Particulate Matter Emissions from Electric Arc Furnace 
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. May 1, 2023. (Docket ID No. EPA-OAR-2002-0049-
0061).
    \10\ In 2010, the EPA acquired EAF data from approximately 30 
EAF facilities via a CAA section 114 test and information request. 
These data are located in the docket for the EAF NESHAP, 40 CFR part 
63, subpart YYYYY at https://www.regulations.gov/docket/EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0083 and incorporated by reference into the docket for the EAF 
NSPS at https://www.regulations.gov/docket/EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0049.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25AU23.000

    In 1973, the EPA originally presented a NSPS standard in units of 
lb/hr-ton during the National Air Pollution Control Technical Advisory 
Committee (NAPTAC) meeting when the EAF NSPS was first being developed, 
as described in the 1974 Background Information for Standards of 
Performance \11\ (BID). On February 22, 1973, the Agency presented to 
the National Air Pollution Control Techniques Advisory Committee 
(NAPCTAC) a draft standard PM limitation of 0.06 lb/hr-ton. However, 
this standard was ultimately not used by the EPA for the NSPS because 
of the industry objections with the lb/ton format and interest in the 
concentration-based limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Background Information for Standards of Performance: 
Electric Arc Furnaces in the Steel Industry, Volume 1: Proposed 
Standards. Publication No. EPA-450/2-74-017a. U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina (October 1974).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It should be noted that the first promulgated NSPS limit, at 0.0052 
gr/dscf, was based on test data from only

[[Page 58450]]

one facility, as described in the 1974 BID \12\ for EAF under 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart AA, the original EAF NSPS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Background Information for Standards of Performance: 
Electric Arc Furnaces in the Steel Industry, Volume 1: Proposed 
Standards. Chapter V. Summary of the Procedure For Developing 
Standards, Section D, Plant Inspections. Publication No. EPA-450/2-
74-017a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
(October 1974. pg. 63 (pdf pg. 88)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Preliminary investigations for the NSPS identified 30 plants from a 
review of the literature and contacts with industry, a described in the 
1974 BID, discussed earlier in this section. From these 30 plants, 11 
plants were identified that reportedly were well-controlled for PM 
emissions. Ten of the 11 facilities were visited, their visible 
emissions evaluated, and information obtained on the process and 
control equipment. Although many of the 11 plants practiced good 
control techniques, the facilities at only 3 plants (Plants A, I and J) 
were amenable to testing with EPA Method 5. Other facilities were not 
suitable for emission measurements because they use positive pressure 
baghouses, which have no stacks. Although development work was in 
progress, sampling methodology for this type of installation had not 
been standardized. These 3 plants were nearly identical except for 
size. They all produced alloy steels and controlled PM emissions with a 
building evacuation system. Each had a fabric filter control device 
that exhausted through multiple stacks. Rather than spread the test 
program effort over 3 tests at nearly identical plants, it was decided 
a more comprehensive test of one plant would provide more information. 
The middle-sized plant offered the best possibilities for this 
comprehensive test. Its size was typical of the mid-range for the 
industry, and the fabric filter did not have an inordinately large 
number of exhaust stacks.
    To show that a mass-based limit has been considered by the EPA 
previously, the chronological history of the EAF NSPS subpart AA and 
AAa standards for PM from control devices, as taken from the 1974 BID, 
discussed earlier in this section, is as follows:
     In 1972, 299 EAF's in the United States were operated by 
99 companies at 121 locations. On February 22, 1973, the Agency 
presented to the NAPCTAC a draft standard PM limitation of 0.06 pound 
per hour-ton (lb/hr-ton). Steel industry representatives attending the 
meeting suggested that the PM standard should be 0.244 lb/hr-ton.
     On May 30 and 31, 1973, at another NAPCTAC meeting, the 
EPA presented a revised draft technical report and standard. The PM 
standard presented by the EPA was changed from 0.06 lb/hr-ton to 0.10 
lb/hr-ton. The industry representatives at the meeting suggested that 
the standard be expressed on a concentration basis and be set at 0.008 
grains per dry standard cubic feet (gr/dscf) for a dry collector (e.g., 
baghouse or fabric filter) and 0.02 gr/dscf for a wet collector 
(scrubber).
     At the January 9, 1974, NAPCTAC meeting, available 
emission data indicated that a 0.0039 gr/dscf PM standard could be 
easily achieved. These data were supported by a vendor guarantee of 
0.004 gr/dscf on fabric filters at 3 building evacuation systems at 3 
similar shops. These shops, owned by one company at one location, 
produced alloy steel. Another vendor also signed a statement that they 
would guarantee 0.004 gr/dscf on a system planned for the capture of 
charging and tapping emissions at a plant which produced carbon steel. 
Two other vendors stated that although 0.004 gr/dscf was achievable for 
fabric filters designed to treat large volumes of exhaust gas with low 
concentrations of PM, it could not be guaranteed, but 0.004 gr/actual 
cubic feet (acf), approximately equivalent to 0.005 gr/dscf, could be 
guaranteed. Further, industry representatives at the meeting commented 
that the 0.0039 gr/dscf level was too stringent for the industry to 
meet at all times. Therefore, the industry representatives suggested 
the limitation be 0.008 gr/dscf.
     After the January 9, 1974, NAPCTAC meeting, a vendor 
stated that, for a fabric filter controlling a direct shell evacuation 
(DEC) system with a relatively high inlet concentration of PM, 0.005 
gr/dscf was a reasonable level to guarantee.
     In the October 21, 1974 proposal (39 FR 37466), the Agency 
proposed a PM standard to be no more than 0.0052 gr/dscf of PM from the 
control device, which relaxed the previous presented value of 0.0039 
gr/dscf for the limit for the PM concentration emitted from an EAF 
control device.
    In summary, this history of discussions around the first PM limit 
for EAF control devices in the NSPS is as follows: the EPA originally 
put forward an EAF control device standard in the form of lb/hr-ton in 
1973. The following year, industry suggested a PM limit of 0.008 gr/
dscf and vendors presented a guaranteed fabric filter limit of 0.005 
gr/dscf. Subsequently, in 1974, the EPA proposed a standard of 0.0039 
gr/dscf, which was based on ``available emission data'' from one 
facility, as noted in the 1974 BID. However, after NAPCTAC discussions 
with industry and vendors, a limit of 0.0052 gr/dscf was promulgated by 
the EPA in 1975 in the EAF NSPS subpart AA and confirmed again in 1984 
in the EAF NSPS subpart AAa.
    Regardless of the EPA's discussions during prior rulemakings, as 
detailed in the proposed rule and in this final action, we now have a 
strong basis to find a direct relationship between mass emissions and 
steel production that justifies our facility-wide PM limit in units of 
lb/ton. We show in our analyses of 2010 data from 30 facilities 
discussed in this preamble (see Figure 1), as well as in data from more 
facilities from 2005, as discussed in another EPA response in this 
preamble section, that there is a direct relationship. As explained 
earlier in section IV.A.1 and in other comments in this section, and in 
the proposal, the EPA analyzed the total facility PM mass emissions 
versus production at a number of EAF facilities and found that a 
correlation exists, and that promulgating a PM standard for NSPS 
subpart AAb in this form would enhance compliance and may reduce 
emissions. As noted earlier in this EPA response, the new format of the 
EAF NSPS subpart AAb, in units of lb/ton ensures that every facility is 
accountable for the total PM contribution from its EAF and AOD to the 
environment in the nearby community for every unit of steel produced. 
As an example of similar thoughts on the value of EAF standards in lb/
ton, we note a 2017 facility construction permit for prevention of 
significant deterioration that included a lb/ton PM limit (0.19 lb/
ton), as well as a ``no visible emissions'' limit for the EAF.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Finkl & Sons Co. DBA Finkl Steel--Chicago. 1355 East 93rd 
Street, Chicago, Illinois 60619. State of Illinois Clean Air Act 
Permit Program (CAAPP) Permit. ID No. 031600GUC. Permit No. 
14030029. Permitting Authority, Illinois Environmental Protection 
Agency Bureau of Air, Permit Section 217/785-1705. Final issue date 
July 5, 2018. pp. 21 and 23 of 129.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: The commenter asserted that the EPA conducted evaluation 
on a concentration basis and not in the form of the proposed standard 
(lb/ton). A commenter stated the EPA in its proposal performed cost 
analyses based upon the air flowrates to the air pollution control 
device, and rather than establishing a standard of performance for the 
air pollution control device (baghouse), the EPA proposed the PM 
emissions standard in terms of lb/ton steel produced on a facility-wide 
basis. The EPA analyzed the performance of emissions controls from EAF 
on a concentration basis (milligram per dry standard cubic meters (mg/

[[Page 58451]]

dscm)--grain per dry standard cubic feet (gr/dscf))--and not in the 
form of the proposed standard. The EPA must be consistent with the 
basis of its evaluation and establish a standard measuring compliance 
as a concentration exiting the control device.
    EPA Response: The commenter correctly notes that, rather than 
establishing a concentration standard of performance for each 
individual air pollution control device (baghouse), the EPA in 2022 
proposed to set the PM emissions standard in terms of lb/ton steel 
produced on a facility-wide basis from all control devices at the EAF 
facility. However, the EPA disagrees that we analyzed the performance 
of emissions controls from EAF on a concentration basis (gr/dscf)--and 
not in the form of the proposed standard. The EPA's analysis in the 
``Emissions Memorandum'' discussed earlier in this section clearly 
demonstrates that the EPA evaluated costs and emission reductions on a 
facility-wide basis in lb/ton format. [See figures and tables in the 
``Emissions Memorandum'' discussed earlier in this section: Figure 3 
(EAF baghouse data in mass PM per mass of steel produced (lb/ton)); 
Figure 4 (EAF facility total baghouse mass PM per mass of steel 
produced (lb/ton)); Table 3 (EAF Baghouse Information and Average PM 
Emissions (lb/ton)); and Table 5 (Facility Total EAF Baghouse Average 
PM Emissions (lb/ton))]. Further, the EPA outlined in multiple 
locations in the proposal that the performance of emissions controls 
from EAF were done on a facility-wide basis.
    For example, at 87 FR 29716, the EPA described the PM and opacity 
test data that was used in the BSER analysis. At 87 FR 29715-29716, the 
EPA explained how the opacity limit was developed considering facility-
wide emissions. To determine the PM limit for control device PM 
emissions under the BSER, 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 0 percent. In turn, facilities 
with 6 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 in the proposal preamble (87 FR 29720). 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 in lb/ton under the BSER for new, modified, 
and reconstructed EAF or AOD.
    As explained earlier in section IV.A.1 and other comments in this 
section, and in the proposal, the EPA analyzed the total facility PM 
mass emissions versus production at a number of EAF facilities and 
found that a correlation exists, and that promulgating a PM standard 
for NSPS subpart AAb in this form would enhance compliance and may 
reduce emissions. As noted earlier in this EPA response, the new format 
of the EAF NSPS subpart AAb, in units of pound per ton (lb/ton), 
ensures that every facility is accountable for the total PM 
contribution from its EAF to the environment in the nearby community 
for every unit of steel produced.
    Comment: A commenter asserted that a lb/ton steel limit does not 
consider the different types of EAF mills. A commenter stated the EPA 
does not acknowledge nor address the fundamental fact that a 
``facility-wide lb/ton'' production, or mass-based standard, ignores 
the substantial differences among EAF steel mills that directly bear on 
the PM emissions per ton of steel produced. The commenter claims it is 
both unfair and inconsistent with the BSER to hold a small specialty 
steel EAF facility, with low tonnages and more time-intensive steel 
refining requirements, to the same production-based standard as a 
facility that produces 10-times or more steel with much shorter heat 
times (i.e., 2 facilities with vastly different production rates).
    The commenter stated a compliance method based on PM per ton of 
steel produced does not take into consideration the various 
subcategories of EAF operations, differences in steel products, and 
variation in heat times and tonnages produced, which vary considerably 
depending on the product grade of steel and the mix of such products at 
various mills. Some carbon EAF mills produce high tonnages in 
relatively short heat times, while specialty EAF steel facilities 
produce much smaller tonnages over heat times that can be 2 to 3 times 
as long.
    The commenter continued, as the EPA noted in developing the NSPS 
subpart AAa standards in 1984, the production of steel in an EAF is a 
batch process where `heats' or cycles range from 1 to 5 hours, 
depending upon the size and quality of the charge, the power input to 
the furnace, and the desired quality of the steel produced. The 
commenter added, the EPA's statement in the proposal that ``[t]he 
production of steel in an EAF is a batch process'' (87 FR 29713), is 
not accurate and fails to acknowledge ``Endless Charging Systems'' and 
Consteel[supreg] continuous feed systems (i.e., continuous charging 
systems). The commenter added that, to determine appropriate standards 
of performance, the EPA should conduct a comprehensive evaluation of 
the different types of EAF mills (such as bar, sheet, and plate) and 
consider establishing different limitations and requirements for each 
subcategory. Another commenter encourages the EPA to evaluate current 
designs and applications of baghouses for the control of PM.
    EPA Response: We disagree with the commenter on the relevance of 
lb/ton standard to the variation in EAF operations. The lb/ton limit 
being promulgated (0.16 lb/ton) reflects the highest emitting facility 
in the EPA dataset, which is a stainless steel facility. Therefore, we 
expect both EAF carbon and stainless steel facilities, continuous or 
batch, that modify or reconstruct and then are subject to the NSPS 
subpart AAb will be able to meet the new PM limit. Moreover, future 
new, reconstructed, and modified facilities will be in an even better 
position to meet this limit because they can plan their construction, 
reconstruction, or modification accordingly. For these reasons, and 
because the facility which represents the PM limit, at 0.16 lb/ton 
total facility PM control device emissions, is the highest emitting 
facility in the dataset

[[Page 58452]]

(and 1 of only a total of 4 steel facilities in the industry that 
produce only stainless steel), we do not think a subcategory is 
warranted.
    The commenter is correct that the lb/ton limit does not take into 
account the different types of EAF mills, but the various types of 
steel and production have all been meeting the single concentration 
standard in subpart AAa (and AA) without issue in the many years since 
this limit was first set in 1975. Therefore, meeting a lb/ton standard 
based on the emissions of one third of the facilities in the industry 
that also are meeting the current standard will not be a problem. 
Whether a mill is batch or continuous, slow or fast, will not affect 
the total amount of PM emitted per amount of steel produced for each 
facility. When a batch process stops producing steel (i.e., stops 
tapping steel), it typically also will stop emitting PM from the EAF. 
If PM emissions continue after the EAF has stopped processing scrap, or 
steel has stopped being tapped in a batch process, any ``trailing'' PM 
emitted is still a result of the steel that has just been produced. 
Therefore, this ``trailing'' PM should be included in the total PM 
catch for the test run.
    Similarly, a continuous EAF process will emit PM as it continues to 
produce steel. And a relatively large amount of steel produced in a 
short time will also produce a relatively large amount of PM in a short 
period. The effect of dividing the PM emitted by the tons of steel 
produced normalizes the different processes to a common lb/ton term.
    Comment: Air-to-cloth (A/C) ratios from integrated iron and steel 
(II&S) industry were used instead of EAF data. The commenter asserted 
that the EPA offers no explanation why using II&S baghouse data was 
relevant to EAF baghouse controls in the first place or why the EPA 
presumed that relative rank placement of 5 facilities along a ranking 
of II&S baghouse A/C ratios allowed the EPA to presume those 
facilities' PM emissions were based on control through a baghouse with 
the same A/C ratios. Moreover, the commenter asserts that the use of 
II&S data is inexplicable because the EPA has in its possession the A/C 
ratios for many plants with EAF. This information was available to the 
EPA in the rulemaking docket for the 40 CFR part 63, subpart YYYYY 
NESHAP for EAF, and the EPA even summarized the A/C ratios for the EAF 
baghouses that were operated during these performance tests.
    The commenter continued to assert that the EPA's derived average, 
median, minimum, and maximum A/C ratios are all incorrect. The derived 
A/C ratios misstate the actual A/C ratios reported by the 3 model 
facilities for which the EPA had actual performance test data (Model 
Plants A, B, and E). For instance, Model Plant E is the North American 
Stainless facility in Ghent, Kentucky (NAS-KY), which operates 4 
baghouses. For those 4 baghouses, the facility reported to the EPA A/C 
ratios of 4.1, 4.5, 4.5, and 5.0 ft/min--none of which are close to the 
EPA's erroneously derived A/C ratio of 7.2 ft/min.
    EPA Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that 
the use of II&S data in lieu of the A/C ratios for plants with EAF is 
inappropriate. The EPA stated in the EAF NSPS proposal (87 FR 29718) 
that the reason for using more recent 2011 II&S baghouse data was 
because no A/C ratio data were available in the EAF PM test reports 
from 2010. Therefore, values for A/C ratios from CAA section 114 
responses submitted in 2011 by the II&S industry for the risk and 
technology review for 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF (85 FR 42074) 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 baghouse A/C ratios from in the NSPS proposal based on II&S 
data submitted in 2011 for a CAA section 114 request were similar to 
those submitted in 2005 for another CAA section 114 request for the EAF 
NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart YYYYY),\14\ as shown in Table 1. A 
quantitative comparison of the A/C ratios from the 2005 EAF NESHAP data 
to the II&S 2011 data is also shown in Table 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0083.

                       Table 1--Comparing A/C Ratios for 2011 II&S Data v. 2005 EAF NESHAP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model plant                                  A/C ratio (ft/min)
                              Comparing 2011 II&S A/C data to 2005 NESHAP data
                             --------------------------------------------------
                                            2011 II&S          2005 EAF NESHAP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A...........................                      1.3                      1.4  -7 percent.....  II&S lower.
B...........................                      2.9                      2.2  32 percent.....  II&S higher.
C...........................                      4.0                      3.0  33 percent.....  II&S higher.
D...........................                      4.9                      4.5  9 percent......  II&S higher.
E...........................                      7.2                        6  20 percent.....  II&S higher.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Average                                     17 percent.....  II&S higher.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the commenter points out, the 2005 EAF data does not include all 
of the facilities from the 2010 dataset. In addition, the 2005 data did 
not have A/C data for all the facilities' baghouses, where there were 
multiple baghouses, and for some facilities the number of baghouses for 
each facility changed from 2005 to 2010.
    In response to this comment, for the final rule, we re-examined the 
BSER analysis of total facility PM lb/ton steel from capture systems 
and fabric filters using A/C ratios from the EAF 2005 CAA section 114 
request that ranged from 1.4 to 6.0 ft/min. For Model Plant A, 
corresponding to Timken-Faircrest-OH, the A/C ratio in the 2005 CAA 
section 114 request (3.4 A/C) was higher than the 2011 II&S data point 
(at 1.3 A/C), but the A/C ratio derived using a regression analysis 
that produced the line of best fit from the 2005 CAA section 114 
request data (at 1.4 A/C), is very similar to the II&S datapoint (1.3 
A/C).
    For Model Plant B, based on Timken-Harrison-OH, the A/C ratio from 
the 2005 CAA section 114 request (at 2.7 A/C) is very similar to the 
II&S data point (2.9 A/C) and also from a regression analysis that 
produced the line of best fit from 2005 (2.7 A/C).
    For Model Plant E, based on NAS-KY, an average A/C ratio of 4.5 ft/
min A/C was derived from the data reported to the EPA in 2010 (and also 
provided by the commenter). However, the A/C ratio of 6.0 assigned to 
the same emissions as

[[Page 58453]]

NAS-KY (0.16 lb/ton) derived from the curve of 2005 CAA section 114 
data is not much different than what was used in the EAF proposal (at 
7.2 A/C) based on II&S data. These values are shown in Table 2.

                                   Table 2--Comparing A/C Ratio Data Between 2005 and 2010 EAF Data and 2011 II&S Data
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                A/C ratio (ft/min)
                                       Comparing 2005 to 2010                            ---------------------------------------------------------------
              Facility                          data                  Model plant                                                           Curve using
                                                                                          2011 II&S data   2005 EPA data   2010 EPA data     2005 data
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timken-Faircrest-OH.................  Different baghouses....  A                                     1.3             3.4              NA             1.4
Timken-Harrison-OH..................  Same baghouses.........  B                                     2.9             2.7              NA             2.2
NAS-Ghent-KY........................  Same baghouses.........  E                                     7.2              NA             4.5             6.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the EPA used the data from the 2005 CAA section 114 
request for the EAF NESHAP to add to the 2010 CAA section 114 request 
data used for the lb/ton BSER PM limit analyses for capture systems and 
fabric filters reported in the proposal in order to re-evaluate the 
proposed lb/ton BSER standard for capture system and fabric filter PM 
emissions. The 2005 EAF emission data that was able to be converted to 
lb/ton values and also had A/C ratio data were used along with 2010 CAA 
114 request data used to develop BSER for the proposal. A similar trend 
in PM lb/ton data was seen in the 2005 data as compared to 2010 data, 
as shown in Figure 2 below, with a lower maximum PM lb/ton value in the 
2005 data.
    The 2010 CAA section 114 request data used to develop the PM lb/ton 
standard for the proposal were matched to the A/C ratios in the 2005 
CAA section 114 data for the NAS-Ghent-KY facility, to provide a total 
of 18 facilities in the dataset for PM lb/ton standard for capture 
systems and fabric filters for the final rule. See the memorandum 
titled Cost Analyses to
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25AU23.001

Determine BSER for PM Emissions and Opacity from EAF Facilities,\15\ as 
updated for the final rule, hereafter referred to as the ``Cost 
Memorandum,'' located in the docket for this rule. The results of the 
analyses of a PM limit that reflects BSER were similar between proposal 
and final producing the same PM 0.16 lb/ton limit for the BSER capture 
system and fabric filter. See Table 3 for the combined 2005 and 2011 
lb/ton data set using EAF A/C ratios and both 2005 and 2011 EAF 
submitted emissions data. Table 4 shows the results from the model 
plant analyses comparing the results for the 2 approaches. Note Model 
Plants E and F are both the highest emitting model plant in the 
proposal (using 2011 II&S A/C ratios) and final rule (Using 2005 EAF A/
C ratios) analyses, respectively. Because Model Plants E and F are the 
highest emitting model plants, the EPA does not have a baseline with 
which to compare the costs and emission reductions in order to develop 
average cost effectiveness values. However, the EPA's determination of 
the BSER in this review is consistent with its determination of the 
BSER in the prior 40 CFR 60, subpart AAa rulemaking. And as noted 
elsewhere in this preamble, a third of the industry is already 
achieving the PM 0.16 lb/ton limit through application of that BSER, 
which demonstrates that the costs of meeting that limit are reasonable, 
and not exorbitant or excessive. See Lignite Energy Council v. EPA, 198 
F.3d 930, 933 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (``EPA's choice will be sustained unless 
the environmental

[[Page 58454]]

or economic costs of using the technology are exorbitant.''); Sierra 
Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d 298, 343 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (the court is not 
inclined to ``quarrel'' with the EPA's judgment that ``forecasted cost 
was not excessive and did not make the cost of compliance with the 
standard unreasonable''); Portland Cement Association v. Train, 513 
F.2d 506, 508 (D.C. Cir. 1975) (the inquiry is whether the costs of the 
standard are ``greater than the industry could bear and survive''). 
Moreover, the capital costs and annual costs associated with compliance 
with the PM 0.16 lb/ton limit are similar to, and in some cases lower 
than, the costs that the EPA found to be reasonable for implementing 
the BSER to meet the final opacity standard, discussed in section IV.B. 
See the ``Cost Memorandum,'' discussed earlier in this section, for 
details of both the canopy costs for the opacity limit and fabric 
filter costs for the PM limit. This further demonstrates that the costs 
of meeting the PM 0.16 lb/ton limit are also reasonable for this 
industry, for all facility sizes. However, as shown in Table 4, the EPA 
does not find the incremental costs of achieving the more stringent 
standards evaluated through application of the BSER to be cost 
effective for any facility size. Accordingly, the EPA concludes that PM 
0.16 lb/ton limit reflects the degree of emission limitation achievable 
through application of the BSER.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 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. May 1, 2023; 
Docket ID No. EPA-OAR-2002-0049-0061.

                  Table 3--Combined 2005 and 2010 lb/ton EAF Datasets With 2005 EAF A/C Ratios
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                              2005 facility A/C
                Count                 2010 Zero opacity facilities        2010 lb/ton        (weighted average)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................  Timken-Faircrest-OH.........  1.3E-02...............                   3.4
2...................................  Nucor-Crawfordsville-IN.....  1.6E-02...............                   3.2
3...................................  Gerdau-Charlotte-NC.........  2.3E-02...............                   2.2
4...................................  Timken-Harrison-OH..........  3.6E-02...............                   2.6
5...................................  Nucor-Huger-SC..............  5.2E-02...............                   2.6
6...................................  CMC-Birmingham-AL...........  5.5E-02...............                   3.7
7...................................  CMC-Cayce-SC................  6.4E-02...............                   3.3
8...................................  NAS-Ghent-KY................  1.6E-01...............            4.5 (2010)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Count                                   2005 Facilities with P/S          2005 lb/ton         2005 Facility A/C
                                                Baghouses                                     (weighted average)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................  Nucor-Norfolk-NE............  8.7E-03...............                   2.8
2...................................  Nucor-Cofield-NC............  1.3E-02...............                   3.0
3...................................  Nucor-Blytheville-AR........  1.4E-02...............                   3.0
4...................................  Nucor Bar Mill-Plymouth-UT..  1.8E-02...............                   2.1
5...................................  North Star Steel-St. Paul-MN  1.9E-02...............                   2.0
6...................................  Nucor Berkeley-Huger-SC.....  2.2E-02...............                   2.6
7...................................  IPSCO Steel-Axis-AL.........  3.2E-02...............                   2.6
8...................................  SMI Steel-Cayce-SC..........  5.8E-02...............                   3.3
9...................................  CMC/Struct Metals/SMI-Sequin- 8.5E-02...............                   6.0
                                       TX.
10..................................  IPSCO Steel-Muscatine-IA....  8.7E-02...............                   5.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table 4--Comparison of BSER Model Plants for Small, Medium, and Large EAF Facilities Using Two Datasets: 2005 EAF A/C Ratios and 2010 II&S A/C Ratios,
                                                             Both With 2010 EAF lb/ton Data
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Total       EAF facility            A/C ratio (ft/min)                Cost for new baghouse        Incremental
                                    controlled EAF      average    ----------------------------------------------------------------------      cost
                                     PM emissions     production                                                                           effectiveness
                                   --------------------------------                                                                         compared to
          Model plant \a\                                                                                                                   next lower-
                                                                         Value              Basis            Capital $    Annual costs $/ emitting model
                                        lb/ton            tpy                                                                   yr           plant \b\
                                                                                                                                         ---------------
                                                                                                                                           delta$/ton PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Small Facility
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E.................................            0.16          50,000             7.2  2011 II&S...........        $796,912        $341,981         $13,340
F.................................            0.16          50,000             8.0  2005 EAF............         767,439         338,610           7,196
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Medium Facility
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E.................................            0.16         775,000             7.2  2011 II&S...........       4,778,920       2,045,443          12,197
F.................................            0.16         775,000             8.0  2005 EAF............       4,361,224       1,997,701           6,575
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Large Facility
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E.................................            0.16       3,450,000             7.2  2011 II&S...........      21,929,003       8,598,613          13,708
F.................................            0.16       3,450,000             8.0  2005 EAF............      19,839,154       8,359,718           7,390
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Model Plants E and F are both the highest emitting model plants in the two datasets, where the A/C data for Model E is from II&S A/C data and for
  Model F the 2005 CAA section 114 responses are used for A/C data. Cost analysis values for Model E are the same as from proposal, with updates to
  reflect $2022 for the final rule v. $2020 that were used for the proposed rule.
\b\ The incremental cost effectiveness from Model Plant E to D in $2022, at $12,200/ton for medium-sized facility, is higher than the same comparison of
  the same model plants in $2020, at $8,500/ton, because of the increase in the values used in the cost estimate as a result of inflation and increase
  in interest rate from 3.5 percent to 7.5 percent from 2020 to 2022.


[[Page 58455]]

    Comment: The commenter asserted that the change from a 
concentration to lb/ton limit complicates compliance and does not 
result in better control or greater assurance of compliance. The 
commenter stated the EPA's assertion that switching to a lb/ton 
standard will ``result in better control and greater assurance of 
compliance'' is incorrect. Under the current standards in NSPS subparts 
AA and AAa, compliance is readily demonstrated through EPA Method 5 
monitoring of the stack on the primary control device/baghouse. This is 
a direct measurement of the filtering ability of the baghouse and 
evidence of compliance with concentration limits without all of the 
unnecessary variables the new rule introduces which are not directly 
related to emissions. Under the proposal, facilities subject to NSPS 
subpart AAb would be required to track tonnages produced during stack 
tests and match those to emissions data.
    EPA Response: The commenter is correct that with a lb/ton standard, 
facilities subject to NSPS subpart AAb will be required to track 
tonnages produced during stack tests and match those to emissions data. 
However, this is already required in the current EAF NSPS (compare 40 
CFR 60.274(i)(1), 60.274a(h)(1) with proposed and final 40 CFR 
60.274b(h)(1)). The 31 facilities in the 2010 EPA/EAF data set were 
able to report steel produced during the testing. Therefore, we expect 
the entire industry to be able to do so.
    The baghouse PM emission data in gr/dscf do not address the total 
emissions generated by a facility. The gr/dscf data can be influenced 
by increasing dilution air to the baghouse and is not directly related 
to steel production as PM emissions logically should be. Using 
concentration in gr/dscf to assess the filtering ability of baghouses 
can still be done at any time but it doesn't necessarily reflect the 
contribution of PM by the facility's steel production to the 
environment. In order to assess a facility's impact to the local 
environment, the general public would need to know the exhaust rates of 
every baghouse at a facility to determine the facility's PM emissions, 
whereas from lb/ton facility-wide data, the maximum amount of PM being 
emitted can be easily ascertained with only one steel production value 
and one facility-wide PM limit.
    Comment: The commenter asserted that the lb/ton limit does not 
consider vendor guarantees on control systems. The commenter stated it 
is critical to obtain vendor guarantees from suppliers when 
constructing new facilities or EAF and associated control systems, to 
ensure that the purchased equipment can comply with applicable 
standards. Vendors can guarantee that the filters/control device have a 
specific removal rate (i.e., vendors can only guarantee the difference 
between the clean and dirty side of the bag). Obtaining such guarantees 
is what gives facilities comfort that the equipment they purchase will 
perform such that compliance is assured. The commenter stated that such 
comfort is not possible with the Agency's proposed ``facility-wide'' PM 
limit, because vendors do not offer lb/ton guarantees for specific 
equipment and certainly not on a facility-wide basis. This is 
understandable given a supplier's ability to design equipment to a 
given concentration or control specification, but lack of ability to 
control the many factors that influence lb/ton efficiency, especially 
where a vendor may not be the sole facility-wide designer. Vendors have 
no control over the tonnage of steel produced or how the steel tonnage 
estimate comports with the duration of the PM measurement. The 
commenter concluded the EPA should take this into account by setting a 
concentration-based emission standard and noted that the EPA has 
previously acknowledged the importance of being able to obtain vendor 
guarantees when setting the NSPS subpart AAa limits in 1984 (49 FR 
43840). The commenter stated that it would thus be arbitrary and 
impermissible for the EPA to ignore that consideration here.
    EPA Response: Vendors can continue to use gr/dscf to assess the 
filtering ability of a baghouse, especially since the NESHAP for EAF 
(40 CFR part 63, subpart YYYYY) still requires gr/dscf determinations. 
In addition, the calculation of PM concentration in gr PM/dscf is an 
intermediate step in the calculation of lb PM/ton steel emission rate: 
concentration (gr/dscf) * flow rate (dscf) = emission rate, as PM in 
lb/hr; then divide by tons per hour steel for lb PM/ton steel format. 
Moreover, evaluating the impact of a new facility (or reconstructed or 
modified facility) under the NSPS subpart AAb, in terms of PM emissions 
on the surrounding communities, is more easily determined from a lb/ton 
limit and overall facility steel production. With a lb/ton limit, not 
only must a new facility determine that their baghouses are working 
properly, but they must also determine whether the facility is being 
efficient in its generation of PM at the desired production level 
compared to the best facilities operating at the same production level.
    Comment: A commenter noted that EAF National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) 40 CFR part 63 subpart YYYYY requires 
concentration limits. The commenter stated the maximum achievable 
control technology (MACT) standard in the NESHAP for EAF (40 CFR part 
63, subpart YYYYY) independently limits PM emissions from each EAF to 
0.0052 gr/dscf. The proposed NSPS would thus have the result of 
subjecting facilities to both a lb/ton limit (via NSPS) and a 
concentration limit (via NESHAP). Since facilities will still have to 
track gr/dscf anyway to comply with NESHAP limits, it would be 
inefficient and unreasonable to also require a lb/ton limit.
    EPA Response: The applicability between the NSPS and NESHAP are 
different. All existing EAF facilities will continue to meet the gr/
dscf PM limit in the NESHAP. Only new, reconstructed, or modified EAF 
or AOD units and their control devices need to meet both the lb/ton PM 
total facility limit that is being finalized in NSPS subpart AAb along 
with the NESHAP's individual baghouse limit. As discussed in previous 
responses to comments in this section, the data needed to show 
compliance with both standards are obtained in the same test. The 
combination of the two standards results in the public and regulators 
being able to more accurately evaluate EAF operation and the potential 
impact of new facilities on surrounding communities because the rules 
together limit total facility PM emissions impacts while checking 
individual control device operation. Facilities subject to the NSPS 
subpart AAb, and their vendors can continue use the gr/dscf limit to 
troubleshoot baghouse operation just as facilities have done in the 
past.
    For facilities that modify or reconstruct after May 16, 2022, only 
the EAF(s) or AOD(s) and the air pollution control equipment that were 
modified or reconstructed after May 16, 2022, must comply with NSPS 
subpart AAb. This provision has been added to the rule at in 40 CFR 
60.271b under the definition of ``Electric arc furnace facility.'' If 
there are capture systems and control devices that capture PM emissions 
from sources subject to NSPS subparts AA or AAa at the same site where 
there are also sources subject to NSPS subpart AAb, the procedures 
described in the rule at 40 CFR 60.275b(b) include any one of the 
following options (see also 40 CFR 60.276bI) to determine compliance: 
use the combined emissions; use a method that is acceptable to the 
Administrator or delegated authority and that compensates for the 
emissions from the facilities not subject to the provisions of

[[Page 58456]]

this subpart; or any combination of the above methods.
3. What is the rationale for the final BSER determination and what is 
the final standard of performance?
    The EPA is finalizing the proposed determination that the BSER for 
EAF and AOD is capture and control of PM with a fabric filer. The EPA 
is further finalizing the proposed determination that limit based on 
the BSER at 0.16 lb/ton total facility PM is achievable for any new, 
modified, or reconstructed facility because it is based on the EPA's 
data from approximately one third of the industry. The format of the 
limit based on BSER (total facility lb PM/ton steel produced from all 
affected capture systems and fabric filters) provides complete 
information on the performance of the facility and their EAF rather 
than that of just the individual baghouse(s) and individual EAF via a 
concentration based standard, and enables the public and regulators to 
know the total pollutant impact of the facility's EAF operation on the 
surrounding community. The current concentration-based limit in NSPS 
subparts AA and AAa is influenced by the amount of dilution air in the 
exhaust going through the baghouse, which can be adjusted to some 
extent by the facility without significant detriment to baghouse 
operation. Evaluating the impact of PM emissions from a new EAF 
facility (or reconstructed or modified facility) on the surrounding 
communities is more easily determined from a facility-wide lb/ton 
limit. With a lb/ton limit, not only must a new facility determine that 
their baghouses are working properly, but they must also determine 
whether the facility is being efficient in its generation of PM at the 
desired production level compared to the best facilities operating at 
the same production level. In addition, the total facility lb/ton PM 
limit provides an overall assessment of emissions from the facility in 
a format that scales emissions to production, which is based on 
fundamental engineering principles. The current concentration-based 
limits in NSPS subparts AA and AAa do not limit the air flow or the 
number of baghouses that could be used to comply with the standard.
    Based on data from 31 EAF facilities (more than one third of the 
industry), all 31 facilities' baghouse emissions are 40 percent or 
lower than the current concentration-based limit in 40 CFR part 60, 
subparts AA, AAa. Therefore, the 0.16 lb/ton production-based limit 
based on these same data is a significant improvement in emissions 
control compared to the current standard. Moreover, because the lb/ton 
limit is the highest level in the EPA data set that includes one third 
of the industry, the standard that the EPA has determined to reflect 
the application of the BSER technology is achievable.
    Lastly, we used both 2005 EAF PM data with EAF 2005 A/C data, and 
2010 EAF PM data with 2005 EAF A/C data for the cost analysis to 
determine BSER for the EAF lb/ton PM standard, and reached the same 
conclusion as we did for proposal with 2010 EAF PM data and 2010 II&S 
A/C data. Therefore, in this final rule, the use of a capture system 
and fabric filter was determined as the BSER. The PM limit based on 
BSER of 0.16 lb PM/ton steel facility-wide was derived from the data 
available to the EPA, which comprised approximately one third of the 
industry, and also where the EPA considered costs, nonair quality 
health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements (described 
below in sections V.A and V.B).
4. Are there any relevant energy impacts or nonair quality health and 
environmental impacts of the selection of the final BSER and, if so, 
how were the final emission limitations based on BSER affected?
    The EPA did not identify any relevant energy impacts or nonair 
quality health and environmental impacts of the proposed or final 
standards for PM emissions from EAF and AOD control devices 
(baghouses). See sections V.A and V.B. of this preamble for details. No 
comments were received on these issues.

B. NSPS Requirements for Opacity From Melt Shops for Electric Arc 
Furnaces and Argon-Oxygen Decarburization Vessels Constructed After May 
16, 2022

1. What did we propose as the BSER determination and standard of 
performance?
    We proposed that VE from EAF and AOD that exit from the melt shop 
would be limited to an opacity of 0 percent during all phases of 
operation, based on the determination of BSER as the addition of a 
partial roof canopy to capture and control melt shop fugitive 
emissions.
2. What significant comments did we receive and what are our responses?
    Comment: One commenter asserted that the proposed 0 percent melt 
shop opacity limit disregards workers' safety by requiring the closure 
of roof and buildings. Specifically, the commenter stated the proposed 
0 percent melt shop opacity limit disregarded workers' safety related 
to heat stress and material handling activities and that, therefore, 
the EPA should reconsider the 0 percent opacity limit. The commenter 
stated the proposal did not include an analysis of impacts for closure 
of building openings. A review of the impacts on worker heat stress 
would be necessary and that the EPA had provided no justification for 
requiring melt shops to close all openings.
    The commenter noted the current proposed rule did not address heat 
stress concerns, which was in conflict with OSHA's current Heat Stress 
Initiative and National Enforcement Program that identified ``iron and 
steel mills'' specifically as a high hazard industry for heat stress. 
The commenter stated that safe melt shop operation requires air flow to 
minimize potential heat stress on workers and equipment. The commenter 
claimed that negative pressure alone was not sufficient to maintain 
proper airflow through the melt shop and that cross drafts were 
necessary and doors and other access points needed to be open. The 
commenter also had significant concerns about employee health impacts 
from the proposed totally enclosed melt shop, particularly for its 
Mobile, Alabama facility, which is located in an extreme climate area, 
as the proposed changes could cause greater heat stress on employees 
and would necessitate design and structural changes that the EPA failed 
to consider in its proposal. The commenter stated that 100 percent 
capture and 0 percent opacity may not be safe. The commenter noted when 
evaluating 2 different control systems, the EPA may not simply choose 
the most cost-effective air pollution control system if it potentially 
has adverse impacts on the health and safety of workers within the melt 
shop. The commenter stated that facilities need to allow air changes to 
protect worker health and safety.
    The commenter referenced the 1984 amendments, which dismissed the 
option for a closed roof configuration to achieve 0 percent opacity due 
to the impacts of heat stress on worker safety and equipment 
functioning. A commenter said that statements made by the EPA in the 
1984 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAa rulemaking (49 FR 43841) that ``the 
visible emission limits were selected-based on the performance of the 
capture and control technologies that served as the basis for 
Regulatory Alternative B (partially open roof monitor)'' and that 
``Regulatory Alternative C (closed roof) was not considered suitable as 
the basis for national standards of performance because it is based on 
a closed roof

[[Page 58457]]

configuration which may aggravate worker and equipment heat stress 
problems.''
    EPA Response: The proposed rule 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAb did not 
require a closed roof nor a totally enclosed melt shop. In addition, 
the 0 percent shop opacity limit does not restrict air flow from 
exiting or entering the shop. Rather, the 0 percent opacity limit 
merely necessitates that no visible particles be emitted from the shop 
(as reflected by either no VE observations via EPA Method 22 or opacity 
of 0 percent using EPA Method 9 or the DCOT method). Canopy hoods have 
the benefit of being able to collect a large volume of emissions, 
especially those during charging and tapping and route the PM to 
control devices. Therefore, the basis for the addition of a partial 
roof canopy with a canopy hood used in the proposed and final cost 
estimates is to ensure facilities clean the air of particles before 
allowing the air to exit the shop opening(s). We believe a capture 
device such as a canopy hood, as opposed to a closed roof, can be used 
to meet the opacity limit based on BSER and does not endanger worker 
safety.
    Comment: The commenter asserted that the EPA used a limited data 
set that was not indicative of continuous long-term performance and did 
not support a finding that 0 percent opacity was adequately 
demonstrated. The commenter stated the EPA's dataset for EAF steel 
mills is selective and not representative of the full scope of 
operations at these facilities. The commenter stated that the EPA 
purported to have based the proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAb shop 
opacity limit on individual performance testing reports from a total of 
13 of 31 EAF steel mills, which was less than half. The commenter noted 
that most facilities (16 out of 31) were unable to maintain 0 percent 
shop opacity throughout the duration of the performance tests. Thus, as 
the majority of facilities in the EPA's database did not maintain 0 
percent opacity, the short duration of performance testing plainly 
demonstrated that 0 percent shop opacity was not adequately 
demonstrated.
    Another commenter stated the EPA's proposal of 0 percent opacity 
from the melt shop was based on limited information from opacity tests 
conducted at 31 facilities, of which less than half achieved the 0 
percent melt shop opacity requirement. The commenter stated that the 
short-term observations conducted during a stack test were taken for a 
few hours under a specific set of conditions and were not 
representative of long-term compliance capability and, as such, could 
not account for routine operating variability and the full range of 
operating conditions that may affect opacity. The commenter stated that 
the subset of data the EPA relied upon did not include longer-term 
operating performance of the identified mills; yet NSPS, as defined by 
BSER, must account for what was achievable and adequately demonstrated 
by a wide variety of facilities operating under a wide variety of 
conditions, not simply show that the standard was achieved at a model 
plant for a short period of time. The commenter also noted that the 
data collected by the EPA generally showed that the more years of 
opacity data reviewed for a given facility, the higher the maximum melt 
shop opacity.
    EPA Response: Thirteen facilities out of the 31 EAF facilities in 
the EPA data set had 0.00 percent shop opacity during the tests which 
were reported to the EPA. Two additional facilities in the EPA data set 
achieved 0.00 percent shop opacity as shown in the submitted test 
reports and another 4 facilities achieved 0.0 percent as shown in the 
submitted test reports, for a total of 19 facilities appearing to 
already be complying with a 0 percent shop standard (1 significant 
figure) based on tests in the submitted reports, and which were 
performed using the same test method that would be required to show 
compliance with the NSPS. Out of the total 31 facilities in the EPA EAF 
data, only 1 facility had shop opacity greater than 1 percent as an 
average of all runs in the test, with the overall average among the 31 
facilities in the EPA data set at 0.14 percent opacity. See the list of 
31 EAF facilities and the opacity test results from reports submitted 
to the EPA in the 2010 EPA/EAF data set, as shown in Table 5. None of 
the opacity data submitted to the EPA in 2010 should be construed as 
being from a ``model plant.'' The opacity data was taken from 
facilities responding to the CAA section 114 information request with 
the primary purposes to obtain mercury emissions data and were real 
facilities, comprising a third of the industry. Data for PM and opacity 
were collected as part of the CAA section 114 information request only 
for purposes of showing that the reported mercury data were taken 
during the time the facility was complying with both the NESHAP (40 CFR 
part 63, subpart YYYYY) and NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subparts AA and AAa).

 Table 5--Range of Melt Shop Opacity in 31 EAF Test Reports (2005-2011)
                  From the 2010 CAA Section 114 Request
                         [2010 EPA/EAF Data Set]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Melt shop opacity
             Count                   Facility ID           (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................  AKS-Butler-PA........              0.000
2.............................  AKS-Mansfield-OH.....              0.000
3.............................  CMC-Birmingham-AL....              0.000
4.............................  CMC-Cayce-SC.........              0.000
5.............................  CMC-Mesa-AZ..........              0.000
6.............................  Ger-Charlotte-NC.....              0.000
7.............................  Ger-Jackson-MI.......              0.000
8.............................  NAS-Ghent-KY.........              0.000
9.............................  Nuc-Crawfordsville-IN              0.000
10............................  Nuc-Huger-SC.........              0.000
11............................  Nuc-Jewett-TX........              0.000
12............................  Nuc-Marion-OH........              0.000
13............................  SSAB-Axis-AL.........              0.000
14............................  Tim-Faircrest-OH.....              0.000
15............................  Tim-Harrison-OH......              0.000
16............................  Nuc-Darlington-SC....              0.001
17............................  Ger-Knoxville-TN.....               0.01
18............................  Ger-StPaul-MN........               0.02

[[Page 58458]]

 
19............................  Nuc-Plymouth-UT......               0.05
20............................  CMC-Seguin-TX........               0.10
21............................  Ger-Wilton-IA........               0.10
22............................  Ger-Jacksonville-FL..               0.10
23............................  Ger-Jackson-TN.......               0.20
24............................  Alle-Brackenridge-PA.               0.20
25............................  Nuc-Cofield-NC.......               0.20
26............................  Alle-Latrobe-PA......               0.30
27............................  Nuc-Blytheville-AR...               0.30
28............................  Nuc-Norfolk-NE.......               0.30
29............................  Ger-Beaumont-TX......               0.50
30............................  Ger-Cartersville-GA..               0.80
31............................  Ster-Sterling-IL.....                1.2
                                Overall average......               0.14
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It would be exorbitantly expensive to the industry (as well as the 
EPA) for the EPA to request and analyze round-the-clock opacity testing 
throughout the course of years at a number of facilities in order to 
obtain data during a ``wide variety of conditions and wide variety of 
facilities.'' None of the opacity requirements in previously 
promulgated rules (40 CFR part 60, subparts AA and AAa) have 
differentiated conditions or facility types for the opacity 
requirements in those rules. The commenter does not provide any 
information showing that the need for these data is justified, except 
for alluding to the fact that facilities improved their control of 
opacity in more recent years.
    The goal of determining BSER is that it is the ``best'' system of 
emission reduction (considering costs and other factors), not the 
system used by the majority of the industry nor the top facilities when 
ranked or any other ranking method. However, the EPA acknowledges that 
the data obtained through CAA section 114 requests consisted of data 
collected during melting and refining, which is the time period 
required to test opacity in the current EAF NSPS rules in 40 CFR part 
60, subparts AA, AAa. Therefore, in light of comments provided by the 
industry that reducing opacity during charging and tapping is difficult 
to achieve because of the physical structure of equipment and because 
of the much higher PM emissions during charging and tapping than during 
melting and refining, in the final rule for 40 FCR part 60, subpart AAb 
we are maintaining the current rule limit in 40 CFR part 60, subparts 
AA, AAa of 6 percent opacity to apply during charging and tapping, and 
retaining the proposed 0 percent melt shop opacity for melting and 
refining. We estimate that the period of charging and tapping is 
approximately 15 percent of the total EAF operating time period.
    Comment: The commenter asserted that the EPA's limited data set is 
not representative of performance during ``charging and tapping''; 0 
percent opacity should not apply to charging and tapping. The commenter 
stated the EPA's opacity data set did not adequately demonstrate that a 
0 percent opacity limit could be consistently achievable across the 
full spectrum of expected operating conditions. The commenter said the 
vast majority of the opacity measurements in the data set were based on 
measurements taken during the melting and refining stage of production 
(as required under 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAa), and thus did not 
demonstrate that 0 percent opacity had been consistently achieved 
during charging or tapping, which was the established period with the 
greatest potential for uncaptured emissions to escape the melt shop. 
The commenter noted that most EAF steel mills were designed such that 
the primary emission controls (DEC) could not be engaged while the 
furnace roof was off during charging and tapping.
    A commenter referenced previous rulemaking to corroborate their 
statements that the EPA did not consider its own historical 
information. One commenter referred to background documents for earlier 
NSPS rulings stating that in those documents, the EPA concluded that 
facilities utilizing DEC were likely to have a visible plume during 
charging and tapping and could not meet 0 percent opacity on a 
continuous basis. One commenter referenced the 1983 rulemaking docket 
stating it included only 7 hours of shop opacity data from some portion 
of the charging and tapping phase, and that such limited data from 4 
decades ago was not representative of, or sufficient to, characterize 
current melt shop operations. The commenter said these previous 
findings by the EPA contradict the current proposal that 0 percent 
opacity was achievable on a continuous basis.
    A commenter provided confidential summaries of long-term shop 
opacity data from the 13 facilities identified by the EPA as achieving 
the 0 percent standard, and noted that most of the opacity data was 
collected only during melting and refining, and not during charging and 
tapping. The commenter stated their summaries demonstrated that 0 
percent melt shop opacity was not continuously achieved by the 13 mills 
cited as exemplars. The commenter noted in a reference that they would 
readily provide the confidential data to the EPA upon request.
    A commenter stated that the current design at their facilities 
included DEC and a baghouse with a canopy, which under the proposed 
rule was considered the optimal design, yet it appeared the EPA did not 
include opacity data from their facilities in the limited data set. The 
commenter noted they fully complied with current limits in 40 CFR part 
60, subparts AA, AAa, including opacity; but their facility data showed 
that compliance with a 0 percent opacity limit at all times per the 
proposed standard could not be met continuously due to the production 
process variability and the raw material inputs. The commenter stated 
it was possible for the melt shop to experience an opacity greater than 
0 percent during charging and tapping when the DEC

[[Page 58459]]

system was disengaged, and there were other sources of opacity from 
concurrent operations (e.g., vacuum tank degasser operations, the LMF, 
and the Caster).
    A commenter said the EPA in the proposed rule stated 0 percent 
opacity could be achieved utilizing a canopy over the furnace with an 
open roof monitor elsewhere. The commenter operated its facilities 
under such a configuration and did not meet 0 percent opacity on a 
continuous basis; thus, the EPA's data set was flawed and not 
representative of the steel manufacturing operation.
    EPA Response: The EPA reviewed the summary data provided by the 
commenter, where for three facilities, the opacity summary data shown 
in Table 6 were provided.

                               Table 6--SMA Data on Opacity From Three Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Number
                                                    readings >0    Total number     Percent >0
                SMA facility No.                      percent         opacity     percent out of   Year of data
                                                      opacity        readings      all readings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................               3             349             0.9            2021
                                                               0             296            None            2020
                                                              11             294             3.7            2019
2...............................................              21           1,482             1.4       2021-2022
3...............................................              61           2,488             2.5       2021-2022
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the commenter presented these data attempting to 
contradict 0 percent opacity as BSER, the data actually support the 
preponderance of opacity data at 0 percent, since the number of 
readings greater than 0 percent were low, ranging from none (i.e., no 
readings greater than 0 percent) to a high of 3.7 percent, out of a 
total number of readings ranging from 300 to 2,500.
    The EPA's evaluation of the degree of emission limitation 
achievable with the BSER is not based on an average of all facility 
data nor an average of the best facilities. Rather, the BSER is the 
best system of control that the EPA determines is adequately 
demonstrated for EAF in the industry, and the EPA's charge under CAA 
111(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B) is to establish a standard of performance that 
reflects the degree of emission limitation achievable by application of 
that BSER.
    The EPA EAF data, taken mostly from the 2010 CAA section 114 
request, required ``an aggregate total of 180 minutes of opacity 
observation concurrent with PM and/or PM less than 2.5 micrometers 
(PM2.5) testing of EAF primary control devices.'' The 
commenter stated that charging time is less than 1 minute to 3 minutes 
per charge, and tapping is 4 to 6 minutes, so it is not surprising that 
most of the time opacity was measured during melting and refining.
    However, we agree with the commenter that because the current EAF 
NSPS rules in 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA and AAa only require opacity 
measurements during melting and refining, the data obtained by the EPA 
can be assumed to reflect only operation during melting and refining. 
Therefore, while we are retaining 0 percent opacity during melting and 
refining in the final rule as in the proposal, we are reverting back to 
the opacity limit of 6 percent opacity for charging and tapping as in 
the current rules in 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA, AAa.
    Additionally, opacity testing during charging, tapping, and 
melting, and refining periods is required in the final rule. Opacity 
tests during tapping, and melting and refining periods should be able 
meet the minimum 6 minutes of total opacity testing required under EPA 
Method 9 in 24 consecutive tests for 15 seconds each. However, we are 
allowing a modification of EPA Method 9 for testing during charging 
because of the potentially shorter time period that charging occurs. In 
the final rule, we are allowing the EPA Method 9 testing during 
charging to be determined from the average of 12 consecutive 
observations recorded at 15-second intervals for a total of 3 minutes 
of opacity testing.
    Comment: The commenter asserted that the EPA did not properly 
evaluate the cost of compliance with 0 percent opacity for a source as 
a result of modification.
    EPA Response: The commenter was not specific as to what type of 
modification needed to be evaluated for its costs to comply with the 
proposed opacity standards. A modification that triggers applicability 
of an NSPS is a modification that increases emissions and meets the 
requirements in 40 CFR 60.14. Without knowing which type of 
modification is in question, it is difficult to compare the costs of 
compliance and address the commenter's concern. A facility may be 
adding another baghouse to accommodate increased production of the EAF. 
In this case, the modification (additional baghouse) is outside of the 
melt shop and, therefore, is not affected by the melt shop standard. If 
a facility is modifying an EAF to increase production, pursuant to 40 
CFR 60.14 (e), an increase in production rate of the existing EAF is 
not considered a modification if that increase can be accomplished 
without a capital expenditure on that facility. The partial roof canopy 
determined to be BSER for the melt shop is a type of capture device 
that can be added to any melt shop. However, the final rule does not 
require that a partial roof canopy be installed to be in compliance 
with the opacity standard. Affected sources can seek other methods to 
achieve the melt shop opacity.
    Comment: In regard to canopy hood control costs, a commenter stated 
the EPA did not examine advances in control technologies, process 
operations, design or efficiency improvements, or other systems of 
emission reduction, that are ``adequately demonstrated.'' Rather, the 
EPA looked to a decades-old BID, concluded that ``[c]anopy hoods are a 
common method of controlling fugitive EAF emissions,'' and assessed 
costs 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 shops to achieve complete 
control of melt shop fugitives.
    The commenter stated the EPA did not analyze whether canopy hoods 
were used by the 19 facilities that recorded 0 percent opacity during 
performance testing or were absent from the 9 facilities that recorded 
the highest opacity during performance tests. The commenter claims that 
this information was available to the EPA in the docket for the 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart YYYYY NESHAP for EAF--the same docket that supplied 
the majority of the performance test data the EPA used in this rule. 
The commenter further asserted that the EPA's own review of

[[Page 58460]]

the survey responses in the 40 CFR part 60, subpart YYYYY docket in 
June 2005 shows that the EPA knows that canopy hoods were used to 
capture fugitive emissions from 32 of the 38 EAF described in the CAA 
section 114 survey responses, and that the presence or absence of a 
partial roof canopy did not determine whether the facilities responding 
to the survey could achieve 0 percent opacity. Therefore, the EPA has 
no basis to now conclude for purposes of demonstrating achievability 
and cost effectiveness that the singular act of installing a partial 
roof canopy will ``achieve complete control of melt shop fugitives.''
    A commenter stated the EPA's conclusion is also contradicted within 
the Agency's cost analysis. In order to estimate how much PM is emitted 
from a facility that emits 6 percent opacity, the EPA used the 1982 BID 
[Electric Arc Furnaces and Argon-Oxygen Decarburization Vessels in 
Steel Industry--Background Information for Proposed Standards. 
Preliminary Draft. June 1982, Table 3-7 at 3-37; and the 1983 BID 
(Electric Arc Furnaces and Argon-Oxygen Decarburization Vessels in 
Steel Industry--Background Information for Proposed Standards. (EPA-
450/3-82-020a) July 1983; Table 3-7 at 3-37] to estimate that EAF emit 
an average of 29 lb/ton of uncontrolled PM emissions. The EPA then 
relied on the 1982 [and 1983] BID again to estimate that facilities 
emitting 6 percent opacity captured 90 percent of those emissions using 
a ``segmented canopy hood, closed roof over furnace, open roof monitor 
elsewhere.'' This is the exact fugitive emission capture technology 
that the EPA's Cost Analysis presumes facilities with greater than 0 
percent opacity can install to achieve 0 percent opacity. In other 
words, the EPA's Cost Analysis assumes that facilities with a 
``segmented canopy hood, closed roof over furnace, open roof monitor 
elsewhere'' are emitting 6 percent opacity and if those facilities 
install a ``segmented canopy hood, closed roof over furnace, open roof 
monitor elsewhere'' they will achieve 0 percent opacity. Commenter 
stated because it is arbitrary and unreasonable to assume that 
facilities will be able to achieve 0 percent opacity by doing nothing 
more than install the same systems that facilities already have 
installed without reaching 0 percent opacity, the EPA has failed to 
provide a cost estimate rationally related to reduction of opacity from 
6 percent to 0 percent.
    EPA Response: Canopy hoods have been in use for many years in many 
industries and are still in use today. The costs to install a partial 
roof canopy to enhance control of EAF melt shop fugitives was taken 
from relatively recent rulemakings (2011 through 2018 \16\) for the 
Ferroalloys industry, which also uses EAF. The 1984 EAF BID was used 
only to estimate uncontrolled EAF shop emissions in the proposal 
because there is no estimate available of uncontrolled emissions due to 
the fact that most, if not all, EAF facilities, especially those 
subject to the EAF NSPS subparts AA and AAa, have some type of control 
of shop emissions, e.g., DEC systems; canopy hoods, side draft hoods, 
and tapping hoods; partial or total enclosures; scavenger duct systems; 
and building evacuation systems (72 FR 53818). Even if a total 
uncontrolled melt shop could be found, it is not a typical source test 
to measure emissions from a large opening such as a roof vent or an 
industrial door, nor does the EPA generally have the resources to 
perform such a test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/ferromanganese-and-silicomanganese-production-national-emission for 
information regarding Ferroalloys rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If some EAF facilities with canopy hoods are not achieving 0 
percent opacity, as the commenter alleges, it is likely because both 
the NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart YYYYY) and NSPS standards (40 CFR 
part 60, subparts AA, AAa) currently only require 6 percent opacity 
limits for EAF and AOD, and because the standard is higher, they are 
only being designed to meet that standard. Regardless of the fact that 
some EAF and AOD facilities may have been designed this way, they still 
can be designed or modified to achieve 100 percent capture to ensure 0 
percent opacity. The fact that some hoods have not been achieving 100 
percent capture at some facilities is not proof that canopy hoods 
cannot be used to do so for new, modified, or reconstructed sources. 
The commenter fails to provide a technical basis for why canopy hoods 
cannot be designed to achieve 0 percent melt shop opacity.
    Out of 31 EAF facilities in the EPA EAF dataset with opacity data, 
13 facilities achieved 0.000 percent shop opacity. Two additional 
facilities achieved 0.00 percent shop opacity, and another 4 facilities 
achieved 0.0 percent, for a total of 19 facilities able to comply with 
a 0 percent shop standard. Out of the total 31 facilities in the EPA 
EAF data, only 1 facility had shop opacity greater than 1 percent as an 
average of all runs in the test, with the average of all 31 facilities 
at 0.14 percent opacity (a value that would round down to 0 percent 
under the NSPS). See the ``Emissions Memorandum,'' discussed earlier in 
this section, for more information about these data.
    The addition of a canopy hood or alteration of existing hoods to 
achieve slightly better capture is within reach by a facility achieving 
less than 1 percent opacity but greater than 0 percent. The scenario of 
installation of a canopy hood in the melt shop is used in the cost 
analysis to represent one method that is lower in cost and can be used 
to achieve the standard of performance if an existing source that is 
not currently achieving 0 percent melt shop opacity were to modify or 
reconstruct and become an affected facility under 40 CFR 60, subpart 
AAb.
    Comment: A commenter stated melt shop partitions of the size 
necessary to meaningfully contain EAF emissions within the melt shop 
are not feasible in many mills given other equipment and shop design, 
including cranes. In particular, sizable partition walls are not 
feasible at many EAF steel mills because they will interfere with 
overhead cranes that transport scrap metal to the furnace. Similarly, 
transfer ladles that are carried by crane to and from the furnace for 
tapping molten metal would be blocked by partition walls.
    The commenter said for existing facilities that may trigger an NSPS 
modification in the future, achieving 0 percent shop opacity would 
require extensive re-engineering that would be costly and introduce 
practical and worker safety concerns as well. For example, one [trade] 
association member stated that 0 percent shop opacity could only be 
achieved, if at all, with near total enclosure of the EAF and doubling 
the flow rate of the emission control system. The commenter stated that 
only very short (and therefore marginally effective) partition walls 
could be installed above the crane because of the lack of space between 
the crane and the roof. They also noted that such short partitions 
deteriorated quickly due to the heat and other elements. Thus, to 
increase the size and collection efficiency to meet a 0 percent opacity 
requirement, the facility would have to raise the roof of the structure 
at an undetermined cost (a cost that likely would trigger a ``major 
modification''), and potentially enclose the entire monovent, which 
would likely create worker safety and heat stress issues.
    The commenter added, facilities would have to increase the number 
and volume of fans to the baghouse, as well as require new or 
additional fans in the shop and additional baghouses because the 
facility's current baghouses are operating at close to maximum 
capacity. Moreover, for servicing, cranes have to

[[Page 58461]]

be moved to a different part of the melt shop due to the partitions 
being so close to the top of the cranes. To achieve compliance, 
existing facilities such as these also would have to enclose the large 
openings in the casting area to prevent winds from blowing through the 
shop or wall off the EAF operations. Neither option is feasible; melt 
shops are typically long buildings with EAF, LMS, and casting in the 
same structure.
    EPA Response: The cost analysis for new, modified, or reconstructed 
EAF to achieve 0 percent opacity is based on a ``partial'' canopy hood 
and not ``partition walls,'' as the commenter suggests, that would 
interfere with overhead cranes. In regard to the comment that ``costly 
and impractical re-engineering to achieve 0 percent shop opacity that 
could only be achieved, if at all, with near total enclosure of the EAF 
that doubles the flow rate of the emission control system,'' there are 
19 EAF facilities in the EPA EAF dataset that demonstrated with data 
from 2010 that they were capable of complying with a 0 percent melt 
shop opacity standard (which we assumed was during melting and 
refining) and, therefore, belie this concern. And because only 1 
facility among the 31 facilities in the EPA EAF dataset had shop 
opacity greater than 1 percent as an average of all runs in the test, 
the addition of a canopy hood may be unnecessary and only alteration of 
the operation of existing hoods may be needed to achieve slightly 
better capture to achieve 0 percent melt shop opacity during melting 
and refining. This shows that meeting a new NSPS standard of 0 percent 
melt shop opacity during melting and refining is within reach by most 
if not all existing EAF facilities, so is even more likely achievable 
in any new facility.
    In actuality, it is not likely that all current EAF facilities in 
the industry will need to comply with 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAb, 
which would only be applicable to new EAF facilities or, for existing 
facilities, if the result of any future modifications or reconstruction 
increased emissions and met the provisions in 40 CFR 60.14 for 
modifications and 40 CFR 60.15 for reconstruction, respectively.\17\ 
Whether or not the modification or reconstruction planned at the 
facility would also trigger permitting requirements because it is a 
``major'' modification under the permitting regulations is not relevant 
to the EPA's determination of the BSER. Moreover, the EPA does not 
agree that it is likely that the construction of the canopy will itself 
be considered a major modification that triggers permitting 
requirements. The issue here is whether to meet the revised limit an 
existing source that modifies needs to raise the roof structure to 
install equipment to meet the standard. The EPA response to this issue 
is that it is not required to raise the roof structure so as to be able 
to install equipment, and we have no knowledge (and the commenter has 
not provided information showing) that raising the melt shop roof has 
ever having been done to meet a lower opacity, such as 0 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Note that modifications pursuant to CAA section 111 need 
not be ``major'' to trigger application of the NSPS. Rather, a 
modification under CAA section 111(a)(4) is defined as a physical 
change in, or change in the method of operation of, a stationary 
source which results in any increase in emissions. See also 40 CFR 
60.14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. What is the rationale for the final BSER determination and what is 
the final standard of performance?
    We established in the proposal (87 FR 29717-29718) that the use of 
a canopy hood above the crane rails, while not required to achieve 0 
percent melt shop opacity during melting and refining, is a cost-
effective method that can be used to do so, with cost effectiveness 
estimated at $1,700 per ton PM removed in $2022 for a medium-sized 
facility, annual costs of the canopy, at $1.1 million per year, and 
with PM reduction of 684 tpy at a medium facility achieving 0 percent 
melt shop opacity during melting and refining and 6 percent during 
charging and tapping, as compared to 6 percent opacity at all times. 
Analyses performed for small and large EAF melt shops produced similar 
cost-effectiveness values, at $1,800 per ton PM removed and $1,700 per 
ton PM removed, respectively. The values of $1,800 per ton or less are 
considered cost effective and, therefore, the use of additional canopy 
hoods above the crane rails is considered BSER for melt shop opacity 
for new EAF/AOD using this approach. (See section III.A.1.a of this 
preamble).
    The performance data obtained by the EPA for 31 facilities show 
that 13 facilities achieved 0 percent opacity during melting and 
refining and the other 17 achieved very low values of opacity so that 
the overall average melt shop opacity from all 31 facilities was 0.14 
percent. Therefore, considering that the costs are achievable even 
without the addition of a canopy hood, we conclude the 0 percent 
opacity is the standard of performance that reflects the degree of 
emission limitation achievable with application of the BSER for melting 
and refining.
    We also concluded that full enclosure is not needed to achieve 0 
percent melt shop opacity during melting and refining. The EPA 
acknowledges that facilities need sufficient capture ventilation to 
collect melt shop PM emitted as fugitives, but this does not 
necessarily require a fully enclosed melt shop, as seen in the data 
from EAF facilities in 2010 test reports obtained by the EPA where 0 
percent opacity was achieved.
    Because we do not have sufficient data to show that 0 percent melt 
shop opacity is achievable during charging and tapping to refute 
industry's assertion that 0 percent melt shop opacity is not achievable 
during charging and tapping, nor are these data likely available 
anywhere else, the final rule retains the current 6 percent NSPS limit 
for charging and tapping in 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA, AAa, and adds 
to the final rule for 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAb a testing requirement 
during these periods along with the requirement to test during melting 
and refining that is already required for facilities in operation on or 
before May 16, 2022. Note that the test method protocol for measuring 
opacity during charging has been modified for the final rule, as 
discussed in section V.B.1 of this preamble.
4. Are there any relevant energy impacts or nonair quality health and 
environmental impacts of the selection of the final BSER for melt shop 
opacity and, if so, how were the final emission limitations based on 
the BSER affected?
    There are no relevant energy impacts or nonair quality health and 
significant environmental impacts of the final BSER for melt shop 
opacity. These issues are discussed in detail in sections V.A and V.B 
of this preamble. No comments were received on these issues.

C. NSPS Requirements for Opacity From Control Devices and Dust Handling 
for Electric Arc Furnaces and Argon-Oxygen Decarburization Vessels 
Constructed After May 16, 2022

    We proposed to retain the BSER determinations for proper operation 
of control devices and proper dust handling procedures from NSPS 
subpart AAa in NSPS subpart AAb as well as the limitations of 3 percent 
and 10 percent opacity limits from control devices and dust handling, 
respectively. No comments were received on this subject. Similarly, we 
are finalizing the requirement for opacity from control devices and 
dust handling in NSPS subpart AAb, as proposed.

[[Page 58462]]

D. Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction Requirements for Electric Arc 
Furnaces and Argon-Oxygen Decarburization Vessels Modified, 
Reconstructed, or Constructed After May 16, 2022

    Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), 
the EPA has established standards in 40 CFR 60 subpart AAb that apply 
at all times. We also are finalizing in 40 CFR 60 subpart AAb specific 
requirements at 40 CFR 60.272b(c) that override the general provisions 
for SSM requirements. In finalizing the standards in this rule, the EPA 
has taken into account startup and shutdown periods and, for the 
reasons explained in section IV.D.2 of this preamble has not finalized 
alternate standards for those periods.
    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, 
nothing in CAA section 111 requires the Agency to consider malfunctions 
as part of that analysis. The EPA is not required to treat a 
malfunction in the same manner as the type of variation in performance 
that occurs during routine operations of a source. A malfunction is a 
failure of the source to perform in a ``normal or usual manner'' and no 
statutory language compels the EPA to consider such events in setting 
CAA section 111 standards of performance. The EPA's approach to 
malfunctions in the analogous circumstances (setting ``achievable'' 
standards under CAA 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 (2016).
1. What did we propose as the BSER determination and standard of 
performance?
    Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), 
the EPA proposed that the PM and opacity standards in 40 CFR subpart 
AAb apply at all times. We also proposed in 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAb 
specific requirements at 40 CFR 60.272b(c) that override the general 
provisions exemptions during SSM periods.
2. What significant comments did we receive and what are our responses?
    Comment: A commenter asserted that the EPA must provide work 
practice standards if the EPA removes SSM exemptions. Subjecting SSM 
periods to the same limit as those during normal operations was not 
adequately demonstrated as required per CAA section 111(a)(1) and was 
not provided in the docket prior to promulgation as per CAA section 
307(d). The dataset of stack tests from 33 facilities did not include 
adequate testing to demonstrate that SSM periods consistently met the 
limits proposed in 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAb. These stack tests were 
not conducted during SSM periods, and as such could not provide a basis 
for concluding that emissions during shutdown and startup could comply 
with the proposed limits. The commenter asserts that, if the EPA cannot 
show that compliance with a numerical limit was adequately demonstrated 
during periods of SSM, and provide that data in the record, then the 
EPA does not have the legal authority under CAA section 111 to subject 
those emissions to such a standard.
    EPA Response: Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, this action will 
ensure that the PM and opacity standards in EAF NSPS 40 CFR 60, subpart 
AAb apply at all times, including during periods of startup and 
shutdown. Because Sierra Club v. EPA established that emissions 
standards or limitations must be continuous in nature, the EPA must 
determine what standard will apply during periods of SSM. Moreover, CAA 
section 111(h)(1) provides that the EPA may only provide for work 
practice standards when the Administrator determines that it is not 
feasible to prescribe or enforce a numerical work practice standard. We 
have determined that the numerical standards in EAF NSPS 40 CFR 60 
subpart AAb are appropriate as EAF and AOD facilities can comply with 
the standards during startup and shutdown because the control devices 
are the same during startup and shutdown as in normal operation and 
would provide the same protection to PM emissions, both for PM from the 
control devices as well as opacity from melt shop, control devices, and 
dust handling. In regard to the 0 percent melt shop opacity standard, 
this standard in 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAb only applies during 
melting and refining; startup or shutdown does not fall under the 
operational description of melting and refining. A opacity standard of 
6 percent would apply at all other times.
    While commenters argue that the EPA must provide work practice 
standards, the commenters have not provided information showing that 
compliance with the numerical emission limitations is not possible 
during startup and shutdown events and that, therefore, the EPA's 
determination to apply the PM and opacity standards at all times would 
be inappropriate. In addition to the standards applying at all times, 
sources will need to comply with the CAA section 111 general 
provisions, which include ``general duty'' requirements in 40 CFR 
60.11(d) to operate ``in a manner consistent with good air pollution 
control practice for minimizing emissions.'' These provisions apply at 
all times, including during startup and shutdown, as well as during 
malfunctions.
    Comment: A commenter stated if a 0 percent opacity standard for 
melt shop emissions at all times was implemented, the EPA must exclude 
periods of malfunctions and upset conditions. The commenter explained 
that malfunctions have occurred during the melting and casting 
operations that required extraordinary measures for corrective action, 
such as a ``breakout.'' In an extremely dangerous situation, breakouts 
occurred when molten steel escaped from one or more mold strands at the 
caster or during casting. The commenter stated after a breakout and 
subsequent corrective action, emissions were generated and may exit the 
melt shop, and those emissions should not be considered in determining 
compliance with the 0 percent opacity melt shop requirement. The 
commenter said the EPA's proposed approach lacked an understanding of 
the significant dangers, risks, and related emissions associated with 
``breakouts'' and other malfunction events that occur during the 
steelmaking processes, and the EPA should reconsider the 0 percent melt 
shop opacity standard.
    EPA Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter that emissions 
during a malfunction are not appropriately subject to the standard. 
Malfunctions that cause exceedances of any part of a rule are 
considered a violation under the NSPS and are a compliance issue that 
is relegated to the EPA's enforcement office. Facilities should 
document the circumstances of the malfunction so as to be able to 
discuss the special circumstances of the

[[Page 58463]]

event with the EPA's enforcement officer. It is not the purpose of the 
BSER to take into account unpredictable, sudden, infrequent events such 
as what is described by the commenter. We also note that casting is not 
part of the EAF NSPS source category.

E. Testing and Monitoring Requirements for Electric Arc Furnaces and 
Argon-Oxygen Decarburization Vessels

1. What did we propose for testing and monitoring?
    From the EPA review of the current NSPS's testing and monitoring 
requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAa, we evaluated and 
determined the testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements needed to be clarified and revised'' to ensure compliance 
with the emission standards, considering that the NSPS reflect BSER 
under conditions of proper operation and maintenance. Consequently, we 
proposed changes to testing and monitoring in 40 CFR part 60, subparts 
AA and AAa, and also incorporated some of these requirements along with 
additional requirements into new 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAb.
    Specifically, we proposed amendments to clarify, correct, or refine 
the rule requirements to enhance compliance and enforcement with 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.''
    In addition, we proposed 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 60.8. This requirement for periodic testing already is 
required in many of the permits for existing EAF in both the EPA's EAF 
dataset and in the industry, and is a standard requirement for testing 
of other sources of PM emissions in many other industrial sectors.
    We also solicited in the proposal for comments or data and other 
relevant information on whether the EPA should change the allotted 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.
2. What significant comments did we receive on testing and monitoring 
and what are our responses?
    Comment: The commenter said facilities should be allowed 24 hours 
to respond to BLDS alarms and to complete the response as soon as 
practical in 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA, AAa, and AAb. The commenter 
disagreed with the proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAb provisions that 
would require facilities to determine the cause of all BLDS alarms 
within 1 hour and alleviate the cause of the alarm within 3 hours by 
taking the necessary response action. The commenter recommended the EPA 
adopt a 24-hour timeframe to initiate corrective action and to require 
that response actions be completed as soon as practicable. This 
approach would recognize the practical realities in identifying and 
responding to BLDS alarms. The commenter added that this approach is 
the same as that used in the Integrated Iron and Steel NESHAP, and is 
consistent with 40 CFR part 63, subparts X (NESHAP for Secondary Lead 
Smelting), DDD (NESHAP for Mineral Wool Production), EEE (NESHAP from 
Hazardous Waste Combustors), MMM (NESHAP for Pesticide Active 
Ingredient Production), RRR (NESHAP for Secondary Aluminum Production), 
and TTT (NESHAP for Primary Lead Smelting). The commenter said there 
was no justification for the proposal to be different from other 
existing rules. The commenter added that the proposed 3-hour time 
period was arbitrary and ignored the numerous scenarios in which it can 
take longer than 3 hours to identify and fix the cause of an alarm. 
Allowing facilities 24 hours to identify the cause and requiring 
facilities to alleviate the cause of the alarm ``as soon as 
practicable'' is more practical, particularly where many baghouse 
compartments must be inspected to determine the cause of an alarm.
    The commenter noted that there are situations in which more than 3 
hours is needed to respond to a BLDS alarm and address its cause. 
Because many mills calibrate their BLDS to be very sensitive, the 
likelihood that a BLDS alarm will be falsely triggered is increased. 
The commenter included the following examples of situations in which 
false alarms can occur:
     Weather. BLDS alarms will occasionally trigger during a 
heavy downpour or when there are significant changes in temperature or 
humidity.
     Bag Cleaning Cycle. BLDS alarm may trigger at the end of 
the baghouse cleaning cycle due to the temporary absence of dust in the 
bags.
     New Bag Start. BLDS alarms can be triggered following a 
replacement of some or all of the bags in the baghouse.
     Systems Checks/Testing. Some facilities may run systems 
checks on their BLDS that cause the system to alarm. For example, a 
facility may check the sensitivity of a BLDS by introducing a handful 
of flour into a port upstream from the probe. Facilities also evaluate 
and optimize their BLDS performance through drift checks, response 
tests, calibration exercises, and other quality assurance procedures. 
Some of these procedures require the alarm to be triggered in order to 
test performance, but in other instances the BLDS alarm may be 
inadvertently triggered during testing.
     Electrical Malfunctions. As BLDS detection is based on 
contact electrification, alarms can be triggered due to electrical 
surges impacting the sensors, processing electronics, or the 
connections between the sensor and processing electronics. These surges 
can either be environmental (lightning) or from variations/malfunctions 
in the BLDS system, its software, or its power source. Additionally, 
the abrasive environment in the baghouse duct can deteriorate the BLDS 
probe, probe housing, and housing insulation, which can cause an 
increase in malfunctions. BLDS alarms may be triggered during temporary 
power lapses or brief connectivity issues between the sensor and the 
processing electrics, or between the processing electronics and the 
system output/alarm. The BLDS can experience brief mechanical or 
software glitches/errors, including with respect to the sensor's signal 
amplification or with the configuration of the processing electronics.
     Repair/Maintenance. Some baghouse repair and maintenance 
activities may be conducted while the baghouse is in operation. In some 
of these cases, proper inspection and repair requires the baghouse to 
be operating in order to observe and repair malfunctions/maintenance 
issues. Often these activities are coordinated with a baghouse operator 
observing the BLDS readout in real time in order to identify the cause 
of an earlier alarm or to proactively identify maintenance or 
performance issues. Baghouse repair and maintenance activities 
sometimes must be conducted when the baghouse is operating because the 
repair/maintenance is urgently needed, and it is infeasible to quickly 
shut down the baghouse. These activities will cause BLDS alarms to 
trigger. Work on baghouse compartments and conveyances can introduce 
particulates into the system or dislodge caked or

[[Page 58464]]

accumulated dust which triggers alarms. Sounding of BLDS alarms also 
can be caused by maintenance and repair activities conducted when the 
baghouse is not operating. These activities can introduce foreign 
material or dislodge accumulations of material from ducts, conveyances, 
access panels, joints, and other components of the system upstream from 
the probe. Then when the baghouse is restarted, the newly introduced or 
dislodged material can cause the BLDS alarm to be triggered.
    The commenter pointed out that it is possible for a baghouse to 
operate within its emission and opacity limits even if the cause of a 
BLDS alarm is not identified and corrective measures taken. For 
example, if a broken bag in a compartment causes an alarm, the 
compartment can be isolated and shut down without affecting the rest of 
the baghouse. The commenter noted that determining the cause of the 
alarm often requires operators to undertake a multi-step 
troubleshooting process of elimination requiring multiple rounds of 
physical inspections and diagnostic efforts. This process of 
elimination often requires more than 3 hours to complete. The process 
can be very time-consuming, particularly when the BLDS alarm lasts only 
a short time. Identifying the cause of a brief BLDS alarm, the 
commenter said, can be very difficult and sometimes proves impossible. 
Some baghouses in the EAF industry have 25 or more compartments housing 
5,000 or more individual bags. Some mills do not have BLDS with 
detection capability in each separate compartment because the baghouse 
design does not allow for such monitoring (e.g., multiple compartments 
sharing common exit plenum). In these instances, mills must continue 
running and sequentially isolate compartments to determine which 
compartment may have caused the BLDS alarm. Facilities must then 
physically examine the compartment(s), which may contain 150 or more 
individual bags. If a bag has a significant rupture or has been 
dislodged, the cause of the alarm will likely be readily apparent. 
However, some alarms can be triggered by extremely small holes in bags 
and, in these cases, finding the leak by physical inspection can take a 
long time.
    The commenter said that EAF mills can have difficulty responding to 
multiple, intermittent alarms of short duration. The commenter noted 
that EAF facilities record the alarm as resolved where investigation 
shows no evidence of a bag leak. While the facility may be able to 
respond to each separate alarm in under 3 hours, the commenter said 
they are aware of one instance in which an enforcement authority 
determined the company was in violation of the 3-hour response 
requirement because the total time the facility spent responding to 
each of the separate intermittent alarms exceeded 3 hours. The 
commenter said the enforcement authority misinterpreted the 3-hour 
response requirement. This example was provided to show how a 3-hour 
response requirement presents a compliance risk even when individual 
responses are completed within the 3-hour window. The commenter 
recommended the following additions be made to 40 CFR 60.273(f) in all 
three rules in regard to the leak monitors to clarify false alarm 
situations.
    The commenter recommended adding to the requirements in 40 CFR 
60.273(f)), 60.273a(f)), and 60.273b(f)) that begin with: 
``Establishing to the extent acceptable by the delegated authority that 
the alarm was a false alarm and not caused by a bag leak or other 
malfunction that could reasonably result in excess PM emissions,'' the 
phrase ``in which case alarms due to the monitor malfunctioning are not 
subject to the [24-hour] response action requirement, as long as the 
[leak] monitor malfunction is timely corrected.''
    The commenter recommended adding to the requirements in 40 CFR 
60.273(f)), 60.273a(f)), and 60.273b(f)) that begin with: ``Shutting 
down the process producing the PM emissions,'' the phrase ``provided 
that shutting down the process unit is not required if an operator 
reasonably believes repetitive alarms are the result of a [leak] 
monitor malfunction, and the monitor malfunction is timely repaired.''
    EPA Response: We appreciate the details provided by the commenters 
to explain the reasons why a 24-hour response to BLDS alarms is 
warranted based on technical issues that EAF facility operators face 
and also why a 24-hour response is justified based on other similar 
rules that allow a 24-hour response. In light of the rationale 
provided, we are including the 24-hour response in the revisions to 40 
CFR part 60, subparts AA, AAa, and AAb, effective upon promulgation.
    In regard to the specific language the commenter suggests including 
in the rules in 40 CFR 60.273(f)), 60.273a(f)), and 60.273b(f)), the 
list of potential response actions are not to be taken as exclusive, 
i.e., the responses listed have the caveat that ``response actions may 
include, but are not limited to, the following, etc.'' The commenter's 
suggested changes for 40 CFR 60.273(f) in all 3 rules are redundant 
within the existing and proposed rules because the phrase ``not caused 
by . . . . . other malfunction that could reasonably result in excess 
PM emissions'' already covers leak monitor malfunction. This is the 
same issue for 40 CFR 60.273(f) in all 3 rules, where a shutdown is 
just one option for a response action and not a required action. In all 
3 rules in 40 CFR 60.273(f), fixing the leak monitor is the appropriate 
response action if that is determined to be the cause of the alarm. 
However, along with changing the response time to 24 hours, we have 
added a specific item in all three EAF rules in 40 CFR 60.273(f) to 
make it clear that leak monitor malfunction could be the cause, as 
follows: ``Establishing to the extent acceptable by the delegated 
authority that the alarm was a false alarm caused by a malfunctioning 
monitor and not caused by excess PM emissions.''
    Comment: A commenter asserted that the current compliance 
demonstration requirements using the fan amperage and damper position 
monitoring in 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA, AAa are the best methods for 
assuring compliance with the melt shop NSPS standards. A commenter 
asserted that the existing fan amperage and damper position monitoring 
in combination with opacity observations are the best methods of 
assuring compliance with the NSPS standards for the melt shop. The 
commenter opposed the proposed new monitoring requirements for 40 CFR 
part 60, subparts AA and AAa that included:
     Installation of BLDS on all baghouses, including multi-
stack baghouses;
     Monitoring and operational restriction for furnace static 
pressure monitoring based on 15-minute averages on all EAF;
     Monitoring and operational restriction for volumetric flow 
rate or static pressure at each separately-ducted hood, based on 15-
minute averages on all EAF;
     Removal of the option for monitoring and operational 
restriction for fan amps;
     Adding inspections and maintenance requirements for holes 
or other openings in the melt shop building; and
     Mandate for shop opacity observations to be made during 
charging and tapping or during the period of the heat cycle that 
generates the greatest uncaptured emissions.
    The commenter considered these new monitoring requirements to be 
unnecessary, expensive, and, in some cases, impractical. The commenter 
said the existing monitoring requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subparts 
AA and AAa

[[Page 58465]]

are adequate for demonstrating compliance with the standards. The 
commenter stated that the existing fan amperage and damper position 
monitoring have worked efficiently and effectively for many years and 
the proposed new monitoring would be less effective and would impose 
``. . . extreme technical and engineering complications'' on EAF 
plants.
    Similarly, the commenter urged the EPA to keep the current 
requirement in 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA, AAa for monitoring fan 
amperage in place, because they said this parameter directly correlates 
to the air flow to the control device, via the fan curve, unique to 
each site.
    EPA Response: The responses to BLDS monitoring requirements, damper 
position, fan amperage, furnace static pressure, melt shop inspection, 
melt shop opacity, and volumetric flow and static pressure follow here.
     BLDS Response. We proposed the BLDS monitoring requirement 
for all baghouses in 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA, AAa, and AAb because 
BLDS provides better information about EAF baghouse operation and 
compliance assurance for the PM emission and stack opacity limits than 
what is currently required in 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA and AAa, and 
because BLDS monitoring at all baghouses is technically feasible. 
Currently, as an alternative to COMs, single-stack baghouses are 
required to install a BLDS and perform EPA Method 9 visible emissions 
at the stack, whereas modular, multi-stack, negative-pressure or 
positive-pressure fabric filters are only required to conduct EPA 
Method 9 visible emissions monitoring. We agree with the commenter that 
the proposed change to require all types of baghouses to have BLDS 
should not be made as a correction in 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA and 
AAa, nor included in 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAb for all types of 
baghouses. Therefore, because using BLDS at all baghouses would involve 
the purchase of equipment not currently installed at facilities not 
using single-stack baghouses, this requirement is not included in the 
final rules for 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA and AAa. For 40 CFR part 
60, subpart AAb, because for existing facilities that modify or 
reconstruct, requiring BLDS at baghouses other than those with single 
stacks would involve the purchase of equipment not currently installed 
at these facilities, the BLDS requirement is included in the final rule 
for 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAb only for single stack baghouses. For 
new sources, the BLDS requirement is included in the final rule for 40 
CFR part 60, subpart AAb, only for single stack baghouses because using 
BLDS on multi-stack baghouses is not demonstrated in the EAF industry 
due to the high capital cost. Multi-stack baghouses in the EAF industry 
have vents rather than stacks, are operated at positive pressure, and 
not amenable to leak detection systems.
     Damper Position Response. We proposed changes to the 
monitoring frequency of damper position in 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA 
and AAa, and included these proposed changes in 40 CFR part 60, subpart 
AAb, because of the variability of this parameter during a furnace 
cycle. As damper position is expected to change during the heat cycle, 
a once-per-shift monitoring and recordkeeping event fails to provide 
both the facility and regulatory agencies with the ability to determine 
if the emissions capture system is being properly operated. Damper 
position records are intended to be used as a way to evaluate how the 
total flow (using amperage as surrogate for flow) is partitioned 
between the separately ducted hoods. Therefore, increasing the 
recording of damper position provides a more accurate assessment of the 
capture system throughout a heat cycle. Facilities are already required 
to record all damper positions during performance testing to 
demonstrate compliance pursuant to 40 CFR 60.274(c) and 60.274a(c). We 
disagree with the commenter that this change should not be made as a 
correction. Therefore, for the reasons explained at proposal, the final 
rules for 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA, AAa, and AAb include the 
requirement for damper position recording and frequency during 
operation in a manner and frequency consistent with damper position 
records during the initial or most recent performance test 
demonstrating compliance with applicable PM standards; and for 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart AAb, only if damper position data were recorded 
throughout a complete heat cycle. See 40 CFR 60.274(c)(1) and (i)(5), 
60. 274a(c)(1) and (h)(5), and 60.274b(c)(1) and (h)(5). Compliance 
with this clarified aspect of the rule is required 180 days from the 
effective date of the final rule amendments for facilities complying 
with 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA and AAa, the same as the requirement 
for electronic reporting; and no later than the effective date of the 
final rule or upon startup, whichever is later, for facilities subject 
to 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAb.
     Fan Amperage Response. The EPA proposed deleting the 
monitoring of fan amps on a once-per-shift basis as a surrogate for 
volumetric flow from at 40 CFR 60.274(b)/60.274a(b) for 40 CFR part 60, 
subparts AA and AAa due to the increased use of variable speed fans in 
the industry. Based on comments provided in response to the proposed 
change, the EPA agrees with the commenter that fan amperage monitoring 
should be able to be used as a surrogate for volumetric flow. However, 
the EPA believes this surrogate can only be allowed under some 
conditions. To maintain consistency with the original intent of the 
requirement to record fan amperage in 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAa, in 
the final rules for 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA, AAa, and AAb, fan 
amperage monitoring can be used as a surrogate for volumetric flow when 
recorded on a more frequent basis than once-per-shift. The EPA is 
promulgating for 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA, AAa, and AAb, the 
requirement for monitoring and recording of fan amperage as frequently 
as damper position measurement, i.e., in a manner and frequency 
consistent with damper position records during the initial or most 
recent performance test demonstrating compliance with applicable PM 
standards so that the amperage data provide information that is 
proportional to volumetric flow in 40 CFR 60.274(c))1) and (i)(5); 
60.274(c)(1) and (h)(5); and 60.274b(c)(1)(h)(5). Compliance with this 
clarified aspect of the rule is required 180 days from the effective 
date of the final rule amendments for facilities complying with 40 CFR 
part 60, subparts AA and AAa, the same as the requirement for 
electronic reporting and no later than the effective date of the final 
rule or upon startup, whichever is later, for facilities subject to 40 
CFR part 60, subpart AAb.
     Furnace Static Pressure Response. We proposed the 
requirement for monitoring and operational restriction for furnace 
static pressure monitoring for 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA, AAa, and 
AAb based on 15-minute averages on all EAF because it provides better 
information about emissions capture at the EAF and compliance assurance 
with melt shop opacity requirements at 40 CFR 60.272(a)(3), 
60.272a(a)(3), and 40 CFR 60.272b(a)(3) than what is currently required 
in 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA and AAa. Currently, a furnace static 
pressure monitoring device is not required if the facility conducts 
daily shop opacity readings. If a facility elects to use furnace static 
pressure monitoring for compliance, furnace static pressure is only 
monitored once per shift in 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA and AAa (see 40 
CFR 60.273(d)/60.273a(d) and 40 CFR 60.273(d)/60.274a(b)). The EPA 
proposed

[[Page 58466]]

requiring continuous monitoring of furnace static pressure because it 
would provide information about capture at the EAF on a more frequent 
basis and because many facilities already use this equipment. Because 
using this monitoring method/compliance option would involve the 
purchase of equipment not currently available or installed at all 
subject facilities, we agree with the commenter that this change should 
not be made as a correction nor included in 40 CFR part 60, subparts 
AA, AAa, and AAb. Therefore, this requirement for 40 CFR part 60, 
subparts AA, AAa, and AAb is not included in the final rules.
    In response to comments regarding proposed averaging periods of 15 
minutes for furnace static pressure, the EPA has modified the averaging 
period language in the final rule for 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA, AAa, 
and AAb (40 CFR 60.274(f), 60.274a(f), and 60.274b(f)) to be ``no 
greater than 15 minutes.'' This modification allows greater flexibility 
for establishing monitoring setpoints to capture the variability during 
short periods that are much less than 15 minutes.
     Melt Shop Inspection Response. We proposed a clarification 
that the melt shop be inspected for holes or other openings that would 
allow particulate matter to escape for 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA, 
AAa, and included in 40 CFR part 60, AAb, because this procedure 
provides compliance assurance with melt shop opacity requirements, and 
is better than what is currently required at 40 CFR 60.272(a)(3)/
60.272a(a)(3). Currently, inspections are required for equipment 
important to the performance of the capture system at 40 CFR 60.274(e)/
60.274a(d), which specifies that inspections must include observations 
of physical appearance of the equipment. We disagree with the commenter 
that changes to 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA and AAa, should not be made 
as a correction because we understand that the melt shop building 
itself acts as a portion of the capture system particularly during 
charging and tapping. Since this inspection would not involve the 
purchase of equipment not currently available or installed at the 
facility and arguably is already addressed under the current 
requirement for inspections, the clarification that inspection for 
holes or other openings in the melt shop building is part of the 
capture system inspection is included in the final rules for 40 CFR 
part 60, subparts AA, AAa, and AAb. Compliance with this clarified 
aspect of the rule is required 180 days from the effective date of the 
final rule amendments for facilities complying with 40 CFR part 60, 
subparts AA and AAa, the same as the requirement for electronic 
reporting and no later than the effective date of the final rule or 
upon startup, whichever is later, for facilities subject to 40 CFR part 
60, subpart AAb.
     Melt Shop Opacity Response. We proposed the clarification 
that melt shop opacity observations for 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA and 
AAa must be made during charging and tapping or during the period of 
the heat cycle that generates the greatest uncaptured emissions for 40 
CFR part 60, subparts AA and AAa because this requirement provides 
better information about EAF and AOD capture system performance and 
compliance assurance with melt shop opacity requirements at 40 CFR 
60.272(a)(3)/60.272a(a)(3) beyond what is currently required. The NSPS 
at 40 CFR part 60, subpart AA has a 6 percent opacity limit at the melt 
shop except for during periods of charging and tapping, for which 20 
percent and 40 percent are allowed, respectively (see 40 CFR 
60.272(a)(3)). When 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAa was promulgated in 
1984, the exceptions for periods of charging and tapping were removed, 
and, instead, the opacity limit for the EAF melt shop was set at 6 
percent at all times (see 40 CFR 60.272a(a)(3)). In 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart AA, the EPA had allowed a higher opacity limit during charging 
and tapping because those periods had greater potential for uncaptured 
emissions than during melting and refining. Therefore, we agree with 
the commenter that the clarification in the proposal that opacity 
should be tested at the site with the greatest uncaptured emissions 
should not be made for 40 CFR part 60, subpart AA. However, we disagree 
with the commenter that the changes to 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAa 
should not be made as clarifications or corrections because the 
proposed rule edits clarify that the 6 percent opacity applies at all 
times in all locations of the melt shop, as explained below. In 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart, AAa, it was required that sources constructed, 
modified, or reconstructed after 1983 achieve a greater level of 
capture performance during charging and tapping than previously 
required, and the exceptions during charging and tapping that were in 
40 CFR part 60, subpart AA were removed. Therefore, the EPA is 
including in the final rule for 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAa the 
proposed clarification to the opacity testing option in 40 CFR 
60.273a(d)(2), when a facility chooses to forgo using a furnace static 
pressure monitoring device on an EAF equipped with a DEC system, to 
test opacity no less than once per week from the tap of one EAF heat 
cycle to the tap of the following heat cycle. This clarification along 
with the test method and procedure requirements in 40 CFR 60.275a(e), 
make it clear that the facility is required to demonstrate compliance 
with melt shop opacity at all times, including the period of the 
furnace cycle that provides the greatest challenge to the capture 
system, which was originally intended when creating 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart AAa. In addition, the proposed clarification in 40 CFR 
60.272a(a)(3) is being finalized in this rulemaking for 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart AAa, that where it is possible to determine that a number of 
visible emission sites relate to only 1 incident of visible emissions, 
only 1 observation of shop opacity is required, at the site of highest 
opacity that directly relates to the cause (or location) of visible 
emissions observed during the single incident. The comments concerning 
the requirement in the proposed changes to 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAb, 
for shop opacity observations to be made during charging and tapping or 
during the period of the heat cycle that generates the greatest 
uncaptured emissions, are no longer relevant due to changes made to the 
proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAb for the final rule, to allow 6 
percent opacity during charging and tapping and to require testing 
during all phases of operation, i.e., melting and refining, charging, 
and tapping, Because monitoring opacity is already required in 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart AAa in the various parts of the rule discussed in the 
preceding paragraphs, the clarifications of measuring melt shop opacity 
do not involve the purchase of equipment not currently used at the 
facility and, therefore, are included in this final rule. Compliance 
with these rule clarifications of 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAa are 
required 180 days from the effective date of the final rule amendments, 
the same as the requirement for electronic reporting.
     Volumetric Flow and Static Pressure Response. We proposed 
the requirement to continuously monitor and have operational 
restrictions for either volumetric flow rate or static pressure at each 
separately ducted hood for 40 CFR part 60, subpart AA, AAa, and AAb 
because it provides better information about emissions capture at the 
EAF and AOD and compliance assurance with melt shop opacity 
requirements at 40 CFR 60.272(a)(3), 60.272a(a)(3), and 60.272b(a)(3) 
than what is currently required in 40 CFR

[[Page 58467]]

part 60, subparts AA and AAa. In 40 CFR part 60, subpart AA, AAa, and 
AAb, there are multiple options for monitoring operations at a facility 
(40 CFR 60.274(b),60.274a(b), and 60.274b(b)), which may include 
monitoring of volumetric flow and static pressure at each separately 
ducted hood. Continuous monitoring of volumetric flow rate or static 
pressure at each separately ducted hood would provide better 
information about capture at each separately ducted hood and a more 
direct measure of capture at each separately ducted hood. However, we 
agree with the commenter that this change should not be made as a 
correction because using this monitoring method/compliance option would 
involve the purchase of equipment not currently available or installed 
at facilities. Therefore, this requirement is not included in the final 
rule for 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA, AAa, and AAb.
    Comment: A commenter asserted that the CAA limits the EPA's NSPS 
revision authority to only new sources. Commenter stated there is no 
denying that the proposed monitoring and associated revisions to 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart AA and AAa are materially substantive and are not 
error corrections, clarifications, or clerical adjustments. These 
changes far exceed the EPA's legal authority to revise a NSPS 
applicable to existing sources. The commenter continued, the EPA's 
legal authority under the CAA is very limited as it relates to 
revisions to existing NSPSs. The 40 CFR part 60, subpart AA and AAa 
proposed revisions (BLDS, furnace static pressure monitoring, 
volumetric flow monitoring, etc.) all constitute an ``emission 
limitation'' as defined by the CAA and, therefore, constitute a 
``standard of performance.'' The EPA has no authority under the CAA to 
make any such revisions to a ``standard of performance'' unless those 
revisions are expressly applicable to ``new sources.'' The commenter 
said the proposed changes to the melt shop monitoring requirements were 
arbitrary and violate the basic premise of NSPS that revisions apply 
only to facilities that qualify as new, modified, or reconstructed 
after proposal of the NSPS requirements.
    The commenter also said the EPA does not have the authority to add 
new monitoring requirements for charging and tapping operations. The 
existing shop opacity monitoring in 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAa 
verifies efficiency of the DEC during normal operations. By expanding 
monitoring requirements to cover tapping and charging (a time period 
the furnace roof is rolled back, and the DEC control is not engaged), 
the EPA was creating new monitoring requirements designed to monitor a 
standard that was not included in the original rule. The proposed 
monitoring during charging and tapping cannot evaluate DEC capture 
efficiency, as the shop opacity observations were originally designed 
to do. Hence, the addition of the new monitoring, the commenter said, 
represents an unlawful revision to the existing NSPS standard.
    The commenter was concerned the EPA was adding entirely new 
installation, monitoring, and maintenance requirement for charging and 
tapping furnace modes, including requirements for operators to install, 
calibrate, and maintain monitoring devices that continuously record the 
capture system damper position(s) and either the volumetric flow rate 
through each separately ducted hood or the rolling 15-minute average 
static pressure at each separately ducted hood. The commenter said 
these requirements are unnecessary and that they ignore the 1999 
rulemaking that provided alternative monitoring methods. The commenter 
also argued the EPA failed to provide a reasonable explanation for 
these changes, had not explained why the additional monitoring is 
needed, had not explained the EPA's change in position from prior EAF 
steel NSPS rulemakings, and had neglected to account for any costs 
associated with the monitoring requirements.
    EPA Response: General Monitoring Response: We proposed various 
monitoring changes in 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA and AAa for purposes 
of providing better information about EAF baghouse operation and 
compliance assurance for the PM emission limit at 40 CFR 60.272(a)(1)/
60.272a(a)(1), and EAF capture system performance and compliance 
assurance with melt shop opacity requirements at 40 CFR 60.272(a)(3) 
and 60.272a(a)(3) than what is currently required.
    We learned through public comments that some of the monitoring 
changes would require significant capital investment through equipment 
purchases; therefore, the changes requiring purchases of equipment are 
not included in the final rule for 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA and AAa. 
The requirements that we are finalizing do not make the standards more 
stringent; therefore, these changes do not implicate the commenter's 
concern that we have improperly revised the NSPS applicable to existing 
sources. For these other monitoring changes that are included in the 
final rule, either as proposed or with modification of proposed 
requirement, the compliance date is 180 days from the effective date of 
the final rule amendments for facilities complying with 40 CFR part 60, 
subparts AA and AAa, which is the same as the requirement for 
electronic reporting. This time period is to allow facilities to 
prepare for any changes to reporting and recordkeeping.
    The 4 proposed monitoring requirements that are not included in the 
final rule are for BLDS for multi-stack baghouses for 40 CFR part 60, 
subparts AA, AAa, and AAb; melt shop opacity for 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart AA only; furnace static pressure monitoring and operation for 
40 CFR part 60, subparts AA, AAa, and AAb; and volumetric flow and 
static pressure monitoring and operation for 40 CFR part 60, subparts 
AA, AAa, and AAb. The 2 proposed monitoring requirements that have been 
retained in the final rule, as proposed, are melt shop inspection (for 
40 CFR part 60, subparts AA, AAa, and AAb) and melt shop opacity (for 
40 CFR part 60, subparts AAa and AAb). The 2 proposed monitoring 
requirements that have been retained with modification are for damper 
position and for fan amperage (for 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA, AAa, 
and AAb), where we are finalizing the requirement for facilities to 
record damper positions and fan amperage in a manner and frequency 
consistent with records made during the initial or most recent 
performance test demonstrating compliance with applicable PM standards. 
For additional explanation and rationale behind the 7 proposed 
requirements and their disposition in the final rule, refer to the 
discussions in this preamble under the following section headings 
(listed alphabetically): BLDS Response; Damper Position Response; Fan 
Amperage Response; Furnace Static Pressure Response; Melt Shop 
Inspection Response; Melt Shop Opacity Response; and Volumetric Flow 
and Static Pressure Response.
    Comment: A commenter asserted that the current compliance 
demonstration requirements using the fan amperage and damper position 
monitoring in 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA, AAa are the best methods for 
assuring compliance with the melt shop NSPS standards and, therefore, 
the commenter opposes the proposed new monitoring requirements for 40 
CFR part 60 subpart AAb.
    The commenter opposed the following proposed new monitoring 
requirements for 40 CFR part 60 subpart AAb:
     Installation of bag leak detection monitoring systems on 
all baghouses, including multi-stack baghouses;
     Monitoring and operational restriction for furnace static 
pressure

[[Page 58468]]

monitoring based on 15-minute averages on all EAF;
     Monitoring and operational restriction for volumetric flow 
rate or static pressure at each separately-ducted hood, based on 15-
minute averages on all EAF;
     Removal of the option for monitoring and operational 
restriction for fan amps;
     Adding inspections and maintenance requirements for holes 
or other openings in the melt shop building; and
     Mandate for shop opacity observations to be made during 
charging and tapping or during the period of the heat cycle that 
generates the greatest uncaptured emissions.
    The commenter considered these new monitoring requirements to be 
unnecessary, expensive, and, some cases, impractical. The commenter 
said the existing monitoring requirements (in 40 CFR part 60, subparts 
AA and AAa) are adequate for demonstrating compliance with the 
standards. The commenter stated that the existing fan amperage and 
damper position monitoring have worked efficiently and effectively for 
many years and the proposed new monitoring would be less effective and 
would impose extreme technical and engineering complications on EAF 
plants. Similarly, a commenter urged the EPA to keep the current 
requirement for monitoring fan amperage in place, because they said 
this parameter directly correlates to the air flow to the control 
device, via the fan curve, which is unique to each site.
    A commenter stated the EPA should clarify how the proposed new 
monitoring requirements improve compliance demonstration. The commenter 
said it was unclear how the additional monitoring requirements in the 
proposed [40 CFR part 60,subpart AAb] rule will improve data or 
accuracy in demonstrating compliance with applicable requirements. The 
proposed NSPS 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAb requires monitoring of 
parameters that are not required to be monitored under the existing 
NSPS 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA and AAa standards. The commenter 
recommended the EPA explain the benefits of new monitoring techniques 
and additional monitoring parameters. The monitoring requirements 
should provide enough data to accurately demonstrate compliance with 
applicable requirements. The commenter added that the EPA must consider 
the cost to air agencies and facilities and associated benefits to 
compliance before requiring additional monitoring. Additional 
monitoring with no clear benefit is burdensome for both regulated 
facilities and delegated authorities due to additional equipment, 
maintenance, and operator costs.
    EPA Response: We considered the comments submitted by the commenter 
and have modified the final rule for 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAb for 
certain proposed requirements to reflect this and other comments 
received, and removed other requirements entirely. We included some 
monitoring requirements in the final rules, as proposed. Our response 
to each issue listed by the commenter are described in this section in 
the EPA responses to the comments, as follows: BLDS Response; Damper 
Position Response; Fan Amperage Response; Furnace Static Pressure 
Response; Melt Shop Inspection Response (as well as the EPA's response 
to the proposed requirements in 40 CFR 60.274b(d) for 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart AAb in regard to allowing operators discretion in an inspection 
as to what issues ``materially impact'' the capture system 
performance); Melt Shop Opacity Response; Volumetric Flow and Static 
Pressure Response; and General Monitoring Response.
    The comment concerning a proposed requirement in 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart AAb for shop opacity observations to be made during charging 
and tapping or during the period of the heat cycle that generates the 
greatest uncaptured emissions is no longer relevant due to changes made 
to the proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAb for the final rule, to 
allow 6 percent opacity during charging and tapping and to require 
testing during all phases of operation, i.e., melting and refining, 
charging, and tapping.
    Comment: A commenter asserted that the EPA should define the term 
``material impact'' (40 CFR 60.274e, 60.274a(d), and 60.274b(d)) in 
terms of opacity limits and only require repairs when holes result in 
noncompliance with the opacity standards.
    A commenter recommended the EPA better define a ``material impact'' 
on the capture system because they said the phrase was too vague. Any 
airflow changes, they said, may theoretically impact capture efficiency 
to some extent, but fluctuations that do not affect the compliance of 
the facility with the substantive emission and opacity standards should 
not be prohibited. The EPA should define material impacts in terms of 
opacity limits by revising 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA, AAa, and AAb to 
only require repairs to openings that lead to noncompliance with the 
opacity standards.
    EPA Response: The Melt Shop Inspection Response earlier in this 
section provides part of the EPA response to this comment concerning 
proposed requirements for 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAb (40 CFR 
60.274b(d)), which is the same as the EPA response for the proposed 
clarifications in 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA and AAa (40 CFR 60.274(e) 
and 60.274a(d)) and explains why we disagree with the commenter and are 
including the requirement to inspect for holes or other openings in the 
melt shop in the final rules to ensure compliance with the opacity 
standards in 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA, AAa, and AAb.
    In addition, for 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAb, we proposed the 
requirement for monthly inspections to include the language to address 
issues that are ``determined by the operator to materially impact the 
efficacy of the capture system'' in 40 CFR 60.274b(d). This allows for 
a determination by the operator as to whether an identified issue is to 
be considered a true deficiency that is expected to impact capture 
system performance, as opposed to the language in 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart AAa that requires maintenance for ``any deficiency.'' 
Therefore, we agree with this aspect of the comment and are including 
the proposed rule language for monthly inspections that allow for 
operator discretion as to what issues ``materially impact'' the capture 
system performance in the final rule for 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAb 
(40 CFR 60.274b(d)).
    Comment: A commenter asserted that the EPA should clarify the 
calculation for determining compliance with the opacity limits when 
using EPA Method 9 for 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAb. The commenter asked 
the EPA to clarify in the rule how facilities should determine 
compliance with the opacity limits. The commenter noted that compliance 
with the shop opacity limits will be determined based on the arithmetic 
average of 24 consecutive 15-second opacity observations over a 6-
minute period. The commenter said that it is their understanding that 
the proposed zero opacity standard does not require all 24 15-second 
EPA Method 9 observation periods to be zero percent and that some of 
the 24 readings may exceed 0 percent provided the arithmetic average 
rounds down to 0. Similarly, in calculating compliance with the 
existing 6 percent shop opacity standard, some readings can exceed 6 
percent provided the arithmetic average rounded down is below 6 
percent. The commenter asked the EPA to confirm their interpretation of 
the rule is correct.

[[Page 58469]]

    The commenter noted that this approach is consistent with prior 
NSPS rulemakings, including 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK (Lead-Acid 
Battery Manufacturing) and 40 CFR part 60, subpart NN (Phosphate Rock 
Plants). However, the commenter said the EPA specified in 40 CFR part 
60, subparts KK and NN that compliance with the opacity standard is 
determined by taking the average opacity over a 6-minute period, 
according to EPA Method 9, and rounding the average to the nearest 
whole percentage (45 FR 2790 and 2794; January 14, 1980 and 47 FR 
16564, 16566, 16582, and 16586; April 16, 1982). The commenter 
recommended the EPA add the same explanation provided in these earlier 
NSPS in the final shop opacity limit.
    EPA Response: The method for calculating opacity has not changed 
substantially for 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAb; the final rule 
incorporates the current EPA Method 9 procedures for melting and 
refining, and for tapping (see section IV.B.2 in this preamble for 
changes to opacity measurement procedures with EPA Method 9 during 
charging). When determining the final value for opacity in 40 CFR part 
60, subpart AAb, facilities should round to the nearest whole number (0 
percent). Therefore, an average opacity level calculated to be 0.49 
percent would round (down) to 0 percent.
3. What is the rationale for the final requirements for testing and 
monitoring?
    We are finalizing the proposed requirement in 40 CFR part 60, 
subparts AA, AAa, and AAb that the melt shop be inspected for holes or 
other openings that would allow PM to escape because it clarifies the 
building inspection requirement already in the current NSPS. We are 
also incorporating into the final rules for 40 CFR part 60, subparts 
AA, AAa, and AAb the allowance of up to 24 hours to find and fix 
baghouse leaks following a BLDS alarm event because it is commensurate 
with many other EPA rules and no evidence exists for the specific need 
for limiting the tie period to 3 hours for EAF. The reasons that more 
than 3 hours and up to 24 hours is needed to respond to BLDS alarms 
provided by the commenter are valid. We are finalizing that sources 
complying with 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAb will 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 is 
already 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.
    We learned through public comments that some of the proposed 
monitoring changes, BLDS monitoring, furnace static pressure monitoring 
and operation, and volumetric flow and static pressure monitoring and 
operation, would require significant capital investment through 
equipment purchases. Therefore, these changes requiring purchases of 
equipment are not being finalized for 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA, AAa, 
and AAb.
    We are finalizing 2 proposed monitoring requirements for 40 CFR 
part 60, subparts AA, AAa, and AAb, which are the requirements for melt 
shop inspection and stipulation that the melt shop opacity limits apply 
at all times during the designated periods of applicability under the 
rules. We are also finalizing the proposed damper position and fan 
amperage monitoring requirements with modifications. Other 
miscellaneous monitoring requirements also are being finalized with 
modifications resulting from comments on the proposed requirements, as 
described in in this section.
    All testing and monitoring requirements proposed and finalized in 
this action were evaluated to ensure compliance with the NSPS emission 
standards under conditions of proper operation and maintenance. 
However, because we learned through comments that some of the proposed 
changes to monitoring in the existing NSPS rules would incur unintended 
costs, these requirements were either not finalized in their entirety 
or were finalized with modifications.

F. Electronic Reporting

    The EPA is finalizing the proposed requirement that owners and 
operators of EAF and AOD subject to the current and new NSPS at 40 CFR 
part 60, subparts AA, AAa, and AAb submit electronic copies of required 
performance test reports and any semiannual excess emissions and 
continuous monitoring system performance and summary reports, through 
the EPA's CDX using the 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,\18\ 
available in the docket for this action, and hereafter referred to as 
the ``Electronic Reporting Memorandum.'' The finalized rule requires 
that performance test/demonstration of compliance results collected 
using test methods that are supported by the EPA's ERT as listed on the 
ERT website \19\ 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 PDF using the 
attachment module of the ERT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Electronic Reporting Requirements for New Source 
Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules. Memorandum, Measurement 
Policy Group, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research 
Triangle Park, NC. August 19, 2020.
    \19\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For semiannual reports, the finalized rule requires that owners and 
operators use the appropriate spreadsheet template to submit 
information to CEDRI. The final versions of the templates for these 
reports are included in the docket for this action.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See 40 CFR part 60, subpart AA, 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-
2002-0049-0064.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the EPA has identified 2 broad circumstances in which 
electronic reporting extensions may be provided. These circumstances 
are: (1) Outages of the EPA's CDX or CEDRI which preclude an owner and 
operator from accessing the system and submitting required reports; and 
(2) force majeure events, which are defined as events that will be or 
have been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected 
facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected 
facility that prevent an owner and operator from complying with the 
requirement to submit a report electronically. Examples of force 
majeure events are acts of nature, acts of war or terrorism, equipment 
failure, or safety hazards beyond the control of the facility. The EPA 
is providing these potential extensions to protect owners and operators 
from noncompliance in cases where they cannot successfully submit a 
report by the reporting deadline for reasons outside of their control. 
In both circumstances, the decision to accept the claim of needing 
additional time to report is within the discretion of the 
Administrator, and reporting should occur as soon as possible.
    The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this final 
rulemaking increase the usefulness of the data

[[Page 58470]]

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 \21\ to implement Executive Order 13563 
and is in keeping with the EPA's agency-wide policy \22\ developed in 
response to the White House's Digital Government Strategy.\23\ For more 
information on the benefits of electronic reporting, see the 
``Electronic Reporting Memorandum'' discussed earlier in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews (August 
2011). Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156-0154.
    \22\ E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA Regulations (September 
2013). Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-03/documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-2013-09-30.pdf.
    \23\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No comments were received on electronic reporting. Therefore, we 
are finalizing the requirements for electronic reporting as proposed.

G. Effective Date and Compliance Dates

    Pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), affected sources that 
commence construction, reconstruction, or modification after May 16, 
2022, must comply with all requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAb, 
no later than August 25, 2023 or upon startup, whichever is later.
    The date for complying with the ERT submission requirements is 
February 21, 2024. The date for complying with the changes in the 
current rules, 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA and AAa is February 21, 2024 
publication of the final rule.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the air quality impacts?

    For 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAb, reductions in PM and 
PM2.5 potentially emitted from new, modified, and 
reconstructed EAF compared to these emissions allowed under the current 
NSPS subpart AAa with 6 percent melt shop opacity will have a 
beneficial air impact.
    Based on the actual emissions emitted by 31 facilities in the EAF 
dataset, where the actual average opacity was 0.14 percent, the 
emissions impact for PM from 9 new, modified, or reconstructed EAF 
facilities projected in the next 10 years (estimated to reflect 3 
small, 4 medium, and 2 large) is estimated to be an emissions reduction 
of 134 tons PM that would otherwise be emitted in 2032. Using an 
estimate of 0.218 \24\ for the ratio of PM2.5 to PM the 
emissions impact for PM2.5 from nine new facilities 
projected in the next 10 years, as above, there would be an emissions 
reduction of 28 tons of PM2.5 in 2032. Details of these 
emissions estimates can be found in the ``Emissions Memorandum'' 
discussed in section IV.A.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No actual PM emission reductions are estimated for the new PM limit 
for facility-wide total baghouse emissions in lb/ton. The EPA did not 
estimate PM emission reductions from new, modified, and reconstructed 
sources under the facility-wide total baghouse limit because based the 
2010 EAF dataset, all facilities in the dataset are already achieving 
an emission level comparable to the limit being finalized in this 
action.

B. What are the secondary impacts?

    A secondary impact as a result of this rule is that solid wastes 
may increase slightly, with an estimated 15 tons per facility per year 
based on 2010 EAF performance, with the potential additional waste from 
PM collected to meet the 0 percent melting and refining opacity limit 
under NSPS subpart AAb. The small increase in solid wastes would be the 
same for both the carbon and specialty steel shops. However, most PM 
collected from EAF is recycled to reclaim zinc, which also defrays some 
of the disposal costs.25 26
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Proven Waelz Kiln Technology. Accessed 2/18/22. http://www.globalsteeldust.com/waelz_kiln_technology.
    \26\ R[uuml]tten, J. Application of the Waelz Technology on 
Resource Recycling of Steel Mill Dust. D[uuml]sseldorf: GmbH. D-
40225, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, a relatively small increase in energy may result from 
the use of electricity to power fans that draw EAF and AOD 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. However, if the A/C ratio of the fabric 
filters is lowered to meet the facility baghouse standard due to an 
increase in number of bags, some decrease in energy use may occur.
    Finally, there will be no water or noise impacts with the 
promulgated NSPS subpart AAb.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    Costs were estimated for regular testing every 5 years for 9 new 
facilities projected in the 10 years after May 16, 2022. The estimated 
annual testing costs for each facility are $10,625 per year ($2022) for 
conducting EPA Method 5 for PM emissions at each baghouse's exhaust 
over a 5-year period, using an estimate of 1.64 baghouses per facility 
based on the EAF data. While new, modified, or reconstructed sources 
that start up after May 16, 2022, are subject to testing every 5 years 
under the finalized NSPS subpart AAb, EPA Method 5 testing is required 
upon initial startup under 40 CFR 60.8. Therefore, in the first 5 years 
after startup, there will be no testing costs as a result of the 
finalized rule. Then, in the sixth through the tenth year after initial 
startup after May16, 2022, the estimated new, modified, or 
reconstructed sources will incur costs of approximately $9,562 per year 
($2022) per facility for testing, based on an estimate of 0.9 new, 
modified, or reconstructed facilities per year (0.9 x $10,625). Due to 
the estimated staggered startup of these new, modified, or 
reconstructed facilities, with 0.9 new, modified, or reconstructed 
facilities starting each year after the proposal (May 16, 2022), the 
total costs for testing for all new, modified, or reconstructed 
facilities under this rule after the initial testing required under 40 
CFR part 60.8 will range from approximately $523,000 ($2022) in the 
sixth year after May 16, 2022 (corresponding to 5.4 new facilities), to 
a total of approximately $900,000 in the tenth year after May 16, 2022 
(reflecting costs for 9 facilities, with testing costs of approximately

[[Page 58471]]

$100,000 per facility per year), where the testing costs that would 
occur in years 6 through 10 are for the new, modified, or reconstructed 
facilities that start up in years 1 through 5 after May 16, 2022.
    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 is already low, the EPA 
expects any new, modified, or reconstructed facility would be able to 
meet the promulgated opacity and PM limits without any additional 
control devices beyond those already required by the NSR program, 
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 promulgated 0 percent opacity for 
melting and refining and 6 percent opacity for charging and tapping 
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 opacity during melting and refining and 6 
percent opacity during charging and tapping compared to a hypothetical 
baseline model facility meeting 6 percent opacity at all times. These 
costs to achieve the opacity requirements are estimated to be $86,000, 
$1,140,000, $5,700,000 ($2022) per year per facility for small, medium, 
and large model facilities, respectively.
    Total annual costs for NSPS subpart AAb, based on nine new, 
modified, or reconstructed facilities in the first 10 years after May 
16, 2022, are $560,000 per year ($2022) for 3 small facilities, $4.9M 
per year for 4 medium facilities, and $11.5M per year for 2 large 
facilities, for a total of $17M per year ($2022) for 9 new facilities 
in the tenth year after May 16, 2022, using the same staggered startup 
rate described for testing costs. Details of the cost estimates for the 
final rule can be found in the ``Cost Memorandum'' discussed in section 
IV.A.2 (with proposal costs updated to 2022 \27\) which can be found in 
the docket for this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ In the time since the proposal costs were assessed in 2020, 
inflation has increased with a subsequent increase in the gross 
national product (GNP), which is the basis for the U.S. dollars used 
in the costs estimates. In addition, interest rates, which affect 
capital costs, increased from 3.5 percent to 7.5 percent from 
proposal cost preparation (in 2021) to final rule cost preparation 
(in 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the promulgated mass-based PM standard in 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 concentration limit (in gr/dscf) in 40 CFR part 60, subparts 
AA and AAa and a scenario based on a lower total facility-wide baghouse 
PM emissions in a mass-based limit (in lb/ton), which is the format for 
the standard of performance we are promulgating. Because data from the 
31 existing EAF facilities in the 2010 dataset used by the EPA to 
develop the facility-wide PM limit show these facilities could already 
meet the 0.16 lb/ton total facility baghouse PM limit, we expect the 
promulgated mass-based standard applied to future new, modified, and 
reconstructed EAF facilities would be feasible and pose minimal cost 
impacts, if any.
    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 final rule, 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.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    Economic impact analyses focus on changes in market prices and 
output levels. If changes in market prices and output levels in the 
primary markets are significant enough, impacts on other markets may 
also be examined. Both the magnitude of costs associated with the 
promulgated 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. of this preamble, the cost analysis incorporates the assumption 
that units affected by the new NSPS 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 estimates on the 
potential compliance costs as the EPA expects any new, modified or 
reconstructed facility would be able to meet the promulgated opacity 
and PM limits without any additional control devices beyond those 
already required by the NSR program, 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, the EPA expects the potential 
economic impacts of this final rule will be small.
    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), we performed 
an analysis to determine if any small entities might be 
disproportionately impacted by the promulgated 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.

E. What are the benefits?

    The new requirements being finalized in 40 CFR subpart AAb are 
expected to reduce PM emissions, including PM2.5. In 
addition, the revisions to 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA and AAa will 
clarify the rules, enhance compliance and enforcement, and is expected 
to reduce PM emissions, including PM2.5. As explained in 
section IV.A of this preamble, the requirements are projected to reduce 
28 tons of PM2.5 in 2032. These emissions reductions are 
expected to produce health benefits in the affected locations. The 
Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (ISA) \28\ 
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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final 
Report, 2019). EPA/600/R19/188. U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Washington, DC. 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the ISA, it was found that acute exposure to PM2.5 
was causally related to cardiovascular effects and mortality (i.e., 
premature death), and respiratory

[[Page 58472]]

effects as likely-to-be-causally related. Further, 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; 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 earlier in this preamble for years 2025 and 2030 and 
at 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates are presented in Table 7 
below in 2022 dollars. The BPT of the PM2.5 emissions 
reductions for year 2025, at a 3 percent discount rate translates to a 
low projection of $417,000 per ton emission reduction, to a high 
projection of $891,000 per ton emission reduction (in 2022 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.

                                   Table 7--Benefits per Ton of PM2.5 Reduced
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               $/ton PM2.5 emission reductions $2022
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                      Year                            3 Percent discount rate         7 Percent discount rate
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Low            High             Low            High
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2025............................................        $417,000        $891,000        $375,000        $803,000
2030............................................         451,000         933,000         405,000         839,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The range reported here reflects the use of risk estimates from two alternative long-term exposure PM-
  mortality studies.\29\

F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

    Executive Order 12898 directs the EPA to identify the populations 
of concern that are most likely to experience unequal burdens from 
environmental harms, which are specifically minority populations 
(people of color), 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 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 people of color 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. For 
purposes of analyzing regulatory impacts, the EPA relies upon its June 
2016 ``Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in 
Regulatory Analysis,'' \31\ which provides recommendations that 
encourage analysts to conduct the highest quality analysis feasible, 
recognizing that data limitations, time, resource constraints, and 
analytical challenges will vary by media and circumstance. The 
Technical Guidance states that a regulatory action may involve 
potential EJ concerns if it could: (1) Create new disproportionate 
impacts on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or 
Indigenous peoples; (2) exacerbate existing disproportionate impacts on 
minority populations, low-income populations, and/or Indigenous 
peoples; or (3) present opportunities to address existing 
disproportionate impacts on minority populations, low-income 
populations, and/or Indigenous peoples through this action under 
development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 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.
    \30\ See https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice.
    \31\ See https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/technical-guidance-assessing-environmental-justice-regulatory-analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency has conducted an analysis of the demographics of the 
populations living near existing facilities in the EAF population in 
the U.S. Because this action finalizes standards of performance for 
new, modified, and reconstructed EAF sources that commence construction 
after May 16, 2022, the locations of the construction of new EAF 
facilities are not known. In addition, it is not known which of the 
existing facilities will 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 full results of the demographic analysis can be found in 
section E, ``What are the environmental justice impacts?,'' of the 
preamble to the proposed rule (87 FR 29724). The analysis included an 
assessment of individual demographic groups of the populations living 
within 5 km and within 50 km of the existing facilities. We then 
compared the data from the analysis to the national average for each of 
the demographic groups. The results show that for populations within 5 
km of the 87 existing EAF facilities (we identified one additional 
existing facility since the proposed rule was published for a total of 
88 facilities, but the overall results did not change). 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 also above the national average (17 percent versus 13 
percent). The percent of the population that is Native American, 
Hispanic or Latino, or Other/Multiracial are below the national 
averages. 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.
    The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis for the 
final rule 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).

[[Page 58473]]

    The EPA expects that the Standards of Performance for Steel Plants: 
Electric Arc Furnaces and Argon-Oxygen Decarburization Vessels 
Constructed after May 16, 2022, will ensure compliance via frequent 
testing and reduce emissions via a lower opacity limit for melt shops 
and with the standards at all times (including periods of SSM). The 
rule will also increase data transparency through electronic reporting. 
Therefore, effects of emissions on populations in proximity to any 
future affected sources, including in communities potentially 
overburdened by pollution, which are often people of color, and low-
income and Indigenous communities will be reduced due to compliance 
with the standards of performance being finalized in this action.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action as defined in 
Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094, and was, 
therefore, not subject to a requirement for Executive Order 12866 
review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this final rule have been 
submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The information collection 
request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been assigned the EPA 
ICR number 1060.21. 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.
    These amendments to 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA and AAa to require 
electronic reporting, and implement editorial and clarifying changes to 
rule language are estimated to reduce time spent and paperwork for 
rule. We are promulgating a new subpart for new, modified, or 
reconstructed facilities that start up after May 16, 2022, under 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 and AOD 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 3 new 
facilities that would be subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAb in the 
3 years after proposal (May 16, 2022).
    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).
    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 $7,400,000 (per year), of which $65,686 (per year) 
is for this final rule ($60,000 for EPA Method 5 compliance and $696 
for electronic reporting), and $7,130,000 for other costs related to 
continued compliance with the NSPS, including $198,000 for paperwork 
associated with operation and maintenance requirements. The total rule 
costs reflect an increase/decrease cost of $450,000 (per year) from the 
previous ICR that reflects savings due to electronic reporting and an 
increase to the labor rates.
    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.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This 
action will not impose any requirements on 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 3 
current facilities owned by small businesses were started in 1912, 
1968, and 1994, respectively. Further discussion is included in the EIA 
for this final rule.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or 
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. 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 will not have 
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between 
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

    This action does not have Tribal implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. This rule will implement improvements in air 
quality due to new EAF in all locations of new EAF facilities, 
including any new EAF which are in proximity to Tribal grounds. 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.
    Consistent with the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribes, the EPA consulted with Tribal officials during the 
development of this action. A copy of the memorandum dated May 17, 
2022, sent to Tribal leaders concerning the EAF NSPS is provided in the 
docket to this rule.

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

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885; April 23, 1997) directs Federal 
agencies to include an evaluation of the health and safety effects of 
the planned regulation on children in Federal health and safety 
standards and explain why the regulation is preferable to potentially 
effective and reasonably feasible alternatives. This action is not 
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically

[[Page 58474]]

significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA 
does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by 
this action present a disproportionate risk to children. The EPA does 
not believe there are disproportionate risks to children because the 
new subpart AAb lowers emissions from the melt shop during melting and 
refining, which will benefit children's health; and other changes made 
to all subparts, AA, AAa, and AAb, increase compliance with emission 
limits, which also benefits children's health. However, EPA's Policy on 
Children's Health applies to this action. Information on how the Policy 
was applied is available under ``Children's Environmental Health'' in 
the Supplementary Information section of this preamble.

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 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 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 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 final 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, which is an instrumental 
method to determine plume opacity in the outdoor ambient environment as 
an alternative to visual measurements made by certified smoke readers 
in accordance with EPA Method 9. The concept of ASTM D7520-16, also 
known as the Digital Camera Opacity Technique or DCOT, is a test 
protocol to determine the opacity of visible emissions using a digital 
camera. It was based on previous method development using digital still 
cameras and field testing of those methods. The purpose of ASTM D7520-
16 is to set a minimum level of performance for products that use DCOT 
to determine plume opacity in ambient environments. The DCOT method is 
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 4 
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 any one 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 
www.astm.org or 1100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-
2959, telephone number: (610) 832-9500, fax number: (610) 832-9555 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

[[Page 58475]]

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 final rule.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629; February 16, 1994) directs 
Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by 
law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying 
and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse 
human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and 
activities on minority populations (people of color and/or Indigenous 
peoples) and low-income populations.
    The EPA believes that the human health and environmental conditions 
that exist prior to this action do not result in disproportionate and 
adverse effects on people of color, low-income populations, and/or 
indigenous peoples if a modified or reconstructed EAF facility becomes 
subject to the final rule for 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAb, considering 
the demographics analysis for the existing EAF facilities described in 
section V.F of this preamble. However, it is unknown where new EAF 
facilities will be located so it is not possible to predict the impacts 
of these facilities on people of color, low-income populations, and/or 
indigenous peoples.
    The EPA believes that this action is not likely to result in new 
disproportionate and adverse effects on people of color, low-income 
populations and/or indigenous peoples. The impacts of these final rules 
are beneficial to all demographic groups, and include requirements to 
clarify current rules in 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA, AAa and, for new 
sources built after publication of this final rule (in 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart AAb), to ensure compliance via frequent testing, to meet a 
lower opacity limit for melt shops during melting and refining, to meet 
a baghouse emissions limit as a facility-wide total in lb/ton, and to 
meet all the promulgated standards at all times, including periods of 
SSM.
    The information supporting this Executive Order review is contained 
in section V.F of this preamble and in a technical report, Analysis of 
Demographic Factors For Populations Living Near Steel Plants Using 
Electric Arc Furnaces, located in the docket for this rule. Because the 
EPA does not know where new facilities will be located that will become 
subject to this new 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAb, a demographic analysis 
was performed on the existing EAF/AOD population, which could become 
subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAb if a modification or 
reconstruction increases emissions.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule 
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of 
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

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

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR 
part 60 as follows:

PART 60--STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES

0
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart A--General Provisions.

0
2. Section 60.17 is amended by revising paragraphs (g)(14), (h)(206), 
and (j)(2) to read as follows:


Sec.  60.17  Incorporation by reference.

* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (14) ASME/ANSI PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 
10, Instruments and Apparatus], (Issued August 31, 1981), IBR approved 
for Sec. Sec.  60.56c(b); 60.63(f); 60.106(e); 60.104a(d), (h), (i), 
and (j); 60.105a(b), (d), (f), and (g); 60.106a(a); 60.107a(a), (c), 
and (d); 60.275(e); 60.275a(e); 60.275b(e); tables 1 and 3 to subpart 
EEEE; tables 2 and 4 to subpart FFFF; table 2 to subpart JJJJ; 
Sec. Sec.  60.285a(f); 60.396(a); 60.2145(s) and (t); 60.2710(s) and 
(t); 60.2730(q); 60.4415(a); 60.4900(b); 60.5220(b); tables 1 and 2 to 
subpart LLLL; tables 2 and 3 to subpart MMMM; Sec. Sec.  60.5406(c); 
60.5406a(c); 60.5407a(g); 60.5413(b); 60.5413a(b); and (d).
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (206) ASTM D7520-16, Standard Test Method for Determining the 
Opacity of a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere, approved April 1, 
2016; IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  60.271(k); 60.272(a) and (b); 
60.273(c) and (d); 60.274(h); 60.275(e); 60.276(c); 60.271a; 60.272a(a) 
and (b); 60.273a(c) and (d); 60.274a(h); 60.275a(e); 60.276a(f); 
60.271b; 60.272b(a) and (b); 60.273b(c) and (d); 60.274b(h); 
60.275b(e); 60.276b(f); 60.374a(d).
* * * * *
    (j) * * *
    (2) EPA-454/R-98-015, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 
(OAQPS), Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, September 1997, 
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=2000D5T6.PDF; IBR approved 
for Sec. Sec.  60.273(e); 60.273a(e); 60.273b(e); 60.373a(b); 
60.2145(r); 60.2710(r); 60.4905(b); 60.5225(b).
* * * * *

Subpart AA--Standards of Performance for Steel Plants: Electric Arc 
Furnaces Constructed After October 21, 1974, and On or Before 
August 17, 1983

0
3. Section 60.270 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  60.270  Applicability and designation of affected facility.

* * * * *
    (b) The provisions of this subpart apply to each affected facility 
identified in paragraph (a) of this section that commenced 
construction, modification, or reconstruction after October 21, 1974, 
and on or before August 17, 1983, where a modification is any physical 
change in, or change in the method of operation of, an existing 
facility which increases the amount of any air pollutant (to which this 
standard applies) emitted into the atmosphere by that facility or which 
results in the emission of any air pollutant (to which this standard 
applies) into the atmosphere not previously emitted.

0
4. Section 60.271 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a), (d) through (f), (i) through (k), (m), and 
(n); and
0
b. Adding new paragraphs (p) through (r).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  60.271  Definitions.

* * * * *

[[Page 58476]]

    (a) Electric arc furnace (EAF) means a furnace that produces molten 
steel and heats the charge materials with electricity using carbon 
electrodes. Furnaces that continuously feed direct-reduced iron ore 
pellets as the primary source of iron are not affected facilities 
within the scope of this definition.
* * * * *
    (d) Capture system means the equipment (including ducts, hoods, 
fans, dampers, etc.) used to capture particulate matter generated by 
the operation of an EAF and transport captured particulate matter to 
the air pollution control device.
    (e) Charge means the addition of iron and steel scrap or other 
materials into the shell of an electric arc furnace.
    (f) Charging period means the time period when iron and steel scrap 
or other materials are added into the top of an EAF until the melting 
and refining period commences.
* * * * *
    (i) Melting and refining means that phase of the steel production 
cycle when charge material is melted and undesirable elements are 
removed from the metal.
    (j) Melting and refining period means the time period commencing at 
the initial energizing of the electrode to begin the melting process 
and ending at the initiation of the tapping period, excluding any 
intermediate times when the electrodes are not energized as part of the 
melting process.
    (k) Shop opacity means the arithmetic average of 24 or more opacity 
observations of any EAF emissions emanating from, and not within, the 
shop, taken in accordance with EPA Method 9 of appendix A of this part. 
Alternatively, ASTM D7520-16 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
60.17), may be used with the following five conditions: (1) During the 
digital camera opacity technique (DCOT) certification procedure 
outlined in Section 9.2 of ASTM D7520-16 (incorporated by reference, 
see Sec.  60.17), the owner or operator 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 and/or a sparse tree stand);
    (2) The owner or operator 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 (incorporated by reference, 
see Sec.  60.17);
    (3) The owner or operator must follow the recordkeeping procedures 
outlined in Sec.  60.7(f) for the DCOT certification, compliance 
report, data sheets, and all raw unaltered JPEGs used for opacity and 
certification determination;
    (4) The owner or operator 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;
    (5) Use of this approved alternative does not provide or imply a 
certification or validation of any vendor's hardware or software. The 
onus to maintain and verify the certification and/or training of the 
DCOT camera, software, and operator in accordance with ASTM D7520-16 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  60.17) and these requirements is 
on the facility, DCOT operator, and DCOT vendor.
* * * * *
    (m) Shop means the building that houses one or more EAF's and 
serves as the point from which compliance with Sec.  60.272(a)(3), 
``Standard for Particulate Matter,'' is measured.
    (n) Direct shell evacuation system means any system that creates 
and maintains a negative pressure within the EAF shell during melting 
and refining, and transports emissions to the control device.
* * * * *
    (p) Damper means any device used to open, close or throttle a DEC 
system or hood designed to capture emissions from an EAF and route them 
to the associated control device(s). It does not include isolation 
dampers used to isolate a fan or baghouse compartment for repair or 
cleaning, or dampers controlling collection of emissions from equipment 
other than an EAF.
    (q) Negative-pressure fabric filter means a fabric filter with the 
fans on the downstream side of the filter bags.
    (r) Positive-pressure fabric filter means a fabric filter with the 
fans on the upstream side of the filter bags.

0
5. Section 60.272 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(3) 
introductory text, and (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  60.272  Standard for particulate matter.

    (a) * * *
    (2) Exit from a control device and exhibit three percent opacity or 
greater, as measured in accordance with EPA Method 9 of appendix A of 
this part, or, as an alternative, according to ASTM D7520-16 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  60.17), with the caveats 
described under Shop opacity in Sec.  60.271.
    (3) Exit from a shop and, due solely to operations of any EAF(s), 
exhibit 6 percent opacity or greater, as measured in accordance with 
EPA Method 9 of appendix A of this part, or, as an alternative, 
according to ASTM D7520-16 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
60.17), with the caveats described under Shop opacity in Sec.  60.271. 
Shop opacity shall be recorded for any point(s) where visible emissions 
are observed. Where it is possible to determine that a number of 
visible emission sites relate to only one incident of visible 
emissions, only one observation of shop opacity will be required. In 
this case, the shop opacity observations must be made for the site of 
highest opacity that directly relates to the cause (or location) of 
visible emissions observed during a single incident, except:
* * * * *
    (b) On and after the date on which the performance test required to 
be conducted by Sec.  60.8 is completed, no owner or operator subject 
to the provisions of this subpart shall cause to be discharged into the 
atmosphere from dust-handling equipment any gases which exhibit 10 
percent opacity or greater, as measured in accordance with EPA Method 9 
of appendix A of this part, or, as an alternative, according to ASTM 
D7520-16 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  60.17), with the caveats 
described under Shop opacity in Sec.  60.271.

0
6. Section 60.273 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (c), (d), (e) introductory text and (e)(3);
0
b. In paragraph (e)(4) introductory text, remove the text ``the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency guidance document ``Fabric Filter Bag 
Leak Detection Guidance'' (EPA-454/R-98-015)'' and add, in its place, 
the text ``EPA-454/R-98-015, Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  60.17)'';
0
c. Revising paragraphs (e)(6)(ii), and (7), (f) introductory text, and 
(f)(1) and (5);
0
d. Redesignating paragraph (f)(6) as paragraph (f)(7);
0
e. Adding new paragraph (f)(6); and
0
f. Revising paragraph (g).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  60.273  Emission monitoring.

* * * * *
    (c) A continuous monitoring system for the measurement of the 
opacity of emissions discharged into the atmosphere from the control 
device(s) is not required on any modular, multi-stack, negative-
pressure or positive-

[[Page 58477]]

pressure fabric filter or on any single-stack fabric filter if 
observations of the opacity of the visible emissions from the control 
device are performed by a certified visible emission observer and the 
owner installs and operates a bag leak detection system according to 
paragraph (e) of this section whenever the control device is being used 
to remove particulate matter from the EAF. Visible emission 
observations shall be conducted at least once per day of the control 
device for at least three 6-minute periods when the furnace is 
operating in the melting and refining period. All visible emissions 
observations shall be conducted in accordance with EPA Method 9 of 
appendix A to this part, or, as an alternative, according to ASTM 
D7520-16 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  60.17), with the caveats 
described under Shop opacity in Sec.  60.271. If visible emissions 
occur from more than one point, the opacity shall be recorded for any 
points where visible emissions are observed. Where it is possible to 
determine that a number of visible emission points relate to only one 
incident of the visible emission, only one set of three 6-minute 
observations will be required. In that case, the EPA Method 9 
observations must be made for the point of highest opacity that 
directly relates to the cause (or location) of visible emissions 
observed during a single incident. Records shall be maintained of any 
6-minute average that is in excess of the emission limit specified in 
Sec.  60.272(a)(2).
    (d) A furnace static pressure monitoring device is not required on 
any EAF equipped with a DEC system if observations of shop opacity are 
performed by a certified visible emission observer as follows:
    (1) At least once per day when the furnace is operating.
    (2) No less than once per week, commencing from the tap of one EAF 
heat cycle to the tap of the following heat cycle. A melt shop with 
more than one EAF shall conduct these readings while both EAFs are in 
operation. Both EAFs are not required to be on the same schedule for 
tapping.
    (3) Shop opacity shall be determined as the arithmetic average of 
24 or more consecutive 15-second opacity observations of emissions from 
the shop taken in accordance with EPA Method 9, or, as an alternative, 
according to ASTM D7520-16 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
60.17), with the caveats described under Shop opacity in Sec.  60.271. 
Shop opacity shall be recorded for any point(s) where visible emissions 
are observed in proximity to an affected EAF. Where it is possible to 
determine that a number of visible emission points relate to only one 
incident of visible emissions, only one observation of shop opacity 
will be required. In this case, the shop opacity observations must be 
made for the point of highest opacity that directly relates to the 
cause (or location) of visible emissions observed during a single 
incident.
    (e) A bag leak detection system must be installed on all single-
stack fabric filters and operated whenever the control device is being 
used to remove particulate matter from the EAF if the owner or operator 
elects not to install and operate a continuous opacity monitoring 
system as provided for under paragraph (c) of this section. In 
addition, the owner or operator shall meet the visible emissions 
observation requirements in paragraph (c) of this section. The bag leak 
detection system must meet the specifications and requirements of 
paragraphs (e)(1) through (8) of this section.
* * * * *
    (3) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an alarm 
system that will activate when an increase in relative particulate 
loading is detected over the alarm set point established according to 
paragraph (e)(4) of this section, and the alarm must be located such 
that it can be identified by the appropriate plant personnel.
* * * * *
    (6) * * *
    (ii) If opacities greater than zero percent are observed over four 
consecutive 15-second observations during the daily opacity 
observations required under paragraph (c) of this section and the alarm 
on the bag leak detection system alarm is not activated, the owner or 
operator shall lower the alarm set point on the bag leak detection 
system to a point where the alarm would have been activated during the 
period when the opacity observations were made.
    (7) For negative pressure, induced air baghouses, and positive 
pressure baghouses that are discharged to the atmosphere through a 
stack, the bag leak detection sensor must be installed downstream of 
the baghouse or upstream of any wet scrubber.
* * * * *
    (f) For each bag leak detection system installed according to 
paragraph (e) of this section, the owner or operator shall initiate 
procedures to determine the cause of all alarms within 1 hour of an 
alarm. The cause of the alarm must be alleviated within 24 hours of the 
time the alarm occurred by taking whatever response action(s) are 
necessary. Response actions may include, but are not limited to the 
following:
    (1) Inspecting the baghouse for air leaks, torn or broken bags or 
filter media, or any other condition that may have caused an increase 
in particulate emissions;
* * * * *
    (5) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe or otherwise 
repairing the bag leak detection system;
    (6) Establishing to the extent acceptable by the delegated 
authority that the alarm was a false alarm and not caused by a bag leak 
or other malfunction that could reasonably result in excess particulate 
emissions; or
* * * * *
    (g) In approving the site-specific monitoring plan required in 
paragraph (e)(4) of this section, the Administrator or delegated 
authority may allow owners or operators more than 24 hours to alleviate 
specific conditions that cause an alarm if the owner or operator 
identifies the condition that could lead to an alarm in the monitoring 
plan, adequately explains why it is not feasible to alleviate the 
condition within 24 hours of the time the alarm occurred, and 
demonstrates that the requested additional time will ensure alleviation 
of the condition as expeditiously as practicable.

0
7. Section 60.274 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) through (g), 
and (i) to read as follows:


Sec.  60.274  Monitoring of operations.

* * * * *
    (b) Except as provided under paragraph (d) of this section, the 
owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart shall:
    (1) Monitor and record on a continuous basis the rolling 15-minute 
average furnace static pressure (if a DEC system is in use, and a 
furnace static pressure gauge is installed according to paragraph (f) 
of this section) and either:
    (i) Install, calibrate, and maintain a monitoring device that 
continuously records the capture system fan motor amperes and damper 
position(s);
    (ii) Install, calibrate, and maintain a monitoring device that 
continuously records on a rolling 15-minute average basis either the 
volumetric flow rate through each separately ducted hood; or
    (iii) Install, calibrate, and maintain a monitoring device that 
continuously records the volumetric flow rate at the control device 
inlet and continuously record damper position(s).
    (2) The volumetric flow monitoring device(s) may be installed in 
any appropriate location in the capture system such that reproducible 
flow rate monitoring will result. The flow rate monitoring device(s) 
shall have an

[[Page 58478]]

accuracy of 10 percent over its normal operating range and 
shall be calibrated according to the manufacturer's instructions. The 
Administrator may require the owner or operator to demonstrate the 
accuracy of the monitoring device(s) relative to EPA Methods 1 and 2 of 
appendix A of this part.
    (3) Parameters monitored pursuant to this paragraph, excluding 
damper position, shall be recorded on a rolling averaging period not to 
exceed 15 minutes.
    (c) When the owner or operator of an affected facility is required 
to demonstrate compliance with the standards under Sec.  60.272(a)(3) 
and at any other time that the Administrator may require (under section 
114 of the CAA, as amended), the owner or operator shall determine 
during periods in which a hood is operated for the purpose of capturing 
emissions from the affected facility subject to paragraph (b) of this 
section, either:
    (1) Monitor and record the fan motor amperes at each damper 
position, and damper position consistent with paragraph (i)(5) of this 
section;
    (2) install, calibrate, and maintain a monitoring device that 
continuously records the volumetric flow rate through each separately 
ducted hood; or
    (3) install, calibrate, and maintain a monitoring device that 
continuously records the volumetric flow rate at the control device 
inlet and monitor and record the damper position consistent with 
paragraph (i)(5) of this section.
    (4) Parameters monitored pursuant to this paragraph, excluding 
damper position, shall be recorded on a rolling averaging period not to 
exceed 15 minutes.
    (5) The owner or operator may petition the Administrator or 
delegated authority for reestablishment of these parameters whenever 
the owner or operator can demonstrate to the Administrator's or 
delegated authority's satisfaction that the EAF operating conditions 
upon which the parameters were previously established are no longer 
applicable. The values of the parameters as determined during the most 
recent demonstration of compliance shall be the appropriate operational 
range or control set point throughout each applicable period. Operation 
at values beyond the accepted operational range or control set point 
may be subject to the requirements of Sec.  60.276(a).
    (d) The owner or operator may petition the Administrator or 
delegated authority to approve any alternative method that will provide 
a continuous record of operation of each emission capture system.
    (e) The owner or operator shall perform monthly operational status 
inspections of the equipment that is important to the performance of 
the total capture system (i.e., pressure sensors, dampers, and damper 
switches). This inspection shall include observations of the physical 
appearance of the equipment (e.g., presence of hole in ductwork or 
hoods, flow constrictions caused by dents or excess accumulations of 
dust in ductwork, and fan erosion) and building inspections to ensure 
that the building does not have any holes or other openings for 
particulate matter laden air to escape. Any deficiencies that are 
determined by the operator to materially impact the efficacy of the 
capture system shall be noted and proper maintenance performed.
    (f) Except as provided for under Sec.  60.273(d), where emissions 
during any phase of the heat time are controlled by use of a direct 
shell evacuation system, the owner or operator shall install, 
calibrate, and maintain a monitoring device that continuously records 
the pressure in the free space inside the EAF. The pressure shall be 
recorded as no greater than 15-minute integrated block averages. The 
monitoring device may be installed in any appropriate location in the 
EAF or DEC duct prior to the introduction of ambient air such that 
reproducible results will be obtained. The pressure monitoring device 
shall have an accuracy of 5 mm of water gauge over its 
normal operating range and shall be calibrated according to the 
manufacturer's instructions.
    (g) Except as provided for under Sec.  60.273(d), when the owner or 
operator of an EAF is required to demonstrate compliance with the 
standard under Sec.  60.272(a)(3) and at any other time the 
Administrator may require (under section 114 of the Act, as amended), 
the pressure in the free space inside the furnace shall be determined 
during the melting and refining period(s) using the monitoring device 
under paragraph (f) of this section. The owner or operator may petition 
the Administrator or delegated authority for reestablishment of the 15-
minute integrated average pressure whenever the owner or operator can 
demonstrate to the Administrator's or delegated authority's 
satisfaction that the EAF operating conditions upon which the pressures 
were previously established are no longer applicable. The pressure 
range or control setting during the most recent demonstration of 
compliance shall be maintained at all times the EAF is operating in a 
melting and refining period. Continuous operation at pressures higher 
than the operational range or control setting may be considered by the 
Administrator or delegated authority to be unacceptable operation and 
maintenance of the affected facility.
* * * * *
    (i) During any performance test required under Sec.  60.8, and for 
any report thereof required by Sec.  60.276(c) of this subpart or to 
determine compliance with Sec.  60.272(a)(3) of this subpart, the owner 
or operator shall monitor the following information for all heats 
covered by the test:
    (1) Charge weights and materials, and tap weights and materials;
    (2) Heat times, including start and stop times, and a log of 
process operation, including periods of no operation during testing 
and, if a furnace static pressure monitoring device is operated 
pursuant to paragraph (f) of this section, the pressure inside the 
furnace when DEC systems are used;
    (3) Control device operation log;
    (4) Continuous opacity monitor or EPA Method 9 data, or, as an 
alternative to EPA Method 9, according to ASTM D7520-16 (incorporated 
by reference, see Sec.  60.17), with the caveats described under Shop 
opacity in Sec.  60.271;
    (5) All damper positions, no less frequently than performed in the 
latest melt shop opacity compliance test for a full heat, if selected 
as a method to demonstrate compliance under paragraph (b) of this 
section;
    (6) Fan motor amperes at each damper position, if selected as a 
method to demonstrate compliance under paragraph (b) of this section;
    (7) Volumetric air flow rate through each separately ducted hood, 
if selected as a method to demonstrate compliance under paragraph (b) 
of this section; and
    (8) Static pressure at each separately ducted hood, if selected as 
a method to demonstrate compliance under paragraph (b) of this section.
    (9) Parameters monitored pursuant to paragraphs (i)(6)-(8) of this 
section shall be recorded on a rolling averaging period not to exceed 
15 minutes.

0
8. Section 60.275 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(2);
0
b. Adding paragraph (b)(3);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (c), (e)(1), (3), and (4);
0
d. Removing paragraph (g);
0
e. Redesignating existing paragraphs (h) through (j) as paragraphs (g) 
through (i), respectively; and
0
f. Revising newly redesignated paragraphs (g) introductory text, 
(g)(3), and (h).

[[Page 58479]]

    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  60.275  Test methods and procedures.

    (a) During performance tests required in Sec.  60.8, the owner or 
operator shall not add gaseous diluent to the effluent gas after the 
fabric filter in any pressurized fabric collector, unless the amount of 
dilution is separately determined and considered in the determination 
of emissions.
    (b) * * *
    (2) Use a method that is acceptable to the Administrator or 
delegated authority and that compensates for the emissions from the 
facilities not subject to the provisions of this subpart.
    (3) Any combination of the criteria of paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) 
of this section.
    (c) When emissions from any EAF(s) are combined with emissions from 
facilities not subject to the provisions of this subpart, compliance 
with Sec.  60.272(a)(3) will be based on emissions from only the 
affected facility(ies). The owner or operator may use operational 
knowledge to determine the facilities that are the sources, in whole or 
in part, of any emissions observed in demonstrations of compliance with 
Sec.  60.272(a)(3).
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) EPA Method 5 (and referenced EPA Methods 1, 2, 3, 3A, 3B, and 
4) shall be used for negative-pressure fabric filters and other types 
of control devices and EPA Method 5D (and referenced EPA Method 5) 
shall be used for positive-pressure fabric filters to determine the 
particulate matter concentration and, if applicable, the volumetric 
flow rate of the effluent gas. The sampling time and sample volume for 
each run shall be at least 4 hours and 4.5 dscm (160 dscf) and, when a 
single EAF is sampled, the sampling time shall include an integral 
number of heats. The manual portions only and not the instrumental 
portion of the voluntary consensus standard ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  60.17) is an acceptable 
alternative to EPA Methods 3, 3A, and 3B.
* * * * *
    (3) EPA Method 9 or, as an alternative, ASTM D7520-16 (incorporated 
by reference, see Sec.  60.17), with the caveats described under Shop 
opacity in Sec.  60.271, and the procedures of Sec.  60.11 shall be 
used to determine opacity.
    (4) To demonstrate compliance with Sec.  60.272(a)(1), (2), and 
(3), the EPA Method 9 test runs shall be conducted concurrently with 
the particulate matter test runs, unless inclement weather interferes.
* * * * *
    (g) Where emissions from any EAF(s) are combined with emissions 
from facilities not subject to the provisions of this subpart, the 
owner or operator may use any of the following procedures for 
demonstrating compliance with Sec.  60.272(a)(3), except if the 
combined emissions are controlled by a common capture system and 
control device, in which case the owner or operator may use any of the 
following procedures during an opacity performance test and during shop 
opacity observations:
* * * * *
    (3) Any combination of the criteria of paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of 
this section.
    (h) If visible emissions observations are made in lieu of using a 
continuous opacity monitoring system, as allowed for by Sec.  
60.273(c), visible emission observations shall be conducted at least 
once per day for at least three 6-minute periods when the furnace is 
operating in the melting and refining period. All visible emissions 
observations shall be conducted in accordance with EPA Method 9. If 
visible emissions occur from more than one point, the opacity shall be 
recorded for any points where visible emissions are observed. Where it 
is possible to determine that a number of visible emission sites relate 
to only one incident of the visible emission, only one set of three 6-
minute observations will be required. In that case, the EPA Method 9 
observations must be made for the site of highest opacity that directly 
relates to the cause (or location) of visible emissions observed during 
a single incident. Records shall be maintained of any 6-minute average 
that is in excess of the emission limit specified in Sec.  60.272(a).
* * * * *

0
9. Section 60.276 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a), (b), (c) introductory text, (c)(3), (4), 
(6)(iv), (10), (d), and (e)(3); and
0
b. Adding paragraphs (f) through (k).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  60.276  Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

    (a) Continuous operation at a furnace static pressure that exceeds 
the operational range or control setting under Sec.  60.274(g), for 
owners and operators that elect to install a furnace static pressure 
monitoring device under Sec.  60.274(f) or operation at flow rates 
lower than those established under Sec.  60.274(c) may be considered by 
the Administrator or delegated authority to be unacceptable operation 
and maintenance of the affected facility. Operation at such values 
shall be reported to the Administrator or delegated authority 
semiannually.
    (b) When the owner or operator of an EAF is required to demonstrate 
compliance with the standard under Sec.  60.275(b)(2) or a combination 
of (b)(1) and (b)(2), the owner or operator shall provide notice to the 
Administrator or delegated authority of the procedure(s) that will be 
used to determine compliance. Notification of the procedure(s) to be 
used must be postmarked at least 30 days prior to the performance test.
    (c) For the purpose of this subpart, the owner or operator shall 
conduct the demonstration of compliance with Sec.  60.272(a) of this 
subpart and furnish the Administrator or delegated authority with a 
written report of the results of the test. This report shall include 
the following information:
* * * * *
    (3) Make and model of the control device, and continuous opacity 
monitoring equipment, if applicable;
    (4) Flow diagram of process and emission capture system including 
other equipment or process(es) ducted to the same control device;
* * * * *
    (6) * * *
    (iv) Continuous opacity monitor or EPA Method 9 data, or, as an 
alternative to EPA Method 9, according to ASTM D7520-16 (incorporated 
by reference, see Sec.  60.17), with the caveats described under Shop 
opacity in Sec.  60.271.
* * * * *
    (10) Test observers from any outside agency;
* * * * *
    (d) The owner or operator shall maintain records of all shop 
opacity observations made in accordance with Sec.  60.273(d). All shop 
opacity observations in excess of the emission limit specified in Sec.  
60.272(a)(3) of this subpart shall indicate a period of excess 
emissions, and shall be reported to the Administrator or delegated 
authority semi-annually, according to Sec.  60.7(c) and submitted 
according to paragraph (h) of this section. In addition to the 
information required at Sec.  60.7(c), the report shall include the 
following information:
    (1) The company name and address of the affected facility.
    (2) An identification of each affected facility being included in 
the report.
    (3) Beginning and ending dates of the reporting period.
    (4) A certification by a certifying official of truth, accuracy, 
and completeness. This certification shall

[[Page 58480]]

state that, based on information and belief formed after reasonable 
inquiry, the statements and information in the document are true, 
accurate, and complete.
    (e) * * *
    (3) An identification of the date and time of all bag leak 
detection system alarms, the time that procedures to determine the 
cause of the alarm were initiated, if procedures were initiated within 
1 hour of the alarm, the cause of the alarm, an explanation of the 
actions taken, the date and time the cause of the alarm was alleviated, 
and if the alarm was alleviated within 24 hours of the alarm.
    (f) Records of the measurements required in Sec.  60.274 must be 
retained for at least 5 years following the date of the measurement.
    (g) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance 
test or demonstration of compliance required by this subpart, you must 
submit the results of the performance test following the procedures 
specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's 
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website 
(https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test. Submit the results of the 
performance test to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data 
Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which can be accessed through the EPA's 
Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be 
submitted in a file format generated using the EPA's ERT. 
Alternatively, you may submit an electronic file consistent with the 
extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on the EPA's ERT 
website.
    (2) Data collected using test methods that are not supported by the 
EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the test. 
The results of the performance test must be included as an attachment 
in the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML 
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the ERT generated 
package or alternative file to the EPA via CEDRI.
    (3) Confidential business information (CBI). Do not use CEDRI to 
submit information you claim as CBI. Anything submitted using CEDRI 
cannot later be claimed CBI. Although we do not expect persons to 
assert a claim of CBI, if you wish to assert a CBI claim for some of 
the information submitted under paragraph (g)(1) or (2) of this 
section, you must submit a complete file, including information claimed 
to be CBI, to the EPA. The file must be generated using the EPA's ERT 
or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed 
on the EPA's ERT website. The preferred method to submit 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 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, submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other 
commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as 
CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, 
Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old 
Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be 
submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described in paragraphs 
(g)(1) and (2) of this section. All CBI claims must be asserted at the 
time of submission. Furthermore, under CAA section 114(c), emissions 
data is not entitled to confidential treatment, and the EPA is required 
to make emissions data available to the public. Thus, emissions data 
will not be protected as CBI and will be made publicly available.
    (h) You must submit a report of excess emissions and monitoring 
systems performance report according to Sec.  60.7(c) to the 
Administrator semiannually. Submit all reports to the EPA via CEDRI, 
which can be accessed through the EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The 
EPA will make all the information submitted through CEDRI available to 
the public without further notice to you. Do not use CEDRI to submit 
information you claim as CBI. Anything submitted using CEDRI cannot 
later be claimed CBI. You must use the appropriate electronic report 
template on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/cedri) for this subpart. The date report 
templates become available will be listed on the CEDRI website. The 
report must be submitted by the deadline specified in this subpart, 
regardless of the method in which the report is submitted. Although we 
do not expect persons to assert a claim of CBI, if you wish to assert a 
CBI claim, follow paragraph (g)(3) of this section except send to the 
attention of the Electric Arc Furnace Sector Lead. The same file with 
the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as 
described earlier in this paragraph (h). All CBI claims must be 
asserted at the time of submission. Furthermore, under CAA section 
114(c), emissions data is not entitled to confidential treatment, and 
the EPA is required to make emissions data available to the public. 
Thus, emissions data will not be protected as CBI and will be made 
publicly available.
    (i) If you are required to electronically submit a report through 
CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage for 
failure to timely comply with that reporting requirement. To assert a 
claim of EPA system outage, you must meet the requirements outlined in 
paragraphs (i)(1) through (7) of this section.
    (1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI 
and submitting a required report within the time prescribed due to an 
outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
    (2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time 
beginning five business days prior to the date that the submission is 
due.
    (3) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
    (4) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as 
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due 
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a 
delay in reporting.
    (5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description 
identifying:
    (i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed, and the 
system was unavailable;
    (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the 
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
    (iii) A description of measures taken or to be taken to minimize 
the delay in reporting; and
    (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have 
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, 
the date you reported.
    (6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow 
an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion 
of the Administrator.
    (7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted 
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
    (j) If you are required to electronically submit a report through 
CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of

[[Page 58481]]

force majeure for failure to timely comply with that reporting 
requirement. To assert a claim of force majeure, you must meet the 
requirements outlined in paragraphs (j)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to 
occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such 
an event within the period of time beginning five business days prior 
to the date the submission is due. For the purposes of this section, a 
force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been 
caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, 
its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that 
prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report 
electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such 
events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), 
acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond 
the control of the affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage).
    (2) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as 
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due 
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a 
delay in reporting.
    (3) You must provide to the Administrator:
    (i) A written description of the force majeure event;
    (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the 
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
    (iii) A description of measures taken or to be taken to minimize 
the delay in reporting; and
    (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have 
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, 
the date you reported.
    (4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an 
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of 
the Administrator.
    (5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as 
possible after the force majeure event occurs.
    (k) Any records required to be maintained by this subpart that are 
submitted electronically via the EPA's CEDRI may be maintained in 
electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not 
affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and 
reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as 
part of an on-site compliance evaluation.

Subpart AAa--Standards of Performance for Steel Plants: Electric 
Arc Furnaces and Argon-Oxygen Decarbonization Vessels Constructed 
After August 17, 1983 and On or Before May 16, 2022

0
10. Section 60.270a is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  60.270a  Applicability and designation of affected facility.

* * * * *
    (b) The provisions of this subpart apply to each affected facility 
identified in paragraph (a) of this section that commences 
construction, modification, or reconstruction after August 17, 1983 and 
on or before May 16, 2022, where a modification is any physical change 
in, or change in the method of operation of, an existing facility which 
increases the amount of any air pollutant (to which this standard 
applies) emitted into the atmosphere by that facility or which results 
in the emission of any air pollutant (to which this standard applies) 
into the atmosphere not previously emitted.

0
11. Section 60.271a is amended by:
0
a. Revising definitions for ``capture system'' and ``charge'';
0
b. Adding in alphabetical order the definition for ``Charging period'' 
and ``Damper'';
0
c. Revising the definitions for ``Direct-shell evacuation control 
system (DEC system),'' ``Dust-handling system'', ``Electric arc furnace 
(EAF)'', ``Heat cycle'', ``Meltdown and refining period'', 
``Refining'', ``Shop'', and ``Shop opacity''.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  60.271a  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Capture system means the equipment (including ducts, hoods, fans, 
dampers, etc.) used to capture particulate matter generated by the 
operation of an electric arc furnace or AOD vessel and transport 
captured particulate matter to the air pollution control device.
    Charge means the addition of iron and steel scrap or other 
materials into the shell of an electric arc furnace or the addition of 
molten steel or other materials into the top of an AOD vessel.
    Charging period means the time period when iron and steel scrap or 
other materials are added into the top of an electric arc furnace until 
the melting and refining period commences.
* * * * *
    Damper means any device used to open, close or throttle a DEC 
system or hood designed to capture emissions from an EAF or AOD vessel 
and route them to the associated control device(s). It does not include 
isolation dampers used to isolate a fan or baghouse compartment for 
repair or cleaning, or dampers controlling collection of emissions from 
equipment other than an EAF or AOD vessel.
    Direct-shell evacuation control system (DEC system) means a system 
that creates and maintains a negative pressure within the electric arc 
furnace shell during melting and refining, and transports emissions to 
the control device.
    Dust-handling system means equipment used to handle particulate 
matter collected by the control device for an electric arc furnace or 
AOD vessel subject to this subpart. For the purposes of this subpart, 
the dust-handling system shall consist of the control device dust 
hoppers, the dust-conveying equipment, any silo, dust storage 
equipment, the dust-treating equipment (e.g., pug mill, pelletizer), 
dust transfer equipment (including, but not limited to transfers from a 
silo to a truck or rail car), and any secondary control devices used 
with the dust transfer equipment.
    Electric arc furnace (EAF) means a furnace that produces molten 
steel and heats the charge materials with electricity using-carbon 
electrodes. For the purposes of this subpart, an EAF shall consist of 
the furnace shell and roof and the transformer. Furnaces that 
continuously feed direct-reduced iron ore pellets as the primary source 
of iron are not affected facilities within the scope of this 
definition.
    Heat cycle means the period beginning when scrap is charged to an 
EAF shell and ending when the EAF tap is completed or beginning when 
molten steel is charged to an AOD vessel and ending when the AOD vessel 
tap is completed.
    Melting and refining period means the time period commencing at the 
initial energizing of the electrode to begin the melting process and 
ending at the initiation of the tapping period, excluding any 
intermediate times when the electrodes are not energized as part of the 
melting process.
* * * * *
    Refining means that phase of the steel production cycle during 
which impurities are removed from the molten steel and alloys are added 
to reach the final metal chemistry.
    Shop means the building that houses one or more EAF's or AOD 
vessels and serves as the point from which compliance with Sec.  
60.272a(a)(3), ``Standard for Particulate Matter,'' is measured.
    Shop opacity means the arithmetic average of 24 observations of the 
opacity

[[Page 58482]]

of any EAF or AOD emissions emanating from, and not within, the shop, 
taken in accordance with EPA Method 9 of appendix A of this part. 
Alternatively, ASTM D7520-16 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
60.17), may be used with the following five conditions:
    (1) During the digital camera opacity technique (DCOT) 
certification procedure outlined in Section 9.2 of ASTM D7520-16 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  60.17), the owner or operator 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 and/or a 
sparse tree stand);
    (2) The owner or operator 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 (incorporated by reference, 
see Sec.  60.17);
    (3) The owner or operator must follow the recordkeeping procedures 
outlined in Sec.  60.7(f) for the DCOT certification, compliance 
report, data sheets, and all raw unaltered JPEGs used for opacity and 
certification determination;
    (4) The owner or operator 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;
    (5) Use of this approved alternative does not provide or imply a 
certification or validation of any vendor's hardware or software. The 
onus to maintain and verify the certification and/or training of the 
DCOT camera, software, and operator in accordance with ASTM D7520-16 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  60.17) and these requirements is 
on the facility, DCOT operator, and DCOT vendor.
* * * * *

0
12. Revise Sec.  60.272a to read as follows:


Sec.  60.272a  Standard for particulate matter.

    (a) On and after the date of which the performance test required to 
be conducted by Sec.  60.8 is completed, no owner or operator subject 
to the provisions of this subpart shall cause to be discharged into the 
atmosphere from an EAF or an AOD vessel any gases which:
    (1) Exit from a control device and contain particulate matter in 
excess of 12 mg/dscm (0.0052 gr/dscf);
    (2) Exit from a control device and exhibit 3 percent opacity or 
greater, as measured in accordance with EPA Method 9 of appendix A of 
this part, or, as an alternative, according to ASTM D7520-16 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  60.17), with the caveats 
described under Shop opacity in Sec.  60.271; and
    (3) Exit from a shop and, due solely to the operations of any 
affected EAF(s) or AOD vessel(s), exhibit 6 percent opacity or greater, 
as measured in accordance with EPA Method 9 of appendix A of this part, 
or, as an alternative, according to ASTM D7520-16 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  60.17), with the caveats described under Shop 
opacity in Sec.  60.271. Shop opacity shall be recorded for any 
point(s) where visible emissions are observed. Where it is possible to 
determine that a number of visible emission sites relate to only one 
incident of visible emissions, only one observation of shop opacity 
will be required. In this case, the shop opacity observations must be 
made for the site of highest opacity that directly relates to the cause 
(or location) of visible emissions observed during a single incident.
    (b) On and after the date on which the performance test required to 
be conducted by Sec.  60.8 is completed, no owner or operator subject 
to the provisions of this subpart shall cause to be discharged into the 
atmosphere from the dust-handling system any gases that exhibit 10 
percent opacity or greater, as measured in accordance with EPA Method 9 
of appendix A of this part, or, as an alternative, according to ASTM 
D7520-16 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  60.17), with the caveats 
described under Shop opacity in Sec.  60.271.

0
13. Section 60.273a is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (c), (d), (e) introductory text, (e)(3);
0
b. In paragraph (e)(4) introductory text, remove the text ``the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency guidance document ``Fabric Filter Bag 
Leak Detection Guidance'' (EPA-454/R-98-015)'' and add, in its place, 
the text ``EPA-454/R-98-015, Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  60.17)'';
0
c. Revising paragraphs (e)(6)(i) and (ii), (e)(7), (f) introductory 
text, (f)(1) and(5);
0
d. Redesignating paragraph (f)(6) as paragraph (f)(7);
0
e. Adding new paragraph (f)(6); and
0
f. Revising paragraph (g).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  60.273a  Emission monitoring.

* * * * *
    (c) A continuous monitoring system for the measurement of the 
opacity of emissions discharged into the atmosphere from the control 
device(s) is not required on any modular, multi-stack, negative-
pressure or positive-pressure fabric filter or on any single-stack 
fabric filter if observations of the opacity of the visible emissions 
from the control device are performed by a certified visible emission 
observer and the owner installs and operates a bag leak detection 
system according to paragraph (e) of this section whenever the control 
device is being used to remove particulate matter from the EAF or AOD. 
Visible emission observations shall be conducted at least once per day 
of the control device for at least three 6-minute periods when the 
furnace is operating in the melting and refining period. All visible 
emissions observations shall be conducted in accordance with EPA Method 
9, or, as an alternative, according to ASTM D7520-16 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  60.17), with the caveats described under Shop 
opacity in Sec.  60.271. If visible emissions occur from more than one 
point, the opacity shall be recorded for any points where visible 
emissions are observed. Where it is possible to determine that a number 
of visible emission points relate to only one incident of the visible 
emission, only one set of three 6-minute observations will be required. 
In that case, the EPA Method 9 observations must be made for the point 
of highest opacity that directly relates to the cause (or location) of 
visible emissions observed during a single incident. Records shall be 
maintained of any 6-minute average that is in excess of the emission 
limit specified in Sec.  60.272a(a)(2).
    (d) A furnace static pressure monitoring device is not required on 
any EAF equipped with a DEC system if observations of shop opacity are 
performed by a certified visible emission observer as follows:
    (1) At least once per day when the furnace is operating.
    (2) No less than once per week, commencing from the tap of one EAF 
heat cycle to the tap of the following heat cycle. A melt shop with 
more than one EAF shall conduct these readings while both EAFs are in 
operation. Both EAFs are not required to be on the same schedule for 
tapping.
    (3) Shop opacity shall be determined as the arithmetic average of 
24 consecutive 15-second opacity observations of emissions from the 
shop taken in accordance with EPA Method 9, or, as an alternative, 
according to

[[Page 58483]]

ASTM D7520-16 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  60.17), with the 
caveats described under Shop opacity in Sec.  60.271. Shop opacity 
shall be recorded for any point(s) where visible emissions are 
observed. Where it is possible to determine that a number of visible 
emission points relate to only one incident of visible emissions, only 
one observation of shop opacity will be required. In this case, the 
shop opacity observations must be made for the point of highest opacity 
that directly relates to the cause (or location) of visible emissions 
observed during a single incident.
    (e) A bag leak detection system must be installed on all single-
stack fabric filters and operated whenever the control device is being 
used to remove particulate matter from the EAF or AOD vessel if the 
owner or operator elects not to install and operate a continuous 
opacity monitoring system as provided for under paragraph (c) of this 
section. In addition, the owner or operator shall meet the visible 
emissions observation requirements in paragraph (c) of this section. 
The bag leak detection system must meet the specifications and 
requirements of paragraphs (e)(1) through (8) of this section.
* * * * *
    (3) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an alarm 
system that will activate when an increase in relative particulate 
loading is detected over the alarm set point established according to 
paragraph (e)(4) of this section, and the alarm must be located such 
that it can be identified by the appropriate plant personnel.
* * * * *
    (6) * * *
    (i) Once per quarter, the owner or operator may adjust the 
sensitivity of the bag leak detection system to account for seasonal 
effects including temperature and humidity according to the procedures 
identified in the site-specific monitoring plan required under 
paragraph (e)(4) of this section.
    (ii) If opacities greater than zero percent are observed over four 
consecutive 15-second observations during the daily opacity 
observations required under paragraph (c) of this section and the alarm 
on the bag leak detection system alarm is not activated, the owner or 
operator shall lower the alarm set point on the bag leak detection 
system to a point where the alarm would have been activated during the 
period when the opacity observations were made.
    (7) For negative pressure, induced air baghouses, and positive 
pressure baghouses that are discharged to the atmosphere through a 
stack, the bag leak detection sensor must be installed downstream of 
the baghouse or upstream of any wet scrubber.
* * * * *
    (f) For each bag leak detection system installed according to 
paragraph (e) of this section, the owner or operator shall initiate 
procedures to determine the cause of all alarms within 1 hour of an 
alarm. The cause of the alarm must be alleviated within 24 hours of the 
time the alarm occurred by taking whatever response action(s) are 
necessary. Response actions may include, but are not limited to, the 
following:
    (1) Inspecting the baghouse for air leaks, torn or broken bags or 
filter media, or any other condition that may have caused an increase 
in particulate emissions;
* * * * *
    (5) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe or otherwise 
repairing the bag leak detection system;
    (6) Establishing to the extent acceptable by the delegated 
authority that the alarm was a false alarm and not caused by a bag leak 
or other malfunction that could reasonably result in excess particulate 
emissions; and
* * * * *
    (g) In approving the site-specific monitoring plan required in 
paragraph (e)(4) of this section, the Administrator or delegated 
authority may allow owners or operators more than 24 hours to alleviate 
specific conditions that cause an alarm if the owner or operator 
identifies the condition that could lead to an alarm in the monitoring 
plan, adequately explains why it is not feasible to alleviate the 
condition within 24 hours of the time the alarm occurred, and 
demonstrates that the requested additional time will ensure alleviation 
of the condition as expeditiously as practicable.

0
14. Section 60.274a is amended by revising paragraphs (b) through (h) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  60.274a  Monitoring of operations.

* * * * *
    (b) Except as provided under paragraph (e) of this section, the 
owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart shall:
    (1) Monitor and record on a continuous basis the rolling 15-minute 
average furnace static pressure (if a DEC system is in use, and a 
furnace static pressure gauge is installed according to paragraph (f) 
of this section) and either:
    (i) Install, calibrate, and maintain a monitoring device that 
continuously records the capture system fan motor amperes and damper 
position(s);
    (ii) Install, calibrate, and maintain a monitoring device that 
continuously records on a rolling 15-minute average basis either the 
volumetric flow rate through each separately ducted hood; or
    (iii) Install, calibrate, and maintain a monitoring device that 
continuously records the volumetric flow rate at the control device 
inlet continuously record damper positions(s).
    (2) The volumetric flow monitoring device(s) may be installed in 
any appropriate location in the capture system such that reproducible 
flow rate monitoring will result. The flow rate monitoring device(s) 
shall have an accuracy of 10 percent over its normal 
operating range and shall be calibrated according to the manufacturer's 
instructions. The Administrator may require the owner or operator to 
demonstrate the accuracy of the monitoring device(s) relative to EPA 
Methods 1 and 2 of appendix A of this part.
    (3) Parameters monitored pursuant to this paragraph, excluding 
damper position, shall be recorded on a rolling averaging period not to 
exceed 15 minutes.
    (c) When the owner or operator of an affected facility is required 
to demonstrate compliance with the standards under Sec.  60.272a(a)(3) 
and at any other time that the Administrator may require (under section 
114 of the CAA, as amended), the owner or operator shall determine 
during periods in which a hood is operated for the purpose of capturing 
emissions from the affected facility subject to paragraph (b) of this 
section, all damper positions and either the:
    (1) Monitor and record the fan motor amperes at each damper 
position, and damper position consistent with paragraph (h)(5) of this 
section;
    (2) Install, calibrate, and maintain a monitoring device that 
continuously records the volumetric flow rate through each separately 
ducted hood; or
    (3) Install, calibrate, and maintain a monitoring device that 
continuously records the volumetric flow rate at the control device 
inlet and monitor and record the damper position consistent with 
paragraph (h)(5) of this section.
    (4) Parameters monitored pursuant to this paragraph, excluding 
damper position, shall be recorded on a rolling averaging period not to 
exceed 15 minutes.
    (5) The owner or operator may petition the Administrator or 
delegated authority for reestablishment of these parameters whenever 
the owner or operator can demonstrate to the Administrator's or 
delegated authority's satisfaction that the affected facility

[[Page 58484]]

operating conditions upon which the parameters were previously 
established are no longer applicable. The values of the parameters as 
determined during the most recent demonstration of compliance shall be 
the appropriate operational range or control set point throughout each 
applicable period. Operation at values beyond the accepted operational 
range or control set point may be subject to the requirements of Sec.  
60.276a(c).
    (d) Except as provided under paragraph (e) of this section, the 
owner or operator shall perform monthly operational status inspections 
of the equipment that is important to the performance of the capture 
system (i.e., pressure sensors, dampers, and damper switches). This 
inspection shall include observations of the physical appearance of the 
equipment (e.g., presence of holes in ductwork or hoods, flow 
constrictions caused by dents or excess accumulations of dust in 
ductwork, and fan erosion) and building inspections to ensure that the 
building does not have any holes or other openings for particulate 
matter laden air to escape. Any deficiencies that are determined by the 
operator to materially impact the efficacy of the capture system shall 
be noted and proper maintenance performed.
    (e) The owner or operator may petition the Administrator or 
delegated authority to approve any alternative to either the monitoring 
requirements specified in paragraph (b) of this section or the monthly 
operational status inspections specified in paragraph (d) of this 
section if the alternative will provide a continuous record of 
operation of each emission capture system.
    (f) Except as provided for under Sec.  60.273a(d), if emissions 
during any phase of the heat cycle are controlled by the use of a DEC 
system, the owner or operator shall install, calibrate, and maintain a 
monitoring device that allows the pressure in the free space inside the 
EAF to be monitored. The pressure shall be recorded as no greater than 
15-minute integrated block averages. The monitoring device may be 
installed in any appropriate location in the EAF or DEC duct prior to 
the introduction of ambient air such that reproducible results will be 
obtained. The pressure monitoring device shall have an accuracy of 
5 mm of water gauge over its normal operating range and 
shall be calibrated according to the manufacturer's instructions.
    (g) Except as provided for under Sec.  60.273a(d), when the owner 
or operator of an EAF controlled by a DEC is required to demonstrate 
compliance with the standard under Sec.  60.272a(a)(3), and at any 
other time the Administrator may require (under section 114 of the 
Clean Air Act, as amended), the pressure in the free space inside the 
furnace shall be determined during the melting and refining period(s) 
using the monitoring device required under paragraph (f) of this 
section. The owner or operator may petition the Administrator or 
delegated authority for reestablishment of the pressure whenever the 
owner or operator can demonstrate to the Administrator's or delegated 
authority's satisfaction that the EAF operating conditions upon which 
the pressures were previously established are no longer applicable. The 
pressure range or control setting during the most recent demonstration 
of compliance shall be maintained at all times when the EAF is 
operating in a melting and refining period. Continuous operation at 
pressures higher than the operational range or control setting may be 
considered by the Administrator or delegated authority to be 
unacceptable operation and maintenance of the affected facility.
    (h) During any performance test required under Sec.  60.8, and for 
any report thereof required by Sec.  60.276a(f) of this subpart, or to 
determine compliance with Sec.  60.272a(a)(3) of this subpart, the 
owner or operator shall monitor the following information for all heats 
covered by the test:
    (1) Charge weights and materials, and tap weights and materials;
    (2) Heat times, including start and stop times, and a log of 
process operation, including periods of no operation during testing 
and, if a furnace static pressure monitoring device is operated 
pursuant to paragraph (f) of this section, the pressure inside an EAF 
when DEC systems are used;
    (3) Control device operation log;
    (4) Continuous opacity monitor or EPA Method 9 data, or, as an 
alternative to EPA Method 9, according to ASTM D7520-16 (incorporated 
by reference, see Sec.  60.17), with the caveats described under Shop 
opacity in Sec.  60.271;
    (5) All damper positions, no less frequently than performed in the 
latest melt shop opacity compliance test for a full heat, if selected 
as a method to demonstrate compliance under paragraph (b) of this 
section;
    (6) Fan motor amperes at each damper position, if selected as a 
method to demonstrate compliance under paragraph (b) of this section;
    (7) Volumetric air flow rate through each separately ducted hood, 
if selected as a method to demonstrate compliance under paragraph (b) 
of this section; and
    (8) Static pressure at each separately ducted hood, if selected as 
a method to demonstrate compliance under paragraph (b) of this section.
    (9) Parameters monitored pursuant to paragraphs (h)(6) through (8) 
of this section shall be recorded on a rolling averaging period not to 
exceed 15 minutes.

0
15. Section 60.275a is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(2);
0
b. Adding paragraph (b)(3);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (c) and (e);
0
d. Removing paragraph (h);
0
e. Redesignating paragraphs (i) and (j) as paragraphs (h) and (i) and 
revising the newly redesignated paragraph (h).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  60.275a  Test methods and procedures.

    (a) During performance tests required in Sec.  60.8, the owner or 
operator shall not add gaseous diluents to the effluent gas stream 
after the fabric filter in any pressurized fabric filter collector, 
unless the amount of dilution is separately determined and considered 
in the determination of emissions.
    (b) * * *
    (2) Use a method that is acceptable to the Administrator or 
delegated authority and that compensates for the emissions from the 
facilities not subject to the provisions of this subpart.
    (3) Any combination of the criteria of paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) 
of this section.
    (c) When emission from any EAF(s) or AOD vessel(s) are combined 
with emissions from facilities not subject to the provisions of this 
subpart, compliance with Sec.  60.272a(a)(3) will be based on emissions 
from only the affected facility(ies). The owner or operator may use 
operational knowledge to determine the facilities that are the sources, 
in whole or in part, of any emissions observed in demonstrations of 
compliance with Sec.  60.272a(a)(3).
* * * * *
    (e) The owner or operator shall determine compliance with the 
particulate matter standards in Sec.  60.272a as follows:
    (1) EPA Method 5 (and referenced EPA Methods 1, 2, 3, 3A, 3B, and 
4) shall be used for negative-pressure fabric filters and other types 
of control devices and EPA Method 5D (and referenced EPA Method 5) 
shall be used for positive-pressure fabric filters to determine the 
particulate matter concentration and volumetric flow rate of the 
effluent gas. The sampling time and sample volume for each run shall be 
at least 4 hours and 4.50 dscm (160 dscf) and, when a single EAF or AOD 
vessel

[[Page 58485]]

is sampled, the sampling time shall include an integral number of 
heats. The manual portions only and not the instrumental portion of the 
voluntary consensus standard ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  60.17) is an acceptable alternative to EPA Methods 
3, 3A, and 3B.
    (2) When more than one control device serves the EAF(s) being 
tested, the concentration of particulate matter shall be determined 
using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25AU23.002


Where:
cst = average concentration of particulate matter, mg/
dscm (gr/dscf).
csi = concentration of particulate matter from control 
device ``i'', mg/dscm (gr/dscf).
n = total number of control devices tested.
Qsdi = volumetric flow rate of stack gas from control 
device ``i'', dscm/hr (dscf/hr).

    (3) EPA Method 9 or, as an alternative, ASTM D7520-16 (incorporated 
by reference, see Sec.  60.17), with the caveats described under Shop 
opacity in Sec.  60.271, and the procedures of Sec.  60.11 shall be 
used to determine opacity.
    (4) To demonstrate compliance with Sec.  60.272a(a) (1), (2), and 
(3), the EPA Method 9 test runs shall be conducted concurrently with 
the particulate matter test runs, unless inclement weather interferes.
* * * * *
    (h) Where emissions from any EAF(s) or AOD vessel(s) are combined 
with emissions from facilities not subject to the provisions of this 
subpart, determinations of compliance with Sec.  60.272a(a)(3) will 
only be based upon emissions originating from the affected 
facility(ies), except if the combined emissions are controlled by a 
common capture system and control device, in which case the owner or 
operator may use any of the following procedures during an opacity 
performance test and during shop opacity observations:
    (1) Base compliance on control of the combined emissions; or
    (2) Utilize a method acceptable to the Administrator that 
compensates for the emissions from the facilities not subject to the 
provisions of this subpart.
    (i) Unless the presence of inclement weather makes concurrent 
testing infeasible, the owner or operator shall conduct concurrently 
the performance tests required under Sec.  60.8 to demonstrate 
compliance with Sec.  60.272a(a) (1), (2), and (3) of this subpart.

0
16. Section 60.276a is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a) through (c), (e), (f) introductory text, 
(f)(3) and (4), (6)(iv), (10), (g), and (h)(3); and
0
b. Adding new paragraphs (i) through (m).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  60.276a  Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

    (a) Records of the measurements required in Sec.  60.274a must be 
retained for at least 5 years following the date of the measurement.
    (b) Each owner or operator shall submit a written report of 
exceedances of the control device opacity to the Administrator or 
delegated authority semi-annually. For the purposes of these reports, 
exceedances are defined as all 6-minute periods during which the 
average opacity of emissions from the control device is 3 percent or 
greater.
    (c) Continuous operation at a furnace static pressure that exceeds 
the operational range or control setting under Sec.  60.274a(g), for 
owners and operators that elect to install a furnace static pressure 
monitoring device under Sec.  60.274a(f) or operation at flow rates 
lower than those established under Sec.  60.274a(c) may be considered 
by the Administrator or delegated authority to be unacceptable 
operation and maintenance of the affected facility. Operation at such 
values shall be reported to the Administrator or delegated authority 
semiannually.
* * * * *
    (e) When the owner or operator of an EAF or AOD is required to 
demonstrate compliance with the standard under Sec.  60.275a(b)(2) or a 
combination of Sec.  60.275a(b)(1) and (b)(2) the owner or operator 
shall provide notice to the Administrator or delegated authority of the 
procedure(s) that will be used to determine compliance. Notification of 
the procedure(s) to be used must be postmarked at least 30 days prior 
to the performance test.
    (f) For the purpose of this subpart, the owner or operator shall 
conduct the demonstration of compliance with Sec.  60.272a(a) of this 
subpart and furnish the Administrator or delegated authority with a 
written report of the results of the test. This report shall include 
the following information:
* * * * *
    (3) Make and model of the control device, and continuous opacity 
monitoring equipment, if applicable;
    (4) Flow diagram of process and emission capture system including 
other equipment or process(es) ducted to the same control device;
* * * * *
    (6) * * *
    (iv) Continuous opacity monitor or EPA Method 9 data, or, as an 
alternative to EPA Method 9, according to ASTM D7520-16 (incorporated 
by reference, see Sec.  60.17), with the caveats described under Shop 
opacity in Sec.  60.271.
* * * * *
    (10) Test observers from any outside agency;
* * * * *
    (g) The owner or operator shall maintain records of all shop 
opacity observations made in accordance with Sec.  60.273a(d). All shop 
opacity observations in excess of the emission limit specified in Sec.  
60.272a(a)(3) of this subpart shall indicate a period of excess 
emissions and shall be reported to the Administrator or delegated 
authority semi-annually, according to Sec.  60.7(c) and submitted 
according to paragraph (j) of this section. In addition to the 
information required at Sec.  60.7(c), the report shall include the 
following information:
    (1) The company name and address of the affected facility.
    (2) An identification of each affected facility being included in 
the report.
    (3) Beginning and ending dates of the reporting period.
    (4) A certification by a certifying official of truth, accuracy, 
and completeness. This certification shall state that, based on 
information and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, the statements 
and information in the document are true, accurate, and complete.
    (h) * * *
    (3) An identification of the date and time of all bag leak 
detection system alarms, the time that procedures to determine the 
cause of the alarm were initiated, if procedures were initiated within 
1 hour of the alarm, the cause of the alarm, an explanation of the 
actions taken, the date and time the cause of the alarm was alleviated, 
and if the alarm was alleviated within 24 hours of the alarm.
    (i) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance 
test or demonstration of compliance required by this subpart, you must 
submit the results of the performance test following the procedures 
specified in paragraphs (i)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's 
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website 
(https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test. Submit the results of the 
performance test to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data

[[Page 58486]]

Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which can be accessed through the EPA's 
Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be 
submitted in a file format generated using the EPA's ERT. 
Alternatively, you may submit an electronic file consistent with the 
extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on the EPA's ERT 
website.
    (2) Data collected using test methods that are not supported by the 
EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the test. 
The results of the performance test must be included as an attachment 
in the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML 
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the ERT generated 
package or alternative file to the EPA via CEDRI.
    (3) Confidential business information (CBI). Do not use CEDRI to 
submit information you claim as CBI. Anything submitted using CEDRI 
cannot later be claimed CBI. Although we do not expect persons to 
assert a claim of CBI, if you wish to assert a CBI claim for some of 
the information submitted under paragraph (i)(1) or (2) of this 
section, you must submit a complete file, including information claimed 
to be CBI, to the EPA. The file must be generated using the EPA's ERT 
or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed 
on the EPA's ERT website. The preferred method to submit 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 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, submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other 
commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as 
CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, 
Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old 
Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be 
submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described in paragraphs 
(i)(1) and (2) of this section. All CBI claims must be asserted at the 
time of submission. Furthermore, under CAA section 114(c), emissions 
data is not entitled to confidential treatment, and the EPA is required 
to make emissions data available to the public. Thus, emissions data 
will not be protected as CBI and will be made publicly available.
    (j) You must submit a report of excess emissions and monitoring 
systems performance report according to Sec.  60.7(c) to the 
Administrator semiannually. Submit all reports to the EPA via CEDRI, 
which can be accessed through the EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The 
EPA will make all the information submitted through CEDRI available to 
the public without further notice to you. Do not use CEDRI to submit 
information you claim as CBI. Anything submitted using CEDRI cannot 
later be claimed CBI. You must use the appropriate electronic report 
template on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/cedri) for this subpart. The date report 
templates become available will be listed on the CEDRI website. The 
report must be submitted by the deadline specified in this subpart, 
regardless of the method in which the report is submitted. Although we 
do not expect persons to assert a claim of CBI, if you wish to assert a 
CBI claim, follow paragraph (i)(3) of this section except send to the 
attention of the Electric Arc Furnace Sector Lead. The same file with 
the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as 
described earlier in this paragraph (j). All CBI claims must be 
asserted at the time of submission. Furthermore, under CAA section 
114(c), emissions data is not entitled to confidential treatment, and 
the EPA is required to make emissions data available to the public. 
Thus, emissions data will not be protected as CBI and will be made 
publicly available.
    (k) If you are required to electronically submit a report through 
CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage for 
failure to timely comply with that reporting requirement. To assert a 
claim of EPA system outage, you must meet the requirements outlined in 
paragraphs (k)(1) through (7) of this section.
    (1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI 
and submitting a required report within the time prescribed due to an 
outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
    (2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time 
beginning five business days prior to the date that the submission is 
due.
    (3) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
    (4) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as 
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due 
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a 
delay in reporting.
    (5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description 
identifying:
    (i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the 
system was unavailable;
    (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the 
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
    (iii) A description of measures taken or to be taken to minimize 
the delay in reporting; and
    (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have 
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, 
the date you reported.
    (6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow 
an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion 
of the Administrator.
    (7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted 
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
    (l) If you are required to electronically submit a report through 
CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of force majeure for 
failure to timely comply with that reporting requirement. To assert a 
claim of force majeure, you must meet the requirements outlined in 
paragraphs (l)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to 
occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such 
an event within the period of time beginning five business days prior 
to the date the submission is due. For the purposes of this section, a 
force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been 
caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, 
its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that 
prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report 
electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such 
events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), 
acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond 
the control of the affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage).
    (2) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as 
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due 
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a 
delay in reporting.
    (3) You must provide to the Administrator:
    (i) A written description of the force majeure event;

[[Page 58487]]

    (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the 
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
    (iii) A description of measures taken or to be taken to minimize 
the delay in reporting; and
    (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have 
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, 
the date you reported.
    (4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an 
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of 
the Administrator.
    (5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as 
possible after the force majeure event occurs.
    (m) Any records required to be maintained by this subpart that are 
submitted electronically via the EPA's CEDRI may be maintained in 
electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not 
affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and 
reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as 
part of an on-site compliance evaluation.

0
17. Add subpart AAb to part 60 to read as follows:

Subpart AAb--Standards of Performance for Steel Plants: Electric 
Arc Furnaces and Argon-Oxygen Decarbonization Vessels Constructed 
After May 16, 2022

Sec.
Sec.  60.270b Applicability and designation of affected facility.
Sec.  60.271b Definitions
Sec.  60.272b Standard for particulate matter.
Sec.  60.273b Emission monitoring
Sec.  60.274b Monitoring of operations
Sec.  60.275b Test methods and procedures.
Sec.  60.276b Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.


Sec.  60.270b  Applicability and designation of affected facility.

    (a) The provisions of this subpart are applicable to the following 
affected facilities in steel plants that produce carbon, alloy, or 
specialty steels: electric arc furnaces (EAF), argon-oxygen 
decarburization (AOD) vessels, and dust-handling systems.
    (b) The provisions of this subpart apply to each affected facility 
identified in paragraph (a) of this section that commences 
construction, modification, or reconstruction after May 16, 2022.


Sec.  60.271b  Definitions

    As used in this subpart, all terms not defined herein shall have 
the meaning given them in the Act and in subpart A of this part.
    Argon-oxygen decarburization vessel (AOD vessel) means any closed-
bottom, refractory-lined converter vessel with submerged tuyeres 
through which gaseous mixtures containing argon and oxygen or nitrogen 
may be blown into molten steel for further refining.
    Bag leak detection system means a system that is capable of 
continuously monitoring relative particulate matter (dust) loadings in 
the exhaust of a baghouse to detect bag leaks and other conditions that 
result in increases in particulate loadings. A bag leak detection 
system includes, but is not limited to, an instrument that operates on 
triboelectric, electrodynamic, light scattering, light transmittance, 
or other effect to continuously monitor relative particulate matter 
loadings.
    Capture system means the equipment (including ducts, hoods, fans, 
dampers, etc.) used to capture particulate matter generated by the 
operation of an electric arc furnace (EAF) or AOD vessel and transport 
captured particulate matter to the air pollution control device.
    Charge means the addition of iron and steel scrap or other 
materials into the shell of an EAF or the addition of molten steel or 
other materials into the top of an AOD vessel.
    Charging period means the time period when iron and steel scrap or 
other materials are added into the top of an EAF until the melting and 
refining period commences.
    Control device means the air pollution control equipment used to 
remove particulate matter from the effluent gas stream generated by an 
EAF or AOD vessel.
    Damper means any device used to open, close or throttle a DEC 
system or hood designed to capture emissions from an EAF or AOD vessel 
and route them to the associated control device(s). It does not include 
isolation dampers used to isolate a fan or baghouse compartment for 
repair or cleaning, or dampers controlling collection of emissions from 
equipment other than an EAF or AOD vessel.
    Direct-shell evacuation control system (DEC system) means a system 
that designed to create and maintain a negative pressure within the EAF 
shell during melting and refining, and transports emissions to the 
control device.
    Dust-handling system means equipment used to handle particulate 
matter collected by the control device for an EAF or AOD vessel subject 
to this subpart. For the purposes of this subpart, the dust-handling 
system shall consist of the control device dust hoppers, the dust-
conveying equipment, any silo, dust storage equipment, the dust-
treating equipment (e.g., pug mill, pelletizer), dust transfer 
equipment (including, but not limited to transfers from a silo to a 
truck or rail car), and any secondary control devices used with the 
dust transfer equipment.
    Electric arc furnace (EAF) means a furnace that produces molten 
steel and heats the charge materials with electricity using-carbon 
electrodes. For the purposes of this subpart, an EAF shall consist of 
the furnace shell and roof and the transformer. Furnaces that 
continuously feed direct-reduced iron ore pellets as the primary source 
of iron are not affected facilities within the scope of this 
definition.
    Electric arc furnace facility means the EAF(s) or AOD(s) subject to 
this rule and the air pollution control equipment used to remove 
particulate matter from the effluent gas stream generated by the EAF(s) 
or AOD(s).
    Furnace static pressure means the pressure exerted by the flow of 
air at the walls of the furnace, perpendicular to the flow, measured 
using a manometer or equivalent device to determine pressure inside an 
EAF when DEC systems are used or pressure in the free space inside the 
EAF.
    Heat cycle means the period beginning when scrap is charged to an 
EAF shell and ending when the EAF tap is completed or beginning when 
molten steel is charged to an AOD vessel and ending when the AOD vessel 
tap is completed.
    Melting means that phase of steel production cycle during which the 
iron and steel scrap is heated to the molten state.
    Melting and refining period means the time period commencing at the 
initial energizing of the electrode to begin the melting process and 
ending at the initiation of the tapping period, excluding any 
intermediate times when the electrodes are not energized as part of the 
melting process.
    Modified facility means any physical or operational change to an 
existing facility which results in an increase in the emission rate (in 
kilograms per hour) to the atmosphere of any pollutant to which a 
standard applies. Upon modification, an existing facility shall become 
an affected facility for each pollutant to which a standard applies and 
for which there is an increase in the emission rate to the atmosphere. 
See Sec.  60.14.
    Negative-pressure fabric filter means a fabric filter with the fans 
on the downstream side of the filter bags.
    Positive-pressure fabric filter means a fabric filter with the fans 
on the upstream side of the filter bags.
    Reconstructed facility means an existing facility which upon 
reconstruction becomes an affected

[[Page 58488]]

facility, irrespective of any change in emission rate, due to the 
replacement of components of an existing facility to such an extent 
that the fixed capital cost of the new components exceeds 50 percent of 
the fixed capital cost that would be required to construct a comparable 
entirely new facility, where ``fixed capital cost'' means the capital 
needed to provide all the depreciable components, and it is 
technologically and economically feasible to meet the applicable 
standards set forth in this subpart after reconstruction.
    Refining means that phase of the steel production cycle during 
which impurities are removed from the molten steel and alloys are added 
to reach the final metal chemistry.
    Shop means the building that houses one or more EAF's or AOD 
vessels and serves as the point from which compliance with Sec.  
60.272b(a)(3), ``Standard for Particulate Matter,'' is measured.
    Shop opacity means the arithmetic average of 24 observations of the 
opacity of any EAF or AOD emissions emanating from, and not within, the 
shop, during melting and refining, and during tapping, taken in 
accordance with EPA Method 9 of appendix A of this part, and during 
charging, according to the procedures in section 2.5 of Method 9 in 
appendix A to part 60 of this chapter, with the modification to 
determine the 3-minute block average opacity from the average of 12 
consecutive observations recorded at 15-second intervals. For the daily 
opacity observation during melting and refining, during charging, and 
during tapping, facilities may measure opacity by EPA Method 22 of 
appendix A of this part, modified to require the recording of the 
aggregate duration of visible emissions at 15 second intervals. 
Alternatively, ASTM D7520-16 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
60.17), may be used with the following five conditions:
    (1) During the digital camera opacity technique (DCOT) 
certification procedure outlined in Section 9.2 of ASTM D7520-16 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  60.17), the owner or operator 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 and/or a 
sparse tree stand);
    (2) The owner or operator 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 (incorporated by reference, 
see Sec.  60.17);
    (3) The owner or operator must follow the recordkeeping procedures 
outlined in Sec.  60.7(f) for the DCOT certification, compliance 
report, data sheets, and all raw unaltered JPEGs used for opacity and 
certification determination;
    (4) The owner or operator 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;
    (5) Use of this approved alternative does not provide or imply a 
certification or validation of any vendor's hardware or software. The 
onus to maintain and verify the certification and/or training of the 
DCOT camera, software, and operator in accordance with ASTM D7520-16 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  60.17) and these requirements is 
on the facility, DCOT operator, and DCOT vendor.
    Static pressure means the pressure exerted by the flow of air at 
the furnace walls, perpendicular to the flow, measured using a 
manometer or equivalent device. This refers to either furnace static 
pressure, or static pressure in air ducts, or pressure in the EAF 
capture system, i.e., static pressure at each separately ducted hood]
    Tap means the pouring of molten steel from an EAF or AOD vessel.
    Tapping period means the time period commencing at the moment an 
EAF begins to pour molten steel and ending either three minutes after 
steel ceases to flow from an EAF, or six minutes after steel begins to 
flow, whichever is longer.


Sec.  60.272b  Standard for particulate matter.

    (a) On and after the date of which the performance tests required 
to be conducted by Sec.  60.8 or Sec.  60.272b(d) are completed, no 
owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart shall cause 
to be discharged into the atmosphere from an EAF or an AOD vessel any 
gases which:
    (1) Exit from control devices at the facility and contain 
particulate matter as a total for the facility in excess of 79 mg/kg 
steel produced (0.16 lb/ton steel produced) for the facility;
    (2) Exit from a control device and exhibit 3 percent opacity or 
greater, as measured in accordance with EPA Method 9 of appendix A of 
this part, or, as an alternative, according to ASTM D7520-16 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  60.17), with the caveats 
described under Shop opacity in Sec.  60.271; and
    (3) Exit from a shop and, due solely to the operations of any 
affected EAF(s) or AOD vessel(s) during melting and refining exhibit 
greater than 0 percent opacity, and during charging exhibit greater 
than 6 percent opacity, as measured in accordance with EPA Method 9 of 
appendix A of this part, and during charging, exhibit greater than 6 
percent opacity, as measured according to the procedures in section 2.5 
of Method 9 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter, with the 
modification of this section of Method 9 to determine the 3-minute 
block average opacity from the average of 12 consecutive observations 
recorded at 15-second intervals; or, as an alternative, according to 
ASTM D7520-16 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  60.17), with the 
caveats described under Shop opacity in Sec.  60.271 or, for the daily 
opacity observations, exhibit 0 seconds of visible emissions as 
measured by EPA Method 22 of appendix A of this part, modified to 
require the recording of the aggregate duration of visible emissions at 
15 second intervals. Shop opacity shall be recorded for any point(s) 
during melting and refining, during charging, and during tapping where 
visible emissions are observed. Where it is possible to determine that 
a number of visible emission sites relate to only one incident of 
visible emissions during melting and refining, during charging, or 
during tapping, only one observation of shop opacity or visible 
emissions will be required during melting and refining, during 
charging, or during tapping. In this case, the shop opacity or visible 
emissions observations must be made for the point of highest emissions 
during melting and refining, during charging, or during tapping that 
directly relates to the cause (or location) of visible emissions 
observed during a single incident.
    (b) On and after the date on which the performance tests required 
to be conducted by Sec.  60.8 or Sec.  60.272b(d) are completed, no 
owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart shall cause 
to be discharged into the atmosphere from the dust-handling system any 
gases that exhibit 10 percent opacity or greater, as measured in 
accordance with EPA Method 9 of appendix A of this part, or, as an 
alternative, according to ASTM D7520-16 (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  60.17), with the caveats described under Shop opacity in Sec.  
60.271.
    (c) The standards in paragraphs (a) and (b) apply at all times. The 
exemptions to opacity standards under Sec.  60.11(c) do not apply to 
this subpart. As provided in Sec.  60.11(f), this provision supersedes 
the exemptions for periods

[[Page 58489]]

of startup, shutdown and malfunction in the Part 60 general provisions 
in Subpart A.
    (d) Performance tests required to be conducted to show compliance 
with the standards in paragraph (a) of this section shall be repeated 
at least every 5 years after the performance tests required by Sec.  
60.8 are conducted.


Sec.  60.273b  Emission monitoring

    (a) Except as provided under paragraphs (b) and (c) of this 
section, a continuous monitoring system for the measurement of the 
opacity of emissions discharged into the atmosphere from the control 
device(s) shall be installed, calibrated, maintained, and operated by 
the owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart.
    (b) No continuous monitoring system shall be required on any 
control device serving the dust-handling system.
    (c) A continuous monitoring system for the measurement of the 
opacity of emissions discharged into the atmosphere from the control 
device(s) is not required on any modular, multi-stack, negative-
pressure or positive-pressure fabric filter or on any single-stack 
fabric filter if observations of the opacity of the visible emissions 
from the control device are performed by a certified visible emission 
observer and the owner installs and operates a bag leak detection 
system according to paragraph (e) of this section whenever the control 
device is being used to remove particulate matter from the EAF or AOD. 
Visible emission observations shall be conducted at least once per day 
on the control device for at least three 6-minute periods when the 
furnace is operating in the melting and refining period. All visible 
emissions observations shall be conducted in accordance with EPA Method 
9, or, as an alternative, according to ASTM D7520-16 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  60.17), with the caveats described under Shop 
opacity in Sec.  60.271. If visible emissions occur from more than one 
point, the opacity shall be recorded for any points where visible 
emissions are observed. Where it is possible to determine that a number 
of visible emission points relate to only one incident of the visible 
emission, only one set of three 6-minute observations will be required. 
In that case, the EPA Method 9 observations must be made for the point 
of highest opacity that directly relates to the cause (or location) of 
visible emissions observed during a single incident. Records shall be 
maintained of any 6-minute average that is in excess of the emission 
limit specified in Sec.  60.272b(a)(2).
    (d) A furnace static pressure monitoring device is not required on 
any EAF equipped with a DEC system if observations of shop opacity are 
performed by a certified visible emission observer as follows:
    (1) At least once per day when the furnace is operating.
    (2) No less than once per week, commencing from the tap of one EAF 
heat cycle to the tap of the following heat cycle. A melt shop with 
more than one EAF shall conduct these readings while both EAFs are in 
operation. Both EAFs are not required to be on the same schedule for 
tapping.
    (3) Shop opacity shall be determined as the arithmetic average of 
24 consecutive 15-second opacity observations of emissions from the 
shop taken in accordance with EPA Method 9 during melting and refining 
and during tapping; and during charging determined according to the 
procedures in section 2.5 of Method 9 in appendix A to part 60 of this 
chapter, with the modification to determine the 3-minute block average 
opacity from the average of 12 consecutive observations recorded at 15-
second intervals; or, as an alternative, according to ASTM D7520-16 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  60.17), with the caveats 
described under Shop opacity in Sec.  60.271, or as the total duration 
of visible emissions measured according to EPA Method 22 over a six 
minute period, modified to require the recording of the aggregate 
duration of visible emissions at 15 second intervals. Shop opacity 
shall be recorded for any point(s) where visible emissions are 
observed. Where it is possible to determine that a number of visible 
emission points relate to only one incident of visible emissions, only 
one observation of shop opacity will be required. In this case, the 
shop opacity observations must be made for the point of highest opacity 
that directly relates to the cause (or location) of visible emissions 
observed during a single incident. Shop opacity shall be determined 
daily during melting and refining, during charging, and during tapping.
    (e) A bag leak detection system must be installed on all fabric 
filters and operated on all single-stack fabric filters whenever the 
control device is being used to remove particulate matter from the EAF 
or AOD vessel if the owner or operator elects not to install and 
operate a continuous opacity monitoring system as provided for under 
paragraph (c) of this section. In addition, the owner or operator shall 
meet the visible emissions observation requirements in paragraph (c) of 
this section. The bag leak detection system must meet the 
specifications and requirements of paragraphs (e)(1) through (8) of 
this section.
    (1) The bag leak detection system must be certified by the 
manufacturer to be capable of detecting particulate matter emissions at 
a concentrations of 1 milligram per actual cubic meter (0.00044 grains 
per actual cubic foot) or less.
    (2) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide output of 
relative particulate matter loadings and the owner or operator shall 
continuously record the output from the bag leak detection system using 
electronic or other means (e.g., using a strip chart recorder or a data 
logger.)
    (3) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an alarm 
system that will activate when an increase in relative particulate 
loading is detected over the alarm set point established according to 
paragraph (e)(4) of this section, and the alarm must be located such 
that it can be identified by the appropriate plant personnel.
    (4) For each bag leak detection system required by paragraph (e) of 
this section, the owner or operator shall develop and submit to the 
Administrator or delegated authority, for approval, a site-specific 
monitoring plan that addresses the items identified in paragraphs (i) 
through (v) of this paragraph (e)(4). For each bag leak detection 
system that operates based on the triboelectric effect, the monitoring 
plan shall be consistent with the recommendations contained in EPA-454/
R-98-015, ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance'' (incorporated 
by reference, see Sec.  60.17). The owner or operator shall operate and 
maintain the bag leak detection system according to the site-specific 
monitoring plan at all times. The plan shall describe the following:
    (i) Installation of the bag leak detection system;
    (ii) Initial and periodic adjustment of the bag leak detection 
system including how the alarm set-point will be established;
    (iii) Operation of the bag leak detection system including quality 
assurance procedures;
    (iv) How the bag leak detection system will be maintained including 
a routine maintenance schedule and spare parts inventory list; and
    (v) How the bag leak detection system output shall be recorded and 
stored.
    (5) The initial adjustment of the system shall, at a minimum, 
consist of establishing the baseline output by adjusting the 
sensitivity (range) and the averaging period of the device, and 
establishing the alarm set points and the alarm delay time (if 
applicable).

[[Page 58490]]

    (6) Following initial adjustment, the owner or operator shall not 
adjust the averaging period, alarm set point, or alarm delay time 
without approval from the Administrator or delegated authority except 
as provided for in paragraphs (e)(6)(i) and (ii) of this section.
    (i) Once per quarter, the owner or operator may adjust the 
sensitivity of the bag leak detection system to account for seasonal 
effects including temperature and humidity according to the procedures 
identified in the site-specific monitoring plan required under 
paragraph (e)(4) of this section.
    (ii) If opacities greater than 0 percent are observed over four 
consecutive 15-second observations during the daily opacity 
observations required under paragraph (c) of this section and the alarm 
on the bag leak detection system alarm is not activated, the owner or 
operator shall lower the alarm set point on the bag leak detection 
system to a point where the alarm would have been activated during the 
period when the opacity observations were made.
    (7) For negative pressure, induced air baghouses, and positive 
pressure baghouses that are discharged to the atmosphere through a 
stack, the bag leak detection sensor must be installed downstream of 
the baghouse or upstream of any wet scrubber.
    (8) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's 
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
    (f) For each bag leak detection system installed according to 
paragraph (e) of this section, the owner or operator shall initiate 
procedures to determine the cause of all alarms within 1 hour of an 
alarm. The cause of the alarm must be alleviated within 24 hours of the 
time the alarm occurred by taking whatever response action(s) are 
necessary. Response actions may include, but are not limited to, the 
following:
    (1) Inspecting the baghouse for air leaks, torn or broken bags or 
filter media, or any other condition that may have caused an increase 
in particulate emissions;
    (2) Sealing off defective bags or filter media;
    (3) Replacing defective bags or filter media or otherwise repairing 
the control device;
    (4) Sealing off a defective baghouse compartment;
    (5) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe or otherwise 
repairing the bag leak detection system;
    (6) Establishing to the extent acceptable by the delegated 
authority that the alarm was a false alarm and not caused by a bag leak 
or other malfunction that could reasonably result in excess particulate 
emissions; and
    (7) Shutting down the process producing the particulate emissions.
    (g) In approving the site-specific monitoring plan required in 
paragraph (e)(4) of this section, the Administrator or delegated 
authority may allow owners or operators more than 24 hours to alleviate 
specific conditions that cause an alarm if the owner or operator 
identifies the condition that could lead to an alarm in the monitoring 
plan, adequately explains why it is not feasible to alleviate the 
condition within 24 hours of the time the alarm occurred, and 
demonstrates that the requested additional time will ensure alleviation 
of the condition as expeditiously as practicable.


Sec.  60.274b  Monitoring of operations.

    (a) The owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart 
shall maintain records of the following information:
    (1) All data obtained under paragraph (b) of this section; and
    (2) All monthly operational status inspections performed under 
paragraph (c) of this section.
    (b) Except as provided under paragraph (e) of this section, the 
owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart shall 
conduct the following monitoring of the capture system to demonstrate 
continuous compliance:
    (1) If a DEC system is in use, according to paragraph (f) of this 
section, monitor and record on a continuous basis the furnace static 
pressure and any one of (2) through (4) in this paragraph:
    (2) Monitor and record the fan motor amperes at each damper 
position, and damper position consistent with paragraph (h)(5) of this 
section;
    (3) Install, calibrate, and maintain a monitoring device that 
continuously records the volumetric air flow rate or static pressure at 
each separately ducted hood; or
    (4) Install, calibrate, and maintain a monitoring device that 
continuously records the volumetric flow rate at the control device 
inlet and monitor and record the damper position consistent with 
paragraph (h)(5) of this section.
    (5) The static pressure monitoring device(s) shall be installed in 
an EAF or DEC duct prior to combining with other ducts and prior to the 
introduction of ambient air, at a location that has no flow disturbance 
due to the junctions.
    (6) The volumetric flow monitoring device(s) may be installed in 
any appropriate location in the capture system such that reproducible 
flow rate monitoring will result. The flow rate monitoring device(s) 
shall have an accuracy of 10 percent over its normal 
operating range and shall be calibrated according to the manufacturer's 
instructions. The Administrator may require the owner or operator to 
demonstrate the accuracy of the monitoring device(s) relative to EPA 
Methods 1 and 2 of appendix A of this part.
    (7) Parameters monitored pursuant to this paragraph, excluding 
damper position, shall be recorded on a rolling averaging period not to 
exceed 15 minutes.
    (c) When the owner or operator of an affected facility is required 
to demonstrate compliance with the standards under Sec.  60.272b(a)(3) 
and at any other time that the Administrator may require (under section 
114 of the CAA, as amended), the owner or operator shall determine 
during all periods in which a hood is operated for the purpose of 
capturing emissions from the affected facility subject to paragraph (b) 
of this section, either:
    (1) Monitor and record the fan motor amperes at each damper 
position, and damper position consistent with paragraph (h)(5) of this 
section;
    (2) install, calibrate, and maintain a monitoring device that 
continuously records the volumetric flow rate through each separately 
ducted hood; or
    (3) install, calibrate, and maintain a monitoring device that 
continuously records the volumetric flow rate at the control device 
inlet and monitor and record the damper position consistent with 
paragraph (h)(5) of this section.
    (4) Parameters monitored pursuant to this paragraph, excluding 
damper position, shall be recorded on a rolling averaging period not to 
exceed 15 minutes.
    (5) The owner or operator may petition the Administrator or 
delegated authority for reestablishment of these parameters whenever 
the owner or operator can demonstrate to the Administrator's or 
delegated authority's satisfaction that the affected facility operating 
conditions upon which the parameters were previously established are no 
longer applicable. The values of the parameters as determined during 
the most recent demonstration of compliance shall be the appropriate 
operational range or control set point throughout each applicable 
period. Operation at values beyond the accepted operational range or 
control set point may be subject to the requirements of Sec.  
60.276b(c).
    (d) Except as provided under paragraph (e) of this section, the 
owner or operator shall perform monthly operational status inspections 
of the

[[Page 58491]]

equipment that is important to the performance of the capture system 
(i.e., pressure sensors, dampers, and damper switches). This inspection 
shall include observations of the physical appearance of the equipment 
(e.g., presence of holes in ductwork or hoods, flow constrictions 
caused by dents or excess accumulations of dust in ductwork, and fan 
erosion) and building inspections to ensure that the building does not 
have any holes or other openings for particulate matter laden air to 
escape. Any deficiencies that are determined by the operator to 
materially impact the efficacy of the capture system shall be noted and 
proper maintenance performed.
    (e) The owner or operator may petition the Administrator or 
delegated authority to approve any alternative to either the monitoring 
requirements specified in paragraph (b) of this section or the monthly 
operational status inspections specified in paragraph (d) of this 
section if the alternative will provide a continuous record of 
operation of each emission capture system.
    (f) Except as provided under Sec.  60.273b(d), if emissions during 
any phase of the heat cycle are controlled by the use of a DEC system, 
the owner or operator shall install, calibrate, and maintain a 
monitoring device that allows the pressure in the free space inside the 
EAF to be monitored. The pressure shall be recorded as no greater than 
15-minute integrated block averages. The monitoring device may be 
installed in any appropriate location in the EAF or DEC duct prior to 
the introduction of ambient air such that reproducible results will be 
obtained. The pressure monitoring device shall have an accuracy of 
5 mm of water gauge over its normal operating range and 
shall be calibrated according to the manufacturer's instructions.
    (g) When the owner or operator of an EAF controlled by a DEC is 
required to demonstrate compliance with the standard under Sec.  
60.272b(a)(3), and at any other time the Administrator may require 
(under section 114 of the Clean Air Act, as amended), the pressure in 
the free space inside the furnace shall be determined during the 
melting and refining period(s) using the monitoring device required 
under paragraph (f) of this section. The owner or operator may petition 
the Administrator or delegated authority for reestablishment of the 
pressure whenever the owner or operator can demonstrate to the 
Administrator's or delegated authority's satisfaction that the EAF 
operating conditions upon which the pressures were previously 
established are no longer applicable. The pressure range or control 
setting during the most recent demonstration of compliance shall be 
maintained at all times when the EAF is operating in a melting and 
refining period. Continuous operation at pressures higher than the 
operational range or control setting may be considered by the 
Administrator or delegated authority to be unacceptable operation and 
maintenance of the affected facility.
    (h) During any performance test required under Sec.  60.8 or Sec.  
60.272b(d), and for any report thereof required by Sec.  60.276b(f) of 
this subpart, or to determine compliance with Sec.  60.272b(a)(3) of 
this subpart, the owner or operator shall monitor the following 
information for all heats covered by the test:
    (1) Charge weights and materials, and tap weights and materials;
    (2) Heat times, including start and stop times, and a log of 
process operation, including periods of no operation during testing 
and, if a furnace static pressure monitoring device is operated 
pursuant to paragraph (f) of this section, the pressure inside an EAF 
when DEC systems are used;
    (3) Control device operation log;
    (4) Continuous opacity monitor (COM) or EPA Method 9 data, or, as 
an alternative to EPA Method 9, according to ASTM D7520-16 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  60.17), with the caveats 
described under Shop opacity in Sec.  60.271;
    (5) All damper positions, no less frequently than performed in the 
latest melt shop opacity compliance test for a full heat, if selected 
as a method to demonstrate compliance under paragraph (b) of this 
section;
    (6) Fan motor amperes at each damper position, if selected as a 
method to demonstrate compliance under paragraph (b) of this section;
    (7) Volumetric air flow rate through each separately ducted hood, 
if selected as a method to demonstrate compliance under paragraph (b) 
of this section; and
    (8) Static pressure at each separately ducted hood, if selected as 
a method to demonstrate compliance under paragraph (b) of this section.
    (9) Parameters monitored pursuant to paragraphs (h)(6)-(8) of this 
section shall be recorded on a rolling averaging period not to exceed 
15 minutes.


Sec.  60.275b  Test methods and procedures.

    (a) During performance tests required in Sec. Sec.  60.8 and 
60.272b(d), the owner or operator shall not add gaseous diluents to the 
effluent gas stream after the fabric filter in any pressurized fabric 
filter collector, unless the amount of dilution is separately 
determined and considered in the determination of emissions.
    (b) When emissions from any EAF(s) or AOD vessel(s) are combined 
with emissions from facilities not subject to the provisions of this 
subpart but controlled by a common capture system and control device, 
the owner or operator shall use any one of the following procedures 
during a performance test (see also Sec.  60.276b(e)):
    (1) Determine compliance using the combined emissions.
    (2) Use a method that is acceptable to the Administrator or 
delegated authority and that compensates for the emissions from the 
facilities not subject to the provisions of this subpart.
    (3) Any combination of the criteria of paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of 
this section.
    (c) When emission from any EAF(s) or AOD vessel(s) are combined 
with emissions from facilities not subject to the provisions of this 
subpart, compliance with Sec.  60.272b(a)(3) will be based on emissions 
from only the affected facility(ies). The owner or operator may use 
operational knowledge to determine the facilities that are the sources, 
in whole or in part, of any emissions observed in demonstrations of 
compliance with Sec.  60.272b(a)(3).
    (d) In conducting the performance tests required in Sec. Sec.  60.8 
and 60.272b(d), the owner or operator shall use as reference methods 
and procedures the test methods in appendix A of this part or other 
methods and procedures as specified in this section, except as provided 
in Sec.  60.8(b).
    (e) The owner or operator shall determine compliance with the 
particulate matter standards in Sec.  60.272b as follows:
    (1) EPA Method 5 (and referenced EPA Methods 1, 2, 3, 3A, 3B, and 
4) shall be used for negative-pressure fabric filters and other types 
of control devices and EPA Method 5D (and referenced EPA Method 5) 
shall be used for positive-pressure fabric filters to determine the 
particulate matter concentration and volumetric flow rate of the 
effluent gas. The sampling time and sample volume for each run shall be 
at least 4 hours and 4.50 dry standard cubic meter (160 dry standard 
cubic feet) and, when a single EAF or AOD vessel is sampled, the 
sampling time shall include an integral number of heats. The manual 
portions only (not the instrumental portion) of the voluntary consensus 
standard ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
60.17) are acceptable alternatives to EPA Methods 3, 3A, and 3B.

[[Page 58492]]

    (2) When more than one control device serves the EAF(s) being 
tested, the concentration of particulate matter shall be determined 
using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25AU23.003

where:

Esf = average emission rate of particulate matter, mg/kg 
(lb/ton).
Rsi = emission rate of particulate matter from control 
device ``i'', mg/hr (lb/hr).
n = total number of control devices at the facility.
Pi = steel production rate during testing of control 
device ``i'', kg/hr (ton/hr).

    (3) EPA Method 9 or, as an alternative, ASTM D7520-16 (incorporated 
by reference, see Sec.  60.17), with the caveats described under Shop 
opacity in Sec.  60.271, and the procedures of Sec.  60.11 shall be 
used to determine opacity.
    (4) To demonstrate compliance with Sec.  60.272b(a) (1), (2), and 
(3), the EPA Method 9 test runs shall be conducted concurrently with 
the particulate matter test runs, unless inclement weather interferes.
    (f) To comply with Sec.  60.274b(c), (f), (g), and (h), the owner 
or operator shall obtain the information required in these paragraphs 
during the particulate matter runs.
    (g) Any control device subject to the provisions of the subpart 
shall be designed and constructed to allow measurement of emissions 
using applicable test methods and procedures.
    (h) Where emissions from any EAF(s) or AOD vessel(s) are combined 
with emissions from facilities not subject to the provisions of this 
subpart, determinations of compliance with Sec.  60.272b(a)(1), (2), 
and (3) will only be based upon emissions originating from the affected 
facility(ies), except if the combined emissions are controlled by a 
common capture system and control device, in which case the owner or 
operator may use any of the following procedures during an opacity 
performance test and during shop opacity observations:
    (1) Base compliance on control of the combined emissions; or
    (2) Utilize a method acceptable to the Administrator that 
compensates for the emissions from the facilities not subject to the 
provisions of this subpart.
    (3) Any combination of the criteria of paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of 
this section.
    (i) Unless the presence of inclement weather makes concurrent 
testing infeasible, the owner or operator shall conduct concurrently 
the performance tests required under Sec.  60.8 or Sec.  60.272b(d) to 
demonstrate compliance with Sec.  60.272b(a)(1), (2), and (3) of this 
subpart.


Sec.  60.276b  Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

    (a) Records of the measurements required in Sec.  60.274b must be 
retained for at least 5 years following the date of the measurement.
    (b) Each owner or operator shall submit a written report of 
exceedances of the control device opacity to the Administrator or 
delegated authority semi-annually. For the purposes of these reports, 
exceedances are defined as all 6-minute periods during which the 
average opacity of emissions from the control device is 3 percent or 
greater or, where the daily shop opacity visible emissions were 
measured according to EPA Method 22 and exceeded 0 seconds.
    (c) Operation at a furnace static pressure that exceeds the 
operational range or control setting under Sec.  60.274b(g), for owners 
and operators that elect to install a furnace static pressure 
monitoring device under 60.274b(f) or operation ranges or control 
settings outside of those established under Sec.  60.274b(c) may be 
considered by the Administrator or delegated authority to be 
unacceptable operation and maintenance of the affected facility. 
Operation at such values shall be reported to the Administrator or 
delegated authority semiannually.
    (d) The requirements of this section remain in force until and 
unless EPA, in delegating enforcement authority to a State under 
section 111(c) of the Act, approves reporting requirements or an 
alternative means of compliance surveillance adopted by such State. In 
that event, affected sources within the State will be relieved of the 
obligation to comply with this section, provided that they comply with 
the requirements established by the State.
    (e) When the owner or operator of an EAF or AOD is required to 
demonstrate compliance with the standard under Sec.  60.275b(b)(2) or a 
combination of (b)(1) and (b)(2) the owner or operator provide notice 
to the Administrator or delegated authority of the procedure(s) that 
will be used to determine compliance. Notification of the procedure(s) 
to be used must be postmarked at least 30 days prior to the performance 
test.
    (f) For the purpose of this subpart, the owner or operator shall 
conduct the demonstration of compliance with Sec.  60.272b(a) of this 
subpart and furnish the Administrator or delegated authority with a 
report of the results of the test according to paragraph (i) of this 
section. This report shall include the following information:
    (1) Facility name and address;
    (2) Plant representative;
    (3) Make and model of the control device, and continuous opacity 
monitoring equipment, if applicable;
    (4) Flow diagram of process and emission capture system including 
other equipment or process(es) ducted to the same control device;
    (5) Rated (design) capacity of process equipment;
    (6) Those data required under Sec.  60.274b(h) of this subpart;
    (i) List of charge and tap weights and materials;
    (ii) Heat times and process log;
    (iii) Control device operation log; and
    (iv) Continuous opacity monitor or EPA Method 9 data, or, as an 
alternative to EPA Method 9, according to ASTM D7520-16 (incorporated 
by reference, see Sec.  60.17), with the caveats described under Shop 
opacity in Sec.  60.271.
    (7) Test dates and test times;
    (8) Test company;
    (9) Test company representative;
    (10) Test observers from any outside agency;
    (11) Description of test methodology used, including any deviation 
from standard reference methods;
    (12) Schematic of sampling location;
    (13) Number of sampling points;
    (14) Description of sampling equipment;
    (15) Listing of sampling equipment calibrations and procedures;
    (16) Field and laboratory data sheets;
    (17) Description of sample recovery procedures;
    (18) Sampling equipment leak check results;
    (19) Description of quality assurance procedures;
    (20) Description of analytical procedures;
    (21) Notation of sample blank corrections; and
    (22) Sample emission calculations.
    (g) The owner or operator shall maintain records of all shop 
opacity observations made in accordance with Sec.  60.273b(d). All shop 
opacity observations in excess of the emission limit specified in Sec.  
60.272b(a)(3) of this subpart shall indicate a period of excess 
emissions and shall be reported to the Administrator or delegated 
authority semi-annually, according to Sec.  60.7(c) and submitted 
according to paragraph (j) of this section. In addition to the 
information required at Sec.  60.7(c), the report shall include the 
following information:
    (1) The company name and address of the affected facility.

[[Page 58493]]

    (2) An identification of each affected facility being included in 
the report.
    (3) Beginning and ending dates of the reporting period.
    (4) A certification by a certifying official of truth, accuracy, 
and completeness. This certification shall state that, based on 
information and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, the statements 
and information in the document are true, accurate, and complete.
    (h) The owner or operator shall maintain the following records for 
each bag leak detection system required under Sec.  60.273b(e):
    (1) Records of the bag leak detection system output;
    (2) Records of bag leak detection system adjustments, including the 
date and time of the adjustment, the initial bag leak detection system 
settings, and the final bag leak detection system settings; and
    (3) An identification of the date and time of all bag leak 
detection system alarms, the time that procedures to determine the 
cause of the alarm were initiated, if procedures were initiated within 
1 hour of the alarm, the cause of the alarm, an explanation of the 
actions taken, the date and time the cause of the alarm was alleviated, 
and if the alarm was alleviated within 24 hours of the alarm.
    (i) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance 
test or demonstration of compliance required by this subpart, you must 
submit the results of the performance test following the procedures 
specified in paragraphs (i)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's 
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website 
(https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test. Submit the results of the 
performance test to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data 
Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which can be accessed through the EPA's 
Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be 
submitted in a file format generated using the EPA's ERT. 
Alternatively, you may submit an electronic file consistent with the 
extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on the EPA's ERT 
website.
    (2) Data collected using test methods that are not supported by the 
EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the test. 
The results of the performance test must be included as an attachment 
in the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML 
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the ERT generated 
package or alternative file to the EPA via CEDRI.
    (3) Confidential business information (CBI). Do not use CEDRI to 
submit information you claim as CBI. Anything submitted using CEDRI 
cannot later be claimed CBI. Although we do not expect persons to 
assert a claim of CBI, if you wish to assert a CBI claim for some of 
the information submitted under paragraph (i)(1) or (2) of this 
section, you must submit a complete file, including information claimed 
to be CBI, to the EPA. The file must be generated using the EPA's ERT 
or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed 
on the EPA's ERT website. The preferred method to submit 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 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, submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other 
commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as 
CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, 
Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old 
Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be 
submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described in paragraphs 
(i)(1) and (2) of this section. All CBI claims must be asserted at the 
time of submission. Furthermore, under CAA section 114(c), emissions 
data is not entitled to confidential treatment, and the EPA is required 
to make emissions data available to the public. Thus, emissions data 
will not be protected as CBI and will be made publicly available.
    (j) You must submit a report of excess emissions and monitoring 
systems performance report according to Sec.  60.7(c) to the 
Administrator semiannually. Submit all reports to the EPA via CEDRI, 
which can be accessed through the EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The 
EPA will make all the information submitted through CEDRI available to 
the public without further notice to you. Do not use CEDRI to submit 
information you claim as CBI. Anything submitted using CEDRI cannot 
later be claimed CBI. You must use the appropriate electronic report 
template on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/cedri) for this subpart. The date report 
templates become available will be listed on the CEDRI website. The 
report must be submitted by the deadline specified in this subpart, 
regardless of the method in which the report is submitted. Although we 
do not expect persons to assert a claim of CBI, if you wish to assert a 
CBI claim, follow paragraph (i)(3) of this section except send to the 
attention of the Electric Arc Furnace Sector Lead. The same file with 
the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as 
described earlier in this paragraph (j). All CBI claims must be 
asserted at the time of submission. Furthermore, under CAA section 
114(c), emissions data is not entitled to confidential treatment, and 
the EPA is required to make emissions data available to the public. 
Thus, emissions data will not be protected as CBI and will be made 
publicly available.
    (k) If you are required to electronically submit a report through 
CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage for 
failure to timely comply with that reporting requirement. To assert a 
claim of EPA system outage, you must meet the requirements outlined in 
paragraphs (k)(1) through (7) of this section.
    (1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI 
and submitting a required report within the time prescribed due to an 
outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
    (2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time 
beginning five business days prior to the date that the submission is 
due.
    (3) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
    (4) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as 
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due 
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a 
delay in reporting.
    (5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description 
identifying:
    (i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the 
system was unavailable;
    (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the 
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
    (iii) A description of measures taken or to be taken to minimize 
the delay in reporting; and
    (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have 
already met the

[[Page 58494]]

reporting requirement at the time of the notification, the date you 
reported.
    (6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow 
an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion 
of the Administrator.
    (7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted 
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
    (l) If you are required to electronically submit a report through 
CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of force majeure for 
failure to timely comply with that reporting requirement. To assert a 
claim of force majeure, you must meet the requirements outlined in 
paragraphs (l)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to 
occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such 
an event within the period of time beginning five business days prior 
to the date the submission is due. For the purposes of this section, a 
force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been 
caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, 
its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that 
prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report 
electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such 
events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), 
acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond 
the control of the affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage).
    (2) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as 
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due 
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a 
delay in reporting.
    (3) You must provide to the Administrator:
    (i) A written description of the force majeure event;
    (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the 
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
    (iii) A description of measures taken or to be taken to minimize 
the delay in reporting; and
    (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have 
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, 
the date you reported.
    (4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an 
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of 
the Administrator.
    (5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as 
possible after the force majeure event occurs.
    (m) Any records required to be maintained by this subpart that are 
submitted electronically via the EPA's CEDRI may be maintained in 
electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not 
affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and 
reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as 
part of an on-site compliance evaluation.

[FR Doc. 2023-16747 Filed 8-24-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P