29710 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 94 / Monday, May 16, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

requirements for units subject to the 

NOX SIP call, state effective December 

13, 2021. EPA has made, and will 

continue to make, these materials 

generally available through 

www.regulations.gov and at the EPA 

Region 4 Office (please contact the 

person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble for more information). 

V. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve 

Alabama’s October 18, 2021, 

submission, which revises Alabama 

Rule 335–3–8–.72, ‘‘NOX Budget 

Program Monitoring and Reporting’’ to 

correct the stack testing requirement by 

moving it from 335–3–8–.72(1)(c) to 

335–3–8–.72(1)(d) and correct language 

in 335–3–8–.72(d) to refer to NOX mass 

emissions. In addition, EPA is 

proposing to convert the July 7, 2021, 

conditional approval of Alabama Rule 

335–3–8–.72 to a full approval. EPA 

requests comment on these proposals. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. This proposed action merely 

proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), nor will it impose substantial 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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

Dated: May 10, 2022. 

Daniel Blackman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2022–10424 Filed 5–13–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 60 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0049; FRL–8150–02– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AU96 

Standards of Performance for Steel 

Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces 

Constructed After 10/21/74 & On or 

Before 8/17/83; Standards of 

Performance for Steel Plants: Electric 

Arc Furnaces & Argon-Oxygen 

Decarburization Constructed After 

8/17/83 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; amendments. 

SUMMARY: In this action, the EPA is 

proposing new and revised standards of 

performance for electric arc furnaces 

(EAF) and argon-oxygen decarburization 

(AOD) vessels in the steel industry. The 

EPA is proposing that EAF facilities that 

begin construction, reconstruction or 

modification after May 16, 2022 would 

need to comply with a particulate 

matter (PM) standard in the format of 

facility-wide PM emitted per amount of 

steel produced and a melt shop opacity 

limit of zero. The proposal would limit 

emissions of PM and opacity from new, 

modified, or reconstructed EAF and 

AOD vessels. In addition, we are 

proposing that all emission limits apply 

at all times; periodic compliance testing 

at least once every 5 years; and 

electronic reporting. In this action, the 

EPA also is proposing amendments for 

certain provisions in the current new 

source performance standards (NSPS) 

that apply to EAF constructed after 

October 21, 1974, and on or before 

August 17, 1983, and EAF and AOD 

vessels constructed after August 17, 

1983, and before May 16, 2022 to clarify 

and refine the current provisions. 

DATES: 

Comments. Comments must be 

received on or before July 15, 2022. 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(PRA), comments on the information 

collection provisions are best assured of 

consideration if the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

receives a copy of your comments on or 

before June 15, 2022. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts us 

requesting a public hearing on or before 

May 23, 2022, we will hold a virtual 

hearing. See SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION for information on 

requesting and registering for a public 

hearing. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2002–0049, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

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

preferred method). Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

Include Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2002–0049 in the subject line of the 

message. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744. Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2002– 

0049. 

• Mail: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2002– 

0049, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20460. 

• Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket 

Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 

1301 Constitution Avenue NW, 

Washington, DC 20004. The Docket 


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 94 / Monday, May 16, 2022 / Proposed Rules 29711 

Center’s hours of operation are 8:30 

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

federal holidays). 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the Docket ID No. for this 

rulemaking. Comments received may be 

posted without change to https://

www.regulations.gov/, including any 

personal information provided. For 

detailed instructions on sending 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. Out of an abundance of 

caution for members of the public and 

our staff, the EPA Docket Center and 

Reading Room are open to the public by 

appointment only to reduce the risk of 

transmitting COVID–19. Our Docket 

Center staff also continues to provide 

remote customer service via email, 

phone, and webform. Hand deliveries 

and couriers may be received by 

scheduled appointment only. For 

further information on the EPA Docket 

Center services and the current status, 

please visit us online at https://

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions about this proposed action, 

contact Donna Lee Jones, Sector Policies 

and Programs Division (D243–02), 

Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone 

number: (919) 541–5251; fax number: 

(919) 541–3207; and email address: 

Jones.DonnaLee@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Participation in virtual public 

hearing. Please note that the EPA is 

deviating from its typical approach for 

public hearings because the President 

has declared a national emergency. Due 

to the current Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention (CDC) 

recommendations, as well as state and 

local orders for social distancing to limit 

the spread of COVID–19, the EPA 

cannot hold in-person public meetings 

at this time. 

To request a virtual public hearing, 

contact the public hearing team at (888) 

372–8699 or by email at 

SPPDpublichearing@epa.gov. If 

requested, the virtual hearing will be 

held on June 6, 2022. The hearing will 

convene at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time (ET) 

and will conclude at 4:00 p.m. ET. The 

EPA may close a session 15 minutes 

after the last pre-registered speaker has 

testified if there are no additional 

speakers. The EPA will announce 

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

stationary-sources-air-pollution/electricarc-furnaces-eafs-and-argon-oxygendecarburization-vessels. 

If a public hearing is requested, the 

EPA will begin pre-registering speakers 

for the hearing no later than 1 business 

day after a request has been received. To 

register to speak at the virtual hearing, 

please use the online registration form 

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

stationary-sources-air-pollution/electricarc-furnaces-eafs-and-argon-oxygendecarburization-vessels or contact the 

public hearing team at (888) 372–8699 

or by email at SPPDpublichearing@

epa.gov. The last day to pre-register to 

speak at the hearing will be May 31, 

2022. Prior to the hearing, the EPA will 

post a general agenda that will list preregistered speakers in approximate 

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

stationary-sources-air-pollution/electricarc-furnaces-eafs-and-argon-oxygendecarburization-vessels. 

The EPA will make every effort to 

follow the schedule as closely as 

possible on the day of the hearing; 

however, please plan for the hearings to 

run either ahead of schedule or behind 

schedule. 

Each commenter will have 5 minutes 

to provide oral testimony. The EPA 

encourages commenters to provide the 

EPA with a copy of their oral testimony 

electronically (via email) by emailing it 

to Jones.DonnaLee@epa.gov. The EPA 

also recommends submitting the text of 

your oral testimony as written 

comments to the rulemaking docket. 

The EPA may ask clarifying questions 

during the oral presentations but will 

not respond to the presentations at that 

time. Written statements and supporting 

information submitted during the 

comment period will be considered 

with the same weight as oral testimony 

and supporting information presented at 

the public hearing. 

Please note that any updates made to 

any aspect of the hearing will be posted 

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

stationary-sources-air-pollution/electricarc-furnaces-eafs-and-argon-oxygendecarburization-vessels. While the EPA 

expects the hearing to go forward as set 

forth above, please monitor our website 

or contact the public hearing team at 

(888) 372–8699 or by email at 

SPPDpublichearing@epa.gov to 

determine if there are any updates. The 

EPA does not intend to publish a 

document in the Federal Register 

announcing updates. 

If you require the services of a 

translator or a special accommodation 

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

hearing team and describe your needs 

by May 23, 2022. The EPA may not be 

able to arrange accommodations without 

advanced notice. 

Docket. The EPA has established a 

docket for this rulemaking under Docket 

ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0049. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the Regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in 

Regulations.gov or in hard copy at the 

EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, WJC 

West Building, 1301 Constitution 

Avenue NW, Washington, DC. The 

Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 

a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

telephone number for the Public 

Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and 

the telephone number for the EPA 

Docket Center is (202) 566–1742. 

Instructions. Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2002– 

0049. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at https:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit electronically to https:// 

www.regulations.gov any information 

that you consider to be CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. This type of 

information should be submitted as 

discussed below. 

The EPA may publish any comment 

received to its public docket. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. The EPA will 

generally not consider comments or 

comment contents located outside of the 

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

cloud, or other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

The https://www.regulations.gov/ 

website allows you to submit your 

comment anonymously, which means 

the EPA will not know your identity or 

contact information unless you provide 

it in the body of your comment. If you 


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
29712 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 94 / Monday, May 16, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

send an email comment directly to the 

EPA without going through https://

www.regulations.gov/, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, the EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

digital storage media you submit. If the 

EPA cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, the EPA may not 

be able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should not include 

special characters or any form of 

encryption and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about the EPA’s public docket, visit the 

EPA Docket Center homepage at https:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

Out of an abundance of caution for 

members of the public and our staff, the 

EPA Docket Center and Reading Room 

are open to the public by appointment 

only to reduce the risk of transmitting 

COVID–19. Our Docket Center staff also 

continues to provide remote customer 

service via email, phone, and webform. 

Hand deliveries or couriers will be 

received by scheduled appointment 

only. For further information and 

updates on the EPA Docket Center 

services, please visit us online at 

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

Submitting CBI. Do not submit 

information containing CBI to the EPA 

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

Clearly mark the part or all the 

information that you claim to be CBI. 

For CBI information on any digital 

storage media that you mail to the EPA, 

note the docket ID, mark the outside of 

the digital storage media as CBI, and 

identify electronically within the digital 

storage media the specific information 

that is claimed as CBI. In addition to 

one complete version of the comments 

that includes information claimed as 

CBI, you must submit a copy of the 

comments that does not contain the 

information claimed as CBI directly to 

the public docket through the 

procedures outlined in Instructions 

above. If you submit any digital storage 

media that does not contain CBI, mark 

the outside of the digital storage media 

clearly that it does not contain CBI and 

note the docket ID. Information not 

marked as CBI will be included in the 

public docket and the EPA’s electronic 

public docket without prior notice. 

Information marked as CBI will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) part 2. 

Our preferred method to receive CBI 

is for it to be transmitted electronically 

using email attachments, File Transfer 

Protocol (FTP), or other online file 

sharing services (e.g., Dropbox, 

OneDrive, Google Drive). Electronic 

submissions must be transmitted 

directly to the OAQPS CBI Office at the 

email address oaqpscbi@epa.gov, and as 

described above, should include clear 

CBI markings and note the docket ID. If 

assistance is needed with submitting 

large electronic files that exceed the file 

size limit for email attachments, and if 

you do not have your own file sharing 

service, please email oaqpscbi@epa.gov 

to request a file transfer link. If sending 

CBI information through the postal 

service, please send it to the following 

address: OAQPS Document Control 

Officer (C404–02), OAQPS, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2002–0049. The mailed CBI 

material should be double wrapped and 

clearly marked. Any CBI markings 

should not show through the outer 

envelope. 

Preamble acronyms and 

abbreviations. We use multiple 

acronyms and terms in this preamble. 

While this list may not be exhaustive, to 

ease the reading of this preamble and for 

reference purposes, the EPA defines the 

following terms and acronyms here: 

acfm actual cubic feet per minute 

acmm actual cubic meters per minute 

AOD argon-oxygen decarburization 

BLDS bag leak detection systems 

BID background information document 

BPT benefits per ton 

BSER best system of emissions reduction 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CDX Central Data Exchange 

CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data 

Reporting Interface 

CFR Code of Federal Regulation 

DEC direct shell evacuation control 

dscf dry standard cubic feet 

dscm dry standard cubic meters 

EAF electric arc furnace 

EAV equivalent annual value 

EIA economic impact assessment 

EJ environmental justice 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ERT Electronic Reporting Tool 

°F degrees Fahrenheit 

g grams 

gr grains 

II&S integrated iron and steel industry 

ISA Integrated Science Assessment for 

Particulate Matter 

kg kilograms 

lb pounds 

mg milligram 

Mg megagram 

Mg/yr megagram per year 

NAICS North American Industry 

Classification System 

NSPS New Source Performance Standards 

O&M operating and maintenance 

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

p. page 

PM particulate matter 

PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 

micrometers 

PRA Paperwork Reduction Act 

PV present value 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RIA regulatory impacts analysis 

RIN Regulatory Information Number 

SMA Steel Manufacturers Association 

tpy tons per year 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

U.S. United States 

U.S.C. United States Code 

VCS Voluntary Consensus Standards 

Organization of this document. The 

information in this preamble is 

organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. Where can I get a copy of this document 

and other related information? 

II. Background 

A. What is the background for action? 

B. What is the statutory authority for this 

action? 

C. How does the EPA perform the NSPS 

review? 

III. What actions are we proposing? 

A. Standards of Performance for Steel 

Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces and ArgonOxygen Decarburization Vessels 

Constructed After May 16, 2022 

B. Amendments to Standards of 

Performance for Steel Plants: Electric Arc 

Furnaces Constructed After October 21, 

1974, and On or Before August 17, 1983, 

and Standards of Performance for Steel 

Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces and ArgonOxygen Decarburization Vessels 

Constructed After August 17, 1983, and 

On or Before May 16, 2022 

C. Electronic Reporting 

IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and 

Economic Impacts 

A. What are the air quality and other 

environmental impacts? 

B. What are the cost impacts? 

C. What are the economic impacts? 

D. What are the benefits? 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(UMRA) 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act and 1 CFR Part 51 


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 94 / Monday, May 16, 2022 / Proposed Rules 29713 

1Slag is the molten metal oxides and other 

impurities that float to the surface of the molten 

steel product. 

2 In the 1984 technology review of the 1975 EAF 

NSPS standards in subpart AA, test data were 

obtained from four facilities. The EPA at that time 

considered lowering the PM standard to 7.2 mg/ 

dscm (0.0031 gr/dscf) from 12 mg/dscm (0.0052 gr/ 

dscf), but the lower level was found by the EPA to 

be not cost-effective ($8,000/ton in 1984). 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

The source category that is the subject 

of this proposal is comprised of the steel 

manufacturing facilities that operate 

EAF and AOD vessels regulated under 

CAA section 111 New Source 

Performance Standards. The North 

American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) code for the source 

category is 331110. This NAICS code 

provides a guide for readers regarding 

the entities that this proposed action is 

likely to affect. The proposed standards, 

once promulgated, will be directly 

applicable to the affected sources. 

Federal, state, local and tribal 

government entities would not be 

affected by this action. 

B. Where can I get a copy of this 

document and other related 

information? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this action 

is available on the internet. Following 

signature by the EPA Administrator, the 

EPA will post a copy of this proposed 

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

stationary-sources-air-pollution/electricarc-furnaces-eafs-and-argon-oxygendecarburization-vessels. Following 

publication in the Federal Register, the 

EPA will post the Federal Register 

version of the proposal and key 

technical documents at this same 

website. 

Redline versions of the regulatory 

language that incorporate the changes 

proposed in this action to 40 CFR part 

60, subparts AA and AAa are included 

in a memorandum titled EAF NSPS 

Redline Versions of Proposed Rule 

Changes for 40 CFR part 60, subparts 

AA and AAa, which is available in the 

docket for this action (Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0049). In 

addition, another memorandum will be 

available in the same docket that will 

include the proposed rule 40 CFR part 

60, subparts AAb, titled EAF NSPS 

Proposed Rule 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

AAb. Following signature by the EPA 

Administrator, the EPA also will post 

copies of these memoranda to https://

www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-airpollution/electric-arc-furnaces-eafs-andargon-oxygen-decarburization-vessels. 

II. Background 

A. What is the background for action? 

An electric arc furnace (EAF) is a 

metallurgical furnace used to produce 

carbon and alloy steels. The input 

material to an EAF is typically almost 

100 percent scrap steel. Cylindrical, 

refractory-lined EAF are equipped with 

carbon electrodes to be raised or 

lowered through the furnace roof. With 

electrodes retracted, the furnace roof 

can be rotated to permit the charge of 

scrap steel by overhead crane. Alloying 

agents and fluxing materials usually are 

added through doors on the side of the 

furnace. Electric current is passed 

between the electrodes and through the 

scrap, producing an arc and generating 

enough heat to melt the scrap steel 

charge. After the melting and refining 

periods, impurities (in the form of slag 1) 

and the refined steel are poured from 

the furnace. If argon-oxygen 

decarburization (AOD) vessels are 

present, they follow the EAF in the 

production sequence and are used to 

oxidize carbon, silicon, and impurities, 

such as sulfur. For these reasons, the 

AOD vessels reduce alloy additions 

compared to an EAF alone. Use of AOD 

vessels also reduce EAF heat times, 

improve quality control, and increase 

daily steel production. AOD vessels are 

primarily used in stainless steel making. 

The production of steel in an EAF is 

a batch process. Cycles, also called 

heats, range from about 1.5 to 5 hours 

to produce carbon steel and from 5 to 

10 hours to produce alloy steel. Scrap 

steel is charged to begin a cycle, with 

alloying agents and slag forming 

materials added later in the process for 

refining purposes. Stages of each cycle 

normally are charging, melting, refining 

(which also usually includes oxygen 

blowing), and tapping. All these 

operations generate particulate matter 

(PM) emissions. 

Air emission control techniques 

typically involve an air emission 

capture system and a gas cleaning 

system. The air emission capture 

systems used in the EAF industry 

include direct shell evacuation control 

(DEC) systems, side draft hoods, 

combination hoods, canopy hoods, 

scavenger ducts, and furnace 

enclosures. The DEC system consists of 

ductwork attached to a separate 

opening, or ‘‘fourth hole,’’ in the furnace 

roof (top) that draws emissions from the 

furnace to a gas cleaner and which 

works only when the furnace is up-right 

and the roof is in place. Side draft hoods 

collect furnace exhaust gases from 

around the electrode holes and work 

doors after the gases leave the furnace. 

Combination hoods incorporate 

elements from the side draft and direct 

shell evacuation systems. Canopy hoods 

and scavenger ducts are used to address 

charging and tapping emissions. 

Baghouses are typically used as gas 

cleaning systems (i.e., emissions control 

devices). 

There are approximately 88 EAF in 

the United States of America (U.S.), 

with most (> 95 percent) EAF subject to 

one of the EAF NSPS that are described 

below. Thirty-one states have one or 

more EAF facilities, with most of the 

EAF facilities east of the Mississippi 

River. Pennsylvania (15), Ohio (10), 

Alabama (7), and Indiana (7) have the 

most EAF facilities per state 

(approximate number of EAF facilities 

in each state). 

In 1975, the first NSPS for EAF were 

promulgated (for EAF that commenced 

construction after October 21, 1974). (40 

FR 43850). The 1975 NSPS set PM 

standards for emissions from EAF 

control devices (12 mg/dscm [0.0052 gr/ 

dscf]), and set opacity limits for EAF 

melt shop emissions, which include but 

are not limited to emissions via roof 

vents, doors, cracks in walls, etc. (0 

percent opacity, with 20 percent and 40 

percent opacity allowed during charging 

and tapping, respectively); control 

device exhaust (3 percent opacity); and 

dust handling procedures (10 percent 

opacity). 

In 1984, the NSPS rule, 40 CFR part 

60, subpart AA (for EAF constructed 

after October 21, 1974, and on or before 

August 17, 1983) was revised and a new 

subpart was created as 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart AAa to add AOD vessels as 

affected units for EAF and AOD vessels 

that commenced construction after 

August 17, 1983 (49 FR 43843). These 

1984 amendments to 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart AA raised the melt shop opacity 

from 0 percent to 6 percent opacity, 

keeping the exceptions for charging (20 

percent opacity) and tapping (40 percent 

opacity). The EAF rule at 40 CFR part 

60, subpart AAa set requirements for 

melt shop opacity at 6 percent with no 

exceptions. Both rules, 40 CFR part 60, 

subparts AA and AAa (and Appendix A 

to 40 CFR part 60) were revised in the 

1984 amendments to include EPA 

Method 5D for the determination of PM 

emissions from positive-pressure fabric 

filters, which are common control 

devices for EAF and AOD vessels.2

On February 14, 1989 (54 FR 6672), 

40 CFR part 60, subparts AA and AAa 

(and Appendix A to 40 CFR part 60) 


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
29714 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 94 / Monday, May 16, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

were revised to consolidate the EPA test 

methods and delete repetitions of 

methods already referenced; and on 

May 17, 1989 (54 FR 21344), minor 

corrections were made to the February 

1989 revisions. On March 2, 1999 (64 

FR 10109), as a result of 

recommendations made by the EPA’s 

Common Sense Initiative, 40 CFR part 

60, subparts AA and AAa were revised 

to add an option to monitor furnace 

static pressure instead of melt shop 

opacity; and to monitor baghouse fan 

amperage instead of baghouse flowrate. 

On October 17, 2000 (65 FR 61758), 

amendments were made to 40 CFR part 

60, subparts AA and AAa to promulgate 

Performance Specification (PS) 15 for 

certifying continuous emission 

monitoring systems (CEMS) with 

Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy 

(FTIR); to reformat various methods as 

per recommendations by the 

Environmental Monitoring Management 

Council; and to make miscellaneous 

technical and editorial corrections. On 

February 22, 2005 (70 FR 8530), 40 CFR 

part 60, subparts AA and AAa were 

amended as a result of a petition by the 

American Iron and Steel Institute, Steel 

Manufacturers Association (SMA), and 

Specialty Steel Industry of North 

America to add bag leak detection 

systems (BLDS) as an alternative 

monitoring method to the continuous 

opacity monitoring systems currently 

cited in the rules. 

B. What is the statutory authority for 

this action? 

Section 111 of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) requires the EPA Administrator 

to list categories of stationary sources 

that in the Administrator’s judgement 

cause or contribute significantly to air 

pollution that may reasonably be 

anticipated to endanger public health or 

welfare. 42 U.S.C. 7411(b)(1)(A). The 

EPA must then issue performance 

standards for new (and modified or 

reconstructed) sources in each source 

category. 42 U.S.C. 7411(b)(1)(B). These 

standards are referred to as new source 

performance standards (NSPS). On 

October 11, 1974, the EPA 

Administrator identified and listed EAF 

that produce steel as such a source 

category for which NSPS should be 

developed and which were to be done 

within 120 days. (39 FR 37419). The 

EPA has the authority to define the 

scope of the source categories, 

determine the pollutants for which 

standards should be developed, set the 

emission level of the standards, and 

distinguish among classes, type, and 

sizes within categories in establishing 

the standards. 42 U.S.C. 7411(b). The 

CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) requires the 

Administrator to review and revise, if 

appropriate, the NSPS every 8 years. 42 

U.S.C. 7411(b)(l)(B). 

The CAA section 111(a)(1) provides 

that performance standards are to 

‘‘reflect the degree of emission 

limitation achievable through the 

application of the best system of 

emission reduction which (taking into 

account the cost of achieving such 

reduction and any nonair quality health 

and environmental impact and energy 

requirements) the Administrator 

determines has been adequately 

demonstrated.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7411(a)(1). 

This definition makes clear that the 

standard of performance must be based 

on controls that constitute ‘‘the best 

system of emission reduction . . . 

adequately demonstrated,’’ which the 

EPA commonly refers to as ‘‘BSER.’’ The 

EPA reviewed the requirements of 40 

CFR part 60, subpart AAa and found 

that there were improvements in the 

performance of EAF, AOD, and their 

control devices since 1984. As 

explained in this preamble, the EPA has 

developed proposed performance 

standards for PM emissions and melt 

shop opacity that reflect BSER, 

considering the cost of achieving such 

emission reductions, and any nonair 

quality health and environmental 

impacts and energy requirements. 

C. How does the EPA perform the NSPS 

review? 

As noted in the section II.B, CAA 

section 111 requires the EPA, at least 

every 8 years to review and, if 

appropriate revise the standards of 

performance applicable to new, 

modified, and reconstructed sources. If 

the EPA revises the standards of 

performance, they must reflect the 

degree of emission limitation achievable 

through the application of the BSER 

taking into account the cost of achieving 

such reduction and any nonair quality 

health and environmental impact and 

energy requirements. CAA section 

111(a)(1). 

In reviewing an NSPS to determine 

whether it is ‘‘appropriate’’ to revise the 

standards of performance, the EPA 

evaluates the statutory factors, including 

the following information: 

• Expected growth for the source 

category, including how many new 

facilities, reconstructions, and 

modifications may trigger NSPS in the 

future. 

• Pollution control measures, 

including advances in control 

technologies, process operations, design 

or efficiency improvements, or other 

systems of emission reduction, that are 

‘‘adequately demonstrated’’ in the 

regulated industry. 

• Available information from the 

implementation and enforcement of 

current requirements indicates that 

emission limitations and percent 

reductions beyond those required by the 

current standards are achieved in 

practice. 

• Costs (including capital and annual 

costs) associated with implementation 

of the available pollution control 

measures. 

• The amount of emission reductions 

achievable through application of such 

pollution control measures. 

• Any nonair quality health and 

environmental impact and energy 

requirements associated with those 

control measures. 

In evaluating whether the cost of a 

particular system of emission reduction 

is reasonable, the EPA considers various 

costs associated with the particular air 

pollution control measure or a level of 

control, including capital costs and 

operating costs, and the emission 

reductions that the control measure or 

particular level of control can achieve. 

The agency considers these costs in the 

context of the industry’s overall capital 

expenditures and revenues. The agency 

also considers cost-effectiveness 

analysis as a useful metric, and a means 

of evaluating whether a given control 

achieves emission reduction at a 

reasonable cost. A cost-effectiveness 

analysis allows comparisons of relative 

costs and outcomes (effects) of two or 

more options. In general, costeffectiveness is a measure of the 

outcomes produced by resources spent. 

In the context of air pollution control 

options, cost-effectiveness typically 

refers to the annualized cost of 

implementing an air pollution control 

option divided by the amount of 

pollutant reductions realized annually. 

After the EPA evaluates the factors 

described above, the EPA then compares 

the various systems of emission 

reductions and determines which 

system is ‘‘best.’’ The EPA then 

establishes a standard of performance 

that reflects the degree of emission 

limitation achievable through the 

implementation of the BSER. In doing 

this analysis, the EPA can determine 

whether subcategorization is 

appropriate based on classes, types, and 

sizes of sources, and may identify a 

different BSER and establish different 

performance standards for each 

subcategory. The result of the analysis 

and BSER determination leads to 

standards of performance that apply to 

facilities that begin construction, 

reconstruction, or modification after the 

date of publication of the proposed 

standards in the Federal Register. 

Because the new source performance 


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 94 / Monday, May 16, 2022 / Proposed Rules 29715 

3For details of the EAF dataset, see the 

memorandum titled ‘‘Particulate Matter Emissions 

from Electric Arc Furnace Facilities’’ located in the 

docket for this rule (Docket ID No. EPA–OAR– 

2002–0049). 

4See 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. 

5The baghouse with the lowest emissions in the 

EAF dataset was 0.83 percent of the current 

standard (0.10 mg/dscm [4.33E–05 gr/dscf]). 

standards reflect the best system of 

emission reduction under conditions of 

proper operation and maintenance, in 

doing its review, the EPA also evaluates 

and determines the proper testing, 

monitoring, recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements needed to ensure 

compliance with the emission 

standards. 

See section III.A of this preamble for 

information on the specific data sources 

that were reviewed as part of this action. 

III. What actions are we proposing? 

A. Standards of Performance for Steel 

Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces and 

Argon-Oxygen Decarburization Vessels 

Constructed After May 16, 2022 

The proposed standards, as 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart AAb, would apply to all 

new, modified, or reconstructed EAF 

and AOD vessels, and their associated 

dust-handling systems in the steel 

industry, which commence 

construction, reconstruction, or 

modification after May 16, 2022. The 

proposed standards would limit total 

PM emissions from all pollution control 

devices (e.g., baghouses) installed on 

EAF and AOD vessels, in terms of total 

mass of PM emitted at the facility per 

total mass of steel produced, to 79 

milligrams PM per kilogram steel (mg/ 

kg) [0.16 pounds (lb) PM per ton steel 

produced (lb/ton)]). Visible emissions 

from EAF and AOD that exit from the 

melt shop would be limited to an 

opacity of 0 percent during all phases of 

operation. Visible emissions from 

control devices on EAF and AOD would 

remain at less than 3 percent opacity, as 

in the current EAF NSPS for 40 CFR 

part 60, subparts AA and AAa. Opacity 

of the dust handling system also would 

remain at less than 10 percent as in the 

current NSPS at 40 CFR part 60, 

subparts AA and AAa. 

Explanation of the procedures and 

data used to determine the format and 

values of the proposed standards as 

BSER for EAF are discussed below. Also 

discussed is the review of the standards 

for opacity for EAF control devices and 

dust handling systems in the current 

NSPS rules. 

1. New Format for PM Baghouse Limits 

for 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart AAb 

From EAF PM test reports covering 

the period from 2005 through 2017, the 

EPA obtained PM emissions and opacity 

data for 33 facilities, 46 EAF, and 54 

baghouses in 154 emission and opacity 

tests 3 (hereafter referred to as the ‘‘EAF 

dataset’’). The test data showed a 

substantial improvement in EAF, AOD, 

and baghouse performance beyond the 

current NSPS PM standard. Among 

these 33 facilities (more than one-third 

of the current industry) and their 54 

baghouses, the highest baghouse PM 

emissions were 44 percent of the current 

standard (5.3 mg/dscm [2.30E–03 gr/ 

dscf]), the lowest emissions were 0.83 

percent of the current standard (0.10 

mg/dscm [4.33E–05 gr/dscf]), and the 

median emissions were 10 percent of 

the current standard (1.2 mg/dscm 

[5.11E–04 gr/dscf]). From these test 

data, as well as the RACT/BACT/LAER 

Clearinghouse Data repository,4 the EPA 

identified 15 EAF facilities, 

approximately half of the EAF dataset, 

that reported 0 percent melt shop 

opacity. The number of opacity tests per 

facility with 0 percent melt shop opacity 

ranged from 1 test to 3 tests, with a 

median of 2 tests. 

The current EAF NSPS (40 CFR part 

60, subparts AA and AAa) include 

numerical limits for PM emissions from 

EAF (and also AOD in 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart AAa) control devices and apply 

to each individual control device, 

typically a baghouse, which is also 

known as a fabric filter. Some EAF or 

AOD vessel baghouses control the bulk 

of PM emissions, which occur during 

melting and refining, where the 

emissions are captured by hoods, 

canopies, or other mechanisms directly 

from the EAF or AOD vessel exhaust 

(and are called primary emissions); 

other baghouses control the fugitive PM 

emissions that are emitted during 

charging and tapping, from other melt 

shop processes such as ladling of alloys, 

or that escape the primary capture 

systems. Fugitive emissions also are 

called secondary emissions. A third 

type of baghouse controls both primary 

and secondary emissions. The abovementioned baghouse types may control 

PM from one or more EAF/AOD, 

primary or secondary, in various 

combinations. 

The emissions, and, hence, collected 

PM, from baghouses that control only 

secondary emissions can be much lower 

than the other two types of baghouses, 

as seen in the EAF dataset where the 

baghouse with the lowest PM emissions 

controlled only secondary emissions.5

Because of the inherent lower baghouse 

PM input (loading), secondary 

baghouses can be operated inefficiently 

without exceeding the current NSPS 

limit, which is expressed in the units of 

mass PM per unit of control device 

exhaust air. In addition, where there is 

a standard in terms of mass PM per unit 

of total exhaust air, baghouse dilution 

air (added to EAF exhaust air) can be 

increased with the effect of lowering 

measured baghouse PM emission 

concentration and disguising the true 

performance of the baghouse. 

The EPA is proposing to set a facilitywide PM limit instead of a limit that 

applies to each control device (the 

format of the current standard), because 

we think this form of standard will 

result in better control and provide 

greater assurance of compliance. Most 

importantly, if EAF emissions can be 

divided up into separate baghouses, for 

practical purposes or otherwise, with 

each device falling under the same 

NSPS PM limit, there is no accounting 

for the total PM emissions from the 

facility. A facility-wide total control 

device PM emissions limit in units of 

pounds of PM per ton of steel produced 

also would alleviate the potential 

disparity in control device emissions 

between low-and high-loading control 

devices, such as that for control devices 

for primary vs. secondary emissions, as 

well as for well-operated vs. 

inefficiently-operated control devices 

that both operate below the individual 

baghouse limit. 

To determine BSER for control device 

PM emissions, the EPA only used data 

from EAF facilities with 0 percent melt 

shop opacity. This was because facilities 

that control their melt shop opacity to 

0 percent are collecting more PM 

(specifically from the melt shop) than 

facilities that have a nonzero melt shop 

opacity and, as a result, are sending 

more PM to their control devices. 

Consequently, EAF facilities with 0 

percent melt shop opacity are expected 

to have a slightly higher control device 

PM emission rate on average compared 

to EAF facilities with greater than 0 

percent melt shop opacity, as evidenced 

by the EAF dataset of 33 EAF facilities. 

As a corollary, at EAF facilities with 6 

percent melt shop opacity, some of the 

PM generated by the EAF is not 

captured, avoids the control device, and 

can exit through the melt shop roof, 

thus raising the melt shop opacity to 

above zero. In turn, facilities with 6 


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
29716 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 94 / Monday, May 16, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

6Cost Analyses to Determine BSER for PM 

Emissions and Opacity from EAF Facilities. D.L. 

Jones, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, and G.E. 

Raymond, RTI International, Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina. March 1, 2022 (Docket ID No. 

EPA–OAR–2002–0049. 

7Electric Arc Furnaces and Argon-Oxygen 

Decarburization Vessels in Steel Industry— 

Background Information for Proposed Revisions to 

Standards—Draft EIS, Preliminary (EPA–450/3–82– 

020a). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. July 1983. 

8Electric Arc Furnaces and Argon-Oxygen 

Decarburization Vessels in Steel Industry— 

Background Information for Proposed Revisions to 

Standards—Draft EIS, Preliminary (EPA–450/3–82– 

020a). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 1982. Table 

3–7, p. 3–37. 9Electric Arc Furnaces and Argon-Oxygen 

Decarburization Vessels in Steel Industry— 

Background Information for Proposed Revisions to 

Standards—Draft EIS, Preliminary (EPA–450/3–82– 

010a). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Table 4–2, 

combination 2, p. 4–23. 

10From the median of industry capacity data for 

EAF facilities provided to the EPA by SMA in 2018, 

assuming 70 percent capacity utilization. 

percent melt shop opacity collect less 

PM and, therefore, less PM is sent to 

control device, which results in 

(slightly) lower PM emissions in the 

control device exhaust. Overall, because 

of the large amount of PM emission 

differential between 6 percent and 0 

percent melt shop opacity, much less 

PM is emitted to the environment with 

0 percent melt shop opacity than with 

6 percent opacity, despite the higher 

level of control device emissions with 0 

percent melt shop opacity. This effect is 

described quantitatively below in 

section 2.c. 

Of the 15 EAF facilities in the EPA 

dataset with 0 percent melt shop 

opacity, control device PM emissions 

data and steel production values needed 

to develop an emission standard in mass 

of PM per mass of steel production were 

available for 13 of the 15 facilities; these 

data included 51 individual tests from 

23 baghouses and 21 EAF. The 13 EAF 

facilities and their PM emissions were 

used to demonstrate that 0 percent melt 

shop opacity is BSER and to develop a 

facility-wide total PM control device 

emission standard that is BSER for new, 

modified, and reconstructed EAF. 

2. Analyses To Determine BSER for Melt 

Shop Opacity and PM Emissions From 

Control Devices 

The PM and opacity test data for 13 

EAF facilities with 0 percent melt shop 

opacity were used as a major input to 

determine the BSER for melt shop 

opacity and for total facility-wide PM 

control device emissions (in units of 

mass of PM emissions per mass of steel 

produced). The cost, emissions 

reduction analyses, and other factors 

used in the determination of BSER are 

discussed below and in more detail in 

the memorandum titled Cost and Other 

Analyses to Determine BSER for PM 

Emissions and Opacity from EAF 

Facilities,6 hereafter referred to as the 

Cost Memorandum. 

a. BSER for Melt Shop Opacity 

To determine if 0 percent opacity is 

BSER for the EAF melt shop, an 

estimate of the PM emissions reductions 

compared to the baseline level of the 

current standards (40 CFR part 60, 

subparts AA and AAa), at 6 percent, was 

made along with the costs to achieve the 

additional PM control and opacity 

reduction from 6 percent to 0 percent. 

We also considered other factors, such 

as the findings that the proposed melt 

shop opacity of 0 percent was being 

achieved by 19 of the 31 facilities for 

which the EPA has opacity data (from 

2010), and that for the remaining 12 

facilities, average opacity in the test data 

was no higher than 1.2 percent (with a 

range of 0.1 percent to 1.2 percent). 

Based on these data, we conclude that 

an opacity limit of 0 percent is feasible 

and well demonstrated. 

To determine the PM emission 

reductions, emissions data from the EAF 

dataset were used along with emission 

factors and EAF control information in 

an EPA background information 

document (BID) about the EAF industry 

prepared for the 1984 EAF NSPS.7 For 

assessing the costs of the reductions, it 

was assumed that facilities achieving 0 

percent melt shop opacity have better 

fugitive collection than facilities with 

higher melt shop opacities. 

Consequently, for the BSER 

calculations, costs were assessed for 

adding a partial roof canopy (segmented 

canopy hood, closed roof over furnace, 

open roof monitor elsewhere) to collect 

PM emissions that might otherwise 

escape through the melt shop roof vents 

to achieve complete control of melt 

shop fugitives. The procedures used to 

determine whether 0 percent opacity 

using new canopy hooding is BSER are 

summarized below. Details of the BSER 

cost procedures can be found in the Cost 

Memorandum.6

PM Emission Reductions with 0 

percent Opacity: Two approaches were 

used to develop estimates of PM 

emission reductions with the addition 

of a partial roof canopy in order to 

reduce melt shop opacity from 6 percent 

to 0 percent. The resulting average PM 

emission reduction of the two estimates, 

at 660 megagram per year (Mg/yr) [730 

tons per year (tpy)], was used in the 

final BSER calculation. The 

methodology for each of the two 

approaches is described below and in 

more detail in the Cost Memorandum.6

The first method to estimate PM 

reductions to compare PM emissions 

with 0 percent melt shop opacity to 

emissions with 6 percent was partially 

based on data from the EAF BID.7 The 

average uncontrolled EAF PM emissions 

of 15 g/kg [29 lb/ton] from the EAF BID 8

was used along with the average capture 

efficiency of a ‘‘segmented canopy hood, 

closed roof over furnace, open roof 

monitor elsewhere,’’ at 90 percent,9 and 

the estimated steel production at an 

average EAF facility, at 490,000 Mg/yr 

[540,000 tpy] 10 to estimate the roof vent 

PM emission rate of 630 Mg/yr [700 

tpy]. This value was assumed to be the 

melt shop PM fugitive emission rate 

from the roof vent of a melt shop with 

6 percent opacity, the current EAF 

NSPS opacity standard. 

The second method used to estimate 

PM emission reductions to compare PM 

emissions with 0 percent melt shop 

opacity to PM emissions with 6 percent 

opacity was based on data obtained 

from the EPA dataset for facilities with 

0 or 6 percent melt shop opacity.3

Opacity and PM emission data were 

available for 9 EAF facilities, 12 EAF/ 

AOD, 13 baghouses, and 33 tests where 

6 percent melt shop opacity was 

achieved; and 13 facilities, 21 EAF/ 

AOD, 23 baghouses, and 51 individual 

tests where 0 percent melt shop opacity 

was achieved.3 The annual baghouse 

stack emissions for facilities with 6 

percent melt shop opacity was 

estimated at 11,000 Mg/yr [12 tpy] PM 

based on an average emission rate of 22 

mg/kg [4.4E–02 lb/ton] for nine facilities 

using an average steel production rate of 

490,000 Mg/yr [540,000 tpy] steel, as 

discussed above.10 The total PM 

emissions generated by the EAF are the 

PM emissions sent to the baghouse plus 

the uncaptured emissions emanating 

from the melt shop as opacity, if not 

controlled to 0 percent opacity. The 

captured PM emissions routed to the 

baghouse can be calculated from the 

average PM emitted from the baghouse 

(11 Mg/yr [12 tpy]) in the EPA dataset 

and the assumption of baghouse control 

efficiency of 99.8 percent, to produce an 

estimate of 5,500 Mg/yr [6,000 tpy] PM 

routed to the baghouse at a facility 

where 6 percent melt shop opacity was 

achieved. 

Further, in the second approach, to 

calculate total PM emissions generated 

(uncontrolled) by the EAF, the estimate 

of 5,500 Mg/yr [6,000 tpy] uncaptured 


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 94 / Monday, May 16, 2022 / Proposed Rules 29717 

11Electric Arc Furnaces and Argon-Oxygen 

Decarburization Vessels in Steel Industry— 

Background Information for Proposed Revisions to 

Standards—Draft EIS, Preliminary (EPA–450/3–82– 

010a). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 1982. 

12Cost Impacts of Control Options Considered for 

the Ferroalloys Production NESHAP to Address 

Fugitive HAP Emissions. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North 

Carolina Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0895– 

0177. August 2014. 

PM routed to the baghouse estimated 

above, is added to an estimate of 

uncaptured PM emitted from the melt 

shop where there is 6 percent melt shop 

opacity. Using the estimate of 90 

percent captured PM at a melt shop 

with 6 percent opacity, the total PM 

emissions generated by the EAF is 

calculated as 6,000 Mg/yr [6,700 tpy 

PM]. The difference between the PM 

generated and the PM captured, at 600 

Mg/yr [670 tpy] is the second estimate 

of the amount of PM that is controlled 

when comparing the PM emitted from 6 

percent melt shop opacity compared to 

0 percent opacity, because all PM is 

captured at a 0 percent melt shop 

opacity facility. 

As a check on the estimate of 6,700 

tpy total uncontrolled PM from the EAF, 

an emission factor in format of PM 

emitted per ton steel is calculated from 

the average steel production used in the 

calculations. The result, at 13 g/kg [25 

lb/ton] PM emitted per ton steel, is in 

the expected range as that cited above 

in the first method, between 8.5 and 21 

g/kg [17 to 42 lb/ton]) from the EAF 

BID.8 This result also confirms that the 

baghouse efficiency value at 99.8 

percent, used in the calculation is 

appropriate. The average of the results 

with the two methods, at 660 Mg PM/ 

yr [730 tpy] controlled, is used in the 

BSER analysis as the additional PM 

controlled between 0 percent melt shop 

opacity and 6 percent. 

Costs for Installing and Operating a 

Partition Roof Canopy: Canopy hoods 

are a common method of controlling 

fugitive EAF emissions.11 To estimate 

the costs for EAF facilities to reduce 

their PM emissions and melt shop 

opacity from 6 percent to 0 percent 

opacity, the costs for addition of a 

partition roof canopy (above the crane 

rails) were estimated using the 

procedure and information from the 

Ferroalloys NESHAP, where EAF also 

are used and shop fugitives also are a 

concern.12 Detailed cost information 

from or about EAF facilities was not 

available to the EPA to directly calculate 

cost estimates for a canopy at steelmaking EAF facilities; whereas, the 

ferroalloy cost estimates do include 

detailed cost input parameters from the 

ferroalloy industry which we used to 

estimate such costs at an EAF facility. 

The EPA seeks comment regarding this 

cost analysis and seeks detailed 

information on EAF source categoryspecific costs to further inform the 

development of the final rule. 

To adapt the ferroalloy costestimating procedure to steelmaking 

EAF, equipment costs and other 

parameters were scaled by the ratio of 

the ferroalloys EAF flowrate at 200 

degrees Fahrenheit (°F) (9,400 actual 

cubic meters per minute (acmm) 

[330,000 actual cubic feet per minute 

(acfm)] to EAF flowrate at 200°F (18,000 

acmm [640,000 acfm]) for a mediumsized steel facility in the EAF data, 

which corresponded to 15,000 standard 

cubic meters per minute [530,000 

standard cubic feet per minute]. Using 

the ferroalloy cost estimates with the 

flowrate of a medium-sized steelmaking 

EAF produced capital costs for a partial 

canopy hood of $6,800,000; operating 

and maintenance costs are $340,000; 

and total annualized costs are $800,000 

in 2020 dollars for a medium-sized EAF. 

Similar cost analyses were done for a 

small and large EAF facility using 

flowrates from the EAF data. Table 1 

shows the cost estimates for small, 

medium, and large EAF baghouses and 

melt shops to achieve 0 percent melt 

shop opacity with a partial roof canopy 

hood above the crane rails compared to 

model plants meeting the rule 

requirement of 6 percent opacity. 

TABLE 1—MODEL PLANT COSTS AND PARAMETERS FOR ACHIEVING 0 PERCENT MELT SHOP OPACITY COMPARED TO

MODEL PLANTS OPERATING AT THE CURRENT RULE REQUIREMENT OF 6 PERCENT OPACITY BY ADDING A PARTIAL

ROOF CANOPY HOOD ABOVE THE CRANE RAILS

Cost parameter 

Model plant size 

Small Medium Large 

Air flow, acmm [acfm] ................................................................................................ 1,300 [45,000] 18,000 [640,000] 91,000 [3,200,000] 

Capital Costs ............................................................................................................. $480,000 $6,800,000 $34,000,000 

Operating and Maintenance Costs ............................................................................ $27,000 $340,000 $1,700,000 

Total Annualized Costs ...................................................................................... $60,000 $800,000 $4,000,000 

PM Removed 6% opacity to 0% opacity, Mg/yr [tpy] ................................................ 51 [56] 660 [730] 3,600 [4,000]

Cost-effectiveness, $/Mg [$/ton] ................................................................................ $1,200 [$1,100] $1,200 [$1,100] $1,100 [$1,000] 

Note: Numbers have been rounded and, therefore, may not calculate exactly. 

However, new, modified, or 

reconstructed facilities would need to 

comply with applicable state 

requirements, and programs such as 

New Source Review (NSR), if the NSR 

applicability criteria are met. Under 

NSR, certain technology requirements 

apply depending on the location of the 

facility (i.e., lowest achievable emission 

rates (LAER) in nonattainment areas, or 

best achievable control technology 

(BACT) in attainment areas). Therefore, 

the cost estimates shown in Table 1 are 

considered conservative (i.e., more 

likely to be overestimates than 

underestimates). We estimate that the 

actual cost impacts of the proposed 0 

percent opacity limit likely would be 

lower because we expect any new, 

modified, or reconstructed facility 

would be able to meet the proposed 

opacity and PM limits without any 

additional control equipment beyond 

those already required by NSR or 

applicable state requirements, or by 

minor process changes to improve 

capture of exhaust flows or other 

process parameters, if needed. 

Overall Cost Effectiveness to Achieve 

0 percent Melt Shop Opacity: Using the 

annual costs of $800,000 per year 

(described above), for a partition roof 

canopy (above the crane rails) for a 

medium-sized steelmaking EAF and a 

PM reduction of 660 Mg/yr [730 tpy] for 

achieving 0 percent melt shop opacity 

compared to 6 percent opacity (also 

described above) the cost-effectiveness 

is $1,210 per Mg [$1,100 per ton] PM 


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
29718 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 94 / Monday, May 16, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

13EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, Sixth 

Edition, EPA/42/B–02–001. U. S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. 

January 2002. Section 6, Particulate Matter 

Controls, Chapter 1, Baghouses and Filters. 

Available at: https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/catc/dir1/c_

allchs.pdf. 

14Summary of Questionnaire (Enclosure 1) 

Responses to EPA Information Collection Requests 

from Integrated Iron & Steel Facilities. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina. (Docket ID Item No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2002–0083–0614). 

15From the industry capacity data for EAF 

facilities provided to the EPA by SMA in 2018. 

16Numbers have been rounded and may not 

exactly match calculations. 

removed for a medium-sized EAF and 

melt shop. The same analyses 

performed for small and large EAF 

baghouses and melt shops produced 

similar cost-effectiveness estimates, at 

$1,200 per Mg [$1,100 per ton] and 

$1,100 per Mg [$1,000 per ton] for small 

and large EAF baghouses, respectively, 

as shown in Table 1. The values of 

$1,200 per Mg [$1,100 per ton] and 

lower are well within the range of what 

the EPA has considered cost-effective 

for the control of PM emissions, and, 

therefore, 0 percent melt shop opacity is 

considered BSER for EAF. 

b. Facility-Wide Total PM Control 

Device Emission Limit 

The PM emissions data in the EAF 

dataset from the 13 EAF facilities with 

0 percent opacity were used to 

determine BSER for EAF and AOD 

facilities along with the estimated costs 

of control. The number of PM test 

reports used per facility ranged from 

one (3-run) test to 10 tests, with a 

median of three tests. The EAF facility 

total baghouse PM emissions per mass 

of steel produced from the 13 facilities 

with 0 percent melt shop opacity ranged 

from a low of 6.5 mg/kg [0.013 lb/ton] 

to a high of 79 mg/kg [0.016 lb/ton] with 

a median of 26 mg/kg [0.052 lb/ton]. 

The control costs for a range of 

baghouse performance levels were 

estimated based on baghouse air-tocloth (A/C) ratio, which is expressed in 

units of volume of air flow per unit bag 

area (i.e., cloth), or meters [feet] per unit 

of time. The A/C ratio is generally 

accepted as the most important design 

parameter between baghouses of 

different performance levels, where a 

low A/C ratio is considered to be the 

best level of control (less air and more 

baghouse filter cloth) and a high A/C 

ratio is a low or poor level control (high 

air volume and low baghouse filter 

area).13 Because no A/C ratio data were 

available in the EAF PM test reports, 

values for A/C from CAA section 114 

responses submitted by the integrated 

iron and steel (II&S) industry for the risk 

and technology review for 40 CFR part 

63, subpart FFFFF (85 FR 42074) 14 ratio 

were used in the EAF BSER PM cost 

analysis. The baghouses used for 

emissions from furnaces in the II&S 

industry are expected to be similar in 

operation as the baghouses used at EAF/ 

AOD for the purposes of this analysis. 

The A/C ratio in the II&S data ranged 

from a low of 24 m/s [1.3 ft/min] to a 

high of 130 m/s [7.2 ft/min]. 

In order to explore what level of PM 

emissions per mass of steel produced 

derived from the dataset would be 

BSER, five evenly-spaced points in the 

ranked PM mass rate data in the EAF 

data and five evenly-spaced points in 

the ranked A/C ratios were matched to 

represent five model facilities of various 

levels of baghouse-controlled PM 

emissions, with the lowest (best) PM 

mass emission rate matched to the 

lowest (best) A/C ratio and labeled 

Model Plant A, and the highest in both 

variables labelled Model Plant E. The 

intermediary facilities were matched 

similarly so that there were five distinct 

operating levels to produce five model 

plants. 

In addition, a ‘‘baseline’’ model plant 

was developed using a PM mass 

emission rate (in mass PM per mass 

steel) that was estimated as equivalent 

to the current NSPS standard (in mass 

per unit flowrate) using the EAF dataset, 

where data in both mass emissions per 

mass of steel produced and in mass per 

unit flowrate were available. The PM 

mass emission rate for the baseline 

model plant was estimated using the 

ratio of the mass per unit flowrate of the 

highest emitting facility in the dataset 

(Model Plant E) at 9.2 mg/dscm [0.0040 

gr/dscf] to the NSPS standard (12 mg/kg 

[0.0052 gr/dscf]) for a ratio of 0.77 (9.2/ 

12 mg/kg [0.0040/0.0052 gr/dscf]), and 

back calculating an equivalent mass 

value using the 0.77 ratio and the PM 

mass rate of Model Plant E in units of 

mass PM per mass of steel produced (79 

mg/kg [0.16 lb/ton]/0.77). The resulting 

value of 100 mg/kg [0.20 lb/ton] was 

used as an estimate of the PM mass 

emission rate per mass of steel produced 

for the NSPS baseline model plant. An 

A/C ratio of 8.0 was used for the 

baseline model plant, as the highest A/ 

C ratio that realistically could be 

expected.13

Table 2 shows the PM mass emission 

rates and A/C ratios for the five model 

plants and the baseline model plant. 

Details of the analysis are described in 

the Cost Memorandum.6

TABLE 2—MODEL PLANT PARAMETERS

Model plants 

PM emission rate 

(PM per steel produced) 

A/C ratio 

mg/kg lb/ton m/min ft/min 

A ................... 6.5 0.013 0.40 1.3 

B ................... 17 0.034 0.88 2.9 

C ................... 40 0.08 1.2 4.0 

D ................... 50 0.10 1.5 4.9 

E ................... 79 0.16 2.2 7.2 

Baseline ....... 100 0.20 2.4 8.0 

Note: The baseline model facility emissions are based on an estimate in units of mg/kg (lb/ton) of the current limit, which is in units of mg/ 

dscm (gr/dscf). 

Steel production for each model 

facility size was taken from industry 

capacity data 15 and corresponded to 

45,000, 700,000, and 3,100,000 Mg/yr 

[50,000, 780,000, and 3,500,000 tpy] 16

for small, medium or ‘‘average,’’ and 

large facilities, respectively, where 

medium was determined from the 

median of industry data, and small and 

large were the smallest and largest 

facilities. Estimates of baghouse flowrate 

were taken from the EAF data, at 1,300, 

18,000, and 91,000 acmm [45,000, 

640,000, and 3,200,000 acfm] 16 for 

small, medium, and large facility-level 

baghouses, respectively. At these 

operating levels and the emission rate 

per mass of steel produced developed 


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 94 / Monday, May 16, 2022 / Proposed Rules 29719 

from the PM emissions in the EAF data, 

as described above, the PM emissions 

for the Model Plants A through E range 

from 0.27 to 3.5 Mg/yr, 4.6 to 55 Mg/yr, 

and 20 to 250 Mg/yr [0.30 to 3.9 tpy, 5.1 

to 61 tpy, and 23 to 270 tpy], for small, 

medium, and large facilities, 

respectively. For the baseline model 

plant, PM emissions were estimated to 

be 4.6, 72, and 320 Mg/yr [5.1, 72, and 

350 tpy] for small, medium, and large 

facilities, respectively. 

Costs of control were estimated using 

the EPA cost-estimating procedures 13

based on model baghouses with flows 

and production levels for baghouses at 

small, medium, and large facilities, as 

described above. Differences in capital 

costs for the model plants mainly reflect 

the cost of bags needed for each A/C 

ratio. The operating and maintenance 

(O&M) costs reflect periodic 

replacement of bags, along with other 

typical baghouse O&M costs. Annual 

costs include the annualized capital 

costs combined with the annual 

operating and maintenance costs. 

Capital, annual O&M, and annualized 

costs were estimated for new baghouses 

at new facilities corresponding to the 

five model plants and the baseline 

model plant for small, medium or 

‘‘average,’’ and large model facilities 

following the procedures in the EPA 

Cost Manual 13 to meet each level of 

model plant PM emissions and A/C 

ratios, and for all three facility sizes. In 

this analysis, Model Plant A has the 

lowest emissions, the lowest A/C ratio, 

and the highest costs for a new 

baghouse at a new facility; and Model 

Plant E, has the highest emissions, 

highest A/C ratio, and lowest costs, for 

a new baghouse at a new facility; all 

model plants emit less PM emissions 

than a (new) baseline model plant, have 

lower A/C ratios, and have higher costs 

for a new baghouse at a new facility. 

The BSER PM level is determined by 

comparing the (new) baseline model 

plant costs and emissions to each model 

plant, starting with the model plant 

with the highest estimated emissions 

and lowest costs (Model Plant E), and 

ending with the model plant with the 

lowest emissions and highest costs 

(Model Plant A), and repeating the 

analysis for each of the three facility 

sizes, small, medium, and large. 

Estimated capital costs 6 for new 

baghouses for Model Plants A through E 

ranged from $710,000 to $1,900,000 for 

a small facility; $4,300,000 to 

$21,000,000 for a medium facility; and 

$20,000,000 to $100,000,000 for a large 

facility. Operating and maintenance 

costs for the five model plants ranged 

from $190,000 to $260,000 for a small 

facility; $1,300,000 to $2,200,000 for a 

medium facility; and $5,500,000 to 

$10,000,000 for a large facility. Annual 

costs for the five model plants ranged 

from $238,000 to $380,000 for a small 

facility; $1,600,000 to $3,600,000 for a 

medium facility; and $6,800,000 to 

$17,000,000 for a large facility. 

Capital costs for the baseline facility 

were estimated to be $680,000 for a 

small facility, $3,900,000 for a medium 

facility, and $18,000,000 for a large 

facility. Operating and maintenance 

costs for the baseline facility were 

estimated to be $190,000 for a small 

facility, $1,300,000 for a medium 

facility, and $5,400,000 for a large 

facility. Annual costs for the baseline 

facility were estimated to be $236,000 

for a small facility, $1,500,000 for a 

medium facility, and $6,600,000 for a 

large facility.6

The results of the cost analyses in 

Table 3 for a medium-sized model 

facility show the estimated costs, PM 

emissions reduced, and costeffectiveness for Model Plants A 

through E and the baseline model plant 

for a medium-size facility. The cost 

analyses in Table 3 indicate that the 

highest emitting model plant (E) in the 

cost analysis, at 79 mg/kg [1.6E–01 lb/ 

ton], is within the range of what the 

EPA has considered to be a costeffective level of control for PM 

emissions relative to the baseline model 

plant, at approximately $2,000 per Mg 

PM removed [$1,800 per ton PM 

removed] for a medium-sized facility. 

This level reflects an estimated 22 

percent reduction in emissions from the 

baseline model plant (100 mg/kg [0.20 

lb/ton]). The cost impacts of the next 

level of emission control in the cost 

analysis for medium-sized facilities, for 

Model D (50 mg/kg (0.10 lb/ton)), is 

$6,100/Mg PM removed [$5,500/ton PM 

removed], which is at the higher end of 

the range that is considered costeffective. Table 4 shows the estimated 

cost-effectiveness of increased PM 

control over the baseline for Model 

Plant E for all three facility sizes (small, 

medium, and large), which have 

approximately the same costeffectiveness values as medium-sized 

facilities, at approximately $2,200 $/Mg 

[$2,000 per ton PM removed] for both 

small and large model facilities. 

TABLE 3—EMISSIONS, COSTS AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS FOR A MEDIUM-SIZE MODEL EAF FACILITY 1 2

Cost for new baghouse at new facility Cost-effectiveness 

Model plant 3 4 EAF 

facility 

PM 

emission 

rate 

Capital Annual 

O&M 

Annual 

costs 

Annual 

cost 

difference 

from 

baseline 

(Delta Cost) 

Additional 

PM 

controlled 

from 

baseline 

(Delta PM) 

Delta Cost/Delta PM 

from baseline 

Incremental cost-effectiveness to next model plant 

Mg/yr 

[tpy] 

$ $/yr $/yr $/yr Mg/yr 

[tpy] 

$/Mg $/ton $/Mg $/ton 

A .................................. 4.6 [5.1] $21,000,000 $2,200,000 $3,600,000 $2,100,000 67 [74] $31,000 $28,000 $194,000 $176,000 

B .................................. 12 [13] 10,000,000 1,600,000 2,200,000 700,000 60 [66] 12,000 11,000 20,000 18,000 

C .................................. 28 [31] 7,300,000 1,400,000 1,900,000 370,000 43 [48] 8,500 7,700 21,000 19,000 

D .................................. 35 [39] 6,100,000 1,300,000 1,700,000 220,000 36 [40] 6,100 5,500 9,400 8,500 

E4 ................................ 55 [61] 4,300,000 1,270,000 1,600,000 32,000 16 [18] 2,000 1,800 NA 

Baseline 5 .................... 72 [79] 3,900,000 1,260,000 1,500,000 NA NA NA NA 

1A medium-size facility is estimated to produce 700,000 Mg/yr [775,000 tpy] steel at capacity. 

2 Numbers may not calculate exactly due to rounding. 

3The standards for the model plants are as follows: A = 6.5 mg/kg (0.013 lb/ton); B = 17 mg/kg (0.034 lb/ton); C = 40 mg/kg (0.08 lb/ton); D = 50 

mg/kg (0.10 lb/ton); E = 79 mg/kg (0.16 lb/ton). See Table 2. Model Facility E represents the standard being proposed. 4See Table 2 for additional model plant parameters. 

5The baseline model facility emissions are based on an estimate in units of mg/kg (lb/ton) of the current limit, which is in units of mg/dscm (gr/ 

dscf). 


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
29720 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 94 / Monday, May 16, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

17 40 CFR part 63 (National Emission Standards 

for Hazardous Air Pollutants) subparts: FFFFF 

(Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing); DDDD 

(Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

Manufacture); LLLLL (Asphalt Processing and 

Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing); RRRRR (Taconite 

Iron Ore Processing); UUU (Petroleum Refineries: 

Catalytic Cracking Units, Catalytic Reforming Units, 

and Sulfur Recovery Units). 

TABLE 4—COSTS FOR NEW BAGHOUSES AT NEW FACILITIES FOR MODEL PLANT E (BSER) COMPARED TO BASELINE AT

SMALL, MEDIUM, AND LARGE MODEL FACILITIES

Model facility 1

EAF 

facility 

PM 

emission 

rate 

Cost for new baghouse 2 Additional 

PM 

controlled 

from 

baseline 

level 

Costeffectiveness 2

Incremental 

costeffectiveness 

to next model 

plant (D) 1 2

Capital Annual 

O&M 

Annual 

costs 

Annual 

costs 

Delta from 

baseline 

Mg/yr 

[tpy] 

$ $/yr $/yr $/yr Mg/yr 

[tpy] 

Delta $/Mg 

[$/ton] 

$/Mg 

[$/ton] 

Small Facility 3

Model E ....................................... 3.6 [3.9] $710,000 $190,000 $238,000 $2,290 1.1 [1.2] $2,200 [$2,000] $10,000 [$9,300] 

Baseline ....................................... 4.6 [5.1] 680,000 190,000 236,000 .................... .................... .............................. ..............................

Medium Facility 3

Model E ....................................... 55 [61] 4,300,000 1,270,000 1,550,000 32,400 16 [18] 2,000 [1,800] 9,400 [8,500] 

Baseline ....................................... 72 [79] 3,900,000 1,260,000 1,520,000 .................... .................... .............................. ..............................

Large Facility 3

Model E ....................................... 246 [271] 20,000,000 5,500,000 6,730,000 162,000 73 [80] 2,200 [2,000] 11,000 [9,600] 

Baseline ....................................... 318 [351] 18,000,000 5,400,000 6,570,000 .................... .................... .............................. ..............................

1The baseline model facility emissions are based on emissions in units of mg/kg (lb/ton) of the current limit, which is in units of mg/dscm (gr/dscf). Model Facility E 

represents the standard being proposed (79 mg/kg [0.16 lb/ton]). Model D is the next higher level of control (50 mg/kg [0.10 lb/ton]). See Table 2. 2 Cost numbers may not calculate exactly due to rounding. 

3Production levels are 45,000, 700,000, and 3,100,000 Mg/yr [45,000, 775,000, 3,450,000 tpy] at small, medium, and large model facilities, respectively. 

Tables 3 and 4 also show that the 

incremental cost-effectiveness of the 

model plants compared to the next level 

of emissions control. In Table 4, the 

incremental cost difference between 

Model E compared to Model Plant D, 

the next level of emission control, is 

shown for all three sizes of model 

plants. For a medium-sized model plant, 

the incremental cost-effectiveness 

comparing Model Plant E to Model 

Plant D is at the higher end of the range 

that is considered cost-effective, at 

$9,400/Mg [$8,500/ton]. The 

incremental cost-effectiveness is even 

greater for small and large facilities, at 

greater than or equal to $10,000/Mg 

($9,300/ton), also shown in Table 4. 

Because the control costs for the BSER 

analysis were derived from A/C ratios 

taken from integrated iron and steel 

baghouses, there is some uncertainty 

regarding the A/C ratios and costs for 

EAF facilities. For this reason, in the 

BSER determination, we have selected 

Model Plant E to ensure the BSER 

control level is feasible for new, 

modified, or reconstructed EAF 

facilities. Detailed cost information for 

Model Plants A through E for all three 

sizes of facilities are shown in the Cost 

Memorandum.6

c. Overall Reduction in EAF Emissions 

With Facility-Wide PM Limit at 79 mg/ 

kg (0.16 lb/ton) and 0 Percent Melt Shop 

Opacity Standard 

The baghouses at EAF facilities with 

0 percent melt shop opacity under the 

proposed standard (79 mg/kg (0.16 lb/ 

ton)), would emit an estimated 39 Mg/ 

yr [43 tpy] PM emissions for an average 

facility producing 492,100 Mg/yr 

(542,500 tpy steel).10 By contrast, the 

estimated PM emissions from a 

baghouse where there is 6 percent melt 

shop opacity are 11 Mg/yr (12 tpy) for 

an average facility.10 [See the example 

provided in section III.A.2.a (BSER for 

Melt Shop Opacity)] Because the PM 

prevented from exiting the roof vent is 

instead collected and sent to the 

baghouses, this results in an additional 

28 Mg/yr (31 tpy) PM emissions (39 Mg/ 

yr minus 11 Mg/yr [43 tpy minus 12 

tpy]) emitted from the baghouse at a 0 

percent melt shop opacity (averagesized) facility as compared to a melt 

shop at 6 percent opacity. The total PM 

emissions prevented from being emitted 

with 0 percent melt shop opacity 

compared to 6 percent opacity are 663 

Mg/yr (731 tpy). However, baghouses 

have high efficiencies of 98 percent and 

higher; therefore, the additional 

baghouse PM emissions of 28 Mg/yr [31 

tpy] are much lower than the PM that 

would have otherwise been emitted out 

the roof vents. Therefore, despite the 

additional baghouse emissions, the net 

amount of PM prevented from being 

emitted at the average facility is 635 Mg/ 

yr (700 tpy), or 663 Mg/yr minus 28 Mg/ 

yr (731 tpy minus 31 tpy), presenting a 

clear case of effective overall emissions 

prevention. 

The NSPS general provisions (CAA 

section 60.11(c)) currently excludes 

opacity requirements during periods of 

startup, shutdown and malfunction. We 

are proposing that opacity limits in 40 

CFR part 60, subpart AAb would apply 

at all times along with all other 

emissions limits and standards because 

there are no technical limitations known 

to prevent new, reconstructed, or 

modified facilities from meeting all 

standards at all times. 

3. Requirement for Compliance Testing 

Every Five Years 

We are proposing that sources 

complying with 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

AAb would be required to perform 

compliance testing every 5 years after 

the initial testing performed upon 

startup, as required under 40 CFR part 

60.8. This requirement already is 

required in many of the permits for 

existing EAF in the EAF dataset and in 

the industry, and is a standard 

requirement for testing for other sources 

of PM emissions for many other 

industrial sectors.17

4. Review of EAF NSPS Standards for 

Opacity From EAF Control Devices and 

Dust Handling Systems 

The current NSPS standards for EAF 

in 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA and 

AAa, require less than 3 percent opacity 

from control device (baghouse) exhaust 

and less than 10 percent for dust 

handling procedures. In the EAF dataset 

discussed above, no facilities reported 

lower levels of opacity for these sources 

nor were lower levels required in any 

permits for these or any other EAF 


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 94 / Monday, May 16, 2022 / Proposed Rules 29721 

facilities. In addition, in determinations 

reported in the RACT/BACT/LAER 

Clearinghouse,4 only the current levels 

in the rule for baghouse exhaust (9 

facilities) and dust handling systems (3 

facilities) were considered BACT. 

Therefore, the conclusion of this review 

is that the opacity standards for control 

device exhaust and dust handling 

systems should remain the same. 

5. Proposal of 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart 

AAb Without Startup, Shutdown, 

Malfunction Exemptions 

In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. 

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

United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit (the court) 

vacated portions of two provisions in 

the EPA’s CAA section 112 regulations 

governing the emissions of HAP during 

periods of SSM. Specifically, the court 

vacated the SSM exemption contained 

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

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

302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards 

or limitations must be continuous in 

nature and that the SSM exemption 

violates the CAA’s requirement that 

some section 112 standards apply 

continuously. Consistent with Sierra 

Club v. EPA, we are proposing standards 

in this rule that apply at all times. The 

NSPS general provisions in 40 CFR 

60.11 (c) currently exclude opacity 

requirements during periods of startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction and the 

provision in 40 CFR 60.8(c) contains an 

exemption from nonopacity standards. 

We are proposing in 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart AAb a specific requirement at 

60.272b (c) that overrides the general 

provisions for SSM. As provided in 

60.11(f), we are proposing that all 

standards in 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

AAb apply at all times, including both 

opacity and nonopacity limits. 

The EPA has attempted to ensure that 

the general provisions we are proposing 

to override are inappropriate, 

unnecessary, or redundant in the 

absence of the SSM exemption. We are 

specifically seeking comment on 

whether we have successfully done so. 

In proposing the standards in this 

rule, the EPA has taken into account 

startup and shutdown periods and, for 

the reasons explained below, is not 

proposing alternate standards for those 

periods because we believe both the PM 

and opacity standards can be met at all 

times. With regard to malfunctions, 

these events are described in the 

following paragraph. 

Periods of startup, normal operations, 

and shutdown are all predictable and 

routine aspects of a source’s operations. 

Malfunctions, in contrast, are neither 

predictable nor routine. Instead they 

are, by definition, sudden, infrequent, 

and not reasonably preventable failures 

of emissions control, process, or 

monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 60.2). 

The EPA interprets CAA section 111 as 

not requiring emissions that occur 

during periods of malfunction to be 

factored into development of CAA 

section 111 standards. Nothing in CAA 

section 111 or in case law requires that 

the EPA consider malfunctions when 

determining what standards of 

performance reflect the degree of 

emission limitation achievable through 

‘‘the application of the best system of 

emission reduction’’ that the EPA 

determines is adequately demonstrated. 

While the EPA accounts for variability 

in setting emissions standards. The EPA 

is not required to treat a malfunction in 

the same manner as the type of variation 

in performance that occurs during 

routine operations of a source. A 

malfunction is a failure of the source to 

perform in a ‘‘normal or usual manner’’ 

and no statutory language compels the 

EPA to consider such events in setting 

section 111 standards of performance. 

The EPA’s approach to malfunctions in 

the analogous circumstances (setting 

‘‘achievable’’ standards under section 

112) has been upheld as reasonable by 

the D.C Circuit in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. 

EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606–610 (D.C. Cir. 

2016). 

B. Amendments to Standards of 

Performance for Steel Plants: Electric 

Arc Furnaces Constructed After October 

21, 1974, and on or Before August 17, 

1983, and Standards of Performance for 

Steel Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces and 

Argon-Oxygen Decarburization Vessels 

Constructed After August 17, 1983, and 

on or Before May 16, 2022 

Amendments to 40 CFR part 60, 

subparts AA and AAa are being 

proposed to clarify and refine the rule 

requirements by adding, removing, or 

revising ambiguous or outdated 

definitions, compliance, measurement, 

monitoring, and reporting requirements; 

specifically, 40 CFR part 60, sections 

60.271 and 60.271a ‘‘Definitions’’, 

60.272 and 60.272a ‘‘Standard for 

particulate matter’’, 60.273 and 60.273a 

‘‘Emission monitoring’’, 60.274a 

‘‘Monitoring of operations’’, 60.275a 

‘‘Test methods and procedures’’, and 

60.276a ‘‘Recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements’’. 

We are proposing minor revisions to 

40 CFR part 63, subparts AA and AAa 

(and also include in proposed subpart 

AAb) in the above-mentioned sections 

to clarify the rule and enhance 

compliance and enforcement. One 

change being considered but not 

proposed is discussed in further detail 

in the following paragraphs. The EPA 

requests comments as to the 

appropriateness of all the revisions 

proposed or considered. 

The current rules, 40 CFR part 60, 

subparts AA and AAa, require facilities 

to respond to a BLDS alarm and 

complete corrective action for the cause 

of the alarm within 3 hours. However, 

the industry has stated that there have 

been instances where there was 

insufficient time to respond to a BLDS 

alarm within 3 hours to both find and 

fix the cause of a BLDS alarm. 

According to the SMA, facility owners 

and operators report that determining 

the cause of the alarm often requires 

operators to undertake a multi-step 

troubleshooting process that requires 

numerous physical inspections and 

other diagnostic efforts that sometimes 

takes longer than 3 hours. 

Some baghouses in the industry can 

have more than 25 compartments 

housing 5,000 or more individual bags. 

In these instances, facilities may have to 

sequentially isolate compartments to 

determine which compartment might 

have caused the BLDS alarm. The 

facility must then physically examine 

each of the compartments. If a bag has 

a significant rupture, the cause of the 

alarm likely will be apparent during that 

inspection. However, given the 

sensitivity of BLDS, the alarms can be 

triggered by extremely small holes in 

bags. The SMA claims that, in these 

cases, even physical observation can fail 

to find any leak within the allocated 

time period. In the case of a false alarm, 

which can happen in some cases due to 

the sensitivity of the BLDS, the careful 

search of the isolated compartment(s) 

will yield no useful information, as per 

the SMA. However, it is important that 

baghouses work properly on a 

continuous basis to minimize PM 

emissions and that leaks, if present, are 

identified and fixed in a timely manner. 

Given the concerns raised by the 

SMA, we are soliciting comments as to 

whether the EPA should allow owners 

and operators a longer time period (e.g., 

8 hours, 12 hours, or 24 hours) to find 

and fix the cause of a BLDS alarm, 

which would be more consistent with 

the time period permitted in some other 

related rules, such as in the Integrated 

Iron and Steel NESHAP, as promulgated 

in 2003, 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF 

(see https://www.govinfo.gov/content/ 

pkg/CFR-2015-title40-vol14/pdf/CFR2015-title40-vol14-part63- 

subpartFFFFF.pdf), and the Taconite 

Iron Ore Processing NESHAP, 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart RRRRR, also 

promulgated in 2003 (see https://

www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR2015-title40-vol15/pdf/CFR-2015- 


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
29722 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 94 / Monday, May 16, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

18https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-airemissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert. 

19See 40 CFR part 60, subpart A, AAa, and AAb, 

Standards of Performance for Steel Plants: Electric 

Arc Furnaces and Argon-Oxygen Decarburization 

Vessels, 40 CFR part 60.276(g) Semiannual 

Compliance Report Spreadsheet Template, available 

at Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0049. 

20EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective 

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

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

21E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA 

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

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

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

09-30.pdf. 

22 Digital Government: Building a 21st Century 

Platform to Better Serve the American People. May 

2012. Available at: https://

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

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

23The PM2.5 to PM ratio is an average of similar 

uncontrolled sources, as cited in ‘‘Evaluation of 

title40-vol15-part63- 

subpartRRRRR.pdf), which both allow a 

24-hour response time to address BLDS 

alarms. 

We are soliciting comments, data, and 

other information regarding this issue 

and whether the EPA should change the 

time to both find and fix the cause of a 

BLDS alarm from 3 hours to a longer 

timeframe (e.g., 24 hours as in other 

rules, or some other duration), including 

whether this change would be an 

appropriate amount of time to allow for 

such action, and information supporting 

this change. We also solicit comments 

or suggestions regarding potential 

measures that could be required to be 

taken by facility owners or operators 

during the time the BLDS alarm is being 

investigated to ensure that the increase 

in time allowed to address a BLDS 

alarm does not result in an increase in 

emissions beyond the level allowable 

under the rule. For example, if we 

provided additional time to find and 

repair the cause of the alarm, are there 

additional steps that could be taken to 

ensure that the facility continues to 

comply with the current emissions 

standards (e.g., opacity limit of less than 

3 percent) during that period such as by 

requiring the facility to conduct an 

opacity test (EPA Method 9) or visible 

emissions test (EPA Method 21) on a 

regular basis (e.g., once every hour) 

until the cause of the alarm is found and 

fixed. 

C. Electronic Reporting 

The EPA is proposing that owners or 

operators of EAF facilities submit 

electronic copies of required 

performance test/demonstration of 

compliance reports and semiannual 

reports through the EPA’s Central Data 

Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance 

and Emissions Data Reporting Interface 

(CEDRI). A description of the electronic 

data submission process is provided in 

the memorandum Electronic Reporting 

Requirements for New Source 

Performance Standards (NSPS) and 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) 

Rules, available in the docket for this 

action. The proposed rule would require 

that performance test/demonstration of 

compliance results collected using test 

methods that are supported by the 

EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) 

as listed on the ERT website 18 at the 

time of the test be submitted in the 

format generated through the use of the 

ERT or an electronic file consistent with 

the xml schema on the ERT website, and 

other performance test/demonstration of 

compliance results be submitted in 

portable document format (PDF) using 

the attachment module of the ERT. 

For semiannual reports, the proposed 

rule would require that owners or 

operators use the appropriate 

spreadsheet template to submit 

information to CEDRI. A draft version of 

the proposed templates for these reports 

is included in the docket for this 

action.19 The EPA specifically requests 

comment on the content, layout, and 

overall design of the template. 

Additionally, the EPA has identified 

two broad circumstances in which 

electronic reporting extensions may be 

provided. These circumstances are (1) 

outages of the EPA’s CDX or CEDRI 

which preclude an owner or operator 

from accessing the system and 

submitting required reports; and (2) 

force majeure events, which are defined 

as events that will be or have been 

caused by circumstances beyond the 

control of the affected facility, its 

contractors, or any entity controlled by 

the affected facility that prevent an 

owner or operator from complying with 

the requirement to submit a report 

electronically. Examples of force 

majeure events are acts of nature, acts 

of war or terrorism, equipment failure, 

or safety hazards beyond the control of 

the facility. The EPA is providing these 

potential extensions to protect owners 

or operators from noncompliance in 

cases where they cannot successfully 

submit a report by the reporting 

deadline for reasons outside of their 

control. In both circumstances, the 

decision to accept the claim of needing 

additional time to report is within the 

discretion of the Administrator, and 

reporting should occur as soon as 

possible. 

The electronic submittal of the reports 

addressed in this proposed rulemaking 

would increase the usefulness of the 

data contained in those reports and is 

keeping with current trends in data 

availability and transparency. Electronic 

submittal would further assist in the 

protection of public health and the 

environment by improving compliance, 

facilitating the ability of regulated 

facilities to demonstrate compliance 

with requirements, and by facilitating 

the ability of delegated state, local, 

tribal, and territorial air agencies and 

the EPA to assess and determine 

compliance. Ultimately, electronic 

reporting would reduce the burden on 

regulated facilities, delegated air 

agencies, and the EPA by making the 

data easy to record and read. Electronic 

reporting also eliminates paper waste 

and redundancies and minimizes data 

reporting errors. The resulting electronic 

data are more quickly and accurately 

accessible to the affected facilities, air 

agencies, the EPA, and the public. 

Moreover, electronic reporting is 

consistent with the EPA’s plan 20 to 

implement Executive Order 13563 and 

is in keeping with the EPA’s agencywide policy 21 developed in response to 

the White House’s Digital Government 

Strategy.22 For more information on the 

benefits of electronic reporting, see the 

memorandum Electronic Reporting 

Requirements for New Source 

Performance Standards (NSPS) and 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) 

Rules, referenced earlier in this section. 

IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, 

and Economic Impacts 

A. What are the air quality and other 

environmental impacts? 

For proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

AAb, the reductions in PM potentially 

emitted would have a beneficial air 

impact when comparing 6 percent melt 

shop opacity in the baseline to the 0 

percent opacity proposed for 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart AAb. Similarly, 

reductions in PM less than 2.5 

micrometers (PM2.5) potentially emitted 

also are estimated from new, modified 

and reconstructed EAF under the 

proposed NSPS rule, 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart AAb, compared to the emissions 

that are allowed under the current NSPS 

with 6 percent melt shop opacity. 

Based on the actual emissions emitted 

by 31 facilities in the EAF data, where 

the actual average opacity was 0.14 

percent, the emissions impact for PM 

from nine new facilities projected in the 

next 10 years (estimated to reflect three 

small, four medium, and two large) is 

estimated to be an emissions reduction 

of 142 Mg (157 tons) PM that would 

otherwise be emitted in 2032. Using an 

estimate of 0.218 23 for the ratio of PM2.5


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 94 / Monday, May 16, 2022 / Proposed Rules 29723 

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. 

24Proven Waelz Kiln Technology. Accessed 2/18/ 

22. http://www.globalsteeldust.com/waelz_kiln_

technology. 

25Ru ̈tten, J. Application of the Waelz Technology 

on Resource Recycling of Steel Mill Dust. 

Du ̈ sseldorf: GmbH. D–40225, 2006. 

to PM the emissions impact for PM2.5

from nine new facilities projected in the 

next 10 years, as above, would be an 

emissions reduction of 30 Mg (33 tons) 

of PM2.5 in 2032. Details of the 

emissions estimates can be found in the 

memorandum titled ‘‘Particulate Matter 

Emissions from Electric Arc Furnace 

Facilities’’ located in the docket for this 

rule (Docket ID No. EPA–OAR–2002– 

0049) and hereafter referred to as the 

‘‘Emissions Memorandum.’’ No PM 

emission reductions are estimated for 

the new PM limit for facility-wide total 

baghouse emissions in mg/Mg (lb/ton) 

because all facilities in the 2010 EAF 

data could meet the new limit and, 

therefore, we expect that all new 

facilities also would be able to meet the 

limit. The EPA asks for comments on 

these assumptions and for emission test 

reports, where appropriate. 

Solid wastes would increase slightly, 

approximately 17 tons per facility, on 

average, with the additional PM 

collected to meet 0 percent melt shop 

opacity limit under proposed 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart AAb as compared to 

current facilities meeting opacity limits 

under 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA and 

AAa. The small increase in solid wastes 

would be the same for both the carbon 

and specialty steel shops. However, 

most EAF dust is recycled to reclaim 

zinc.24 25

A relatively small increase in energy 

results from the use of electricity to 

power fans that draw EAF exhaust air 

into the canopy hood that captures the 

PM and sends PM-laden air to the 

baghouse, at 66, 940, 4,700 MW-hr per 

year for small, medium, and large 

facilities, respectively. Some decrease in 

energy use may occur if the A/C ratio of 

the fabric filters to meet the proposed 

facility baghouse standard is lowered 

due to an increase in number of bags. 

Finally, there would be no water or 

noise impacts with the proposed 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart AAb. 

B. What are the cost impacts? 

Costs are estimated for regular testing 

every 5 years for nine new facilities 

projected in the 10 years after proposal. 

Annual testing costs are $6,672 per year 

for conducting EPA Method 5 for PM 

emissions at each baghouse’s exhaust 

for each facility over a 5-year period, 

using an estimate of 1.64 baghouses per 

facility based on the EAF data. While 

new sources that start up after proposal 

would be subject to testing every five 

years under the proposed NSPS, 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart AAb, EPA Method 5 

testing is required upon initial startup 

under 40 CFR part 60.8. Therefore, in 

the first 5 years after startup there 

would be no testing costs as a result of 

the proposed rule for new sources that 

start up in this period. In the sixth year 

through the tenth year after initial 

startup, the new sources estimated to 

start up in the first five years after 

proposal would incur costs of 

approximately $6,000 per year for 

testing, based on an estimate of 0.9 new 

facilities per year (0.9 × $6,672). 

Because the startup of new facilities is 

estimated to be staggered, with 0.9 new 

facilities starting each year after 

proposal, the total costs for testing 

under this rule after the initial testing 

required under 40 CFR part 60.8 would 

range from approximately $6,000 in the 

sixth year after proposal to a total of 

approximately $30,000 in the tenth year 

after proposal (reflecting costs for 4.5 

facilities (0.9 × 5 years)), where the 

testing costs that would occur in years 

six through ten are for the new facilities 

that start up in years one through five 

after proposal. 

Based on information from 2010 

through 2017 obtained by the EPA for 

31 EAF facilities, the EPA found the 

average opacity to be 0.14 percent, with 

about half of the units achieving 0 

percent opacity in the tests. Because 

opacity in the baseline in already low, 

the EPA expects any new, modified or 

reconstructed facility would be able to 

meet the proposed opacity and PM 

limits without any additional control 

devices beyond those already required 

by the NSR program or applicable state 

requirements or by minor process 

changes to improve capture of exhaust 

flows or other process parameters, if 

needed. While the actual cost impacts of 

the proposed 0 percent opacity limit 

would likely be substantially lower, the 

EPA developed an upper bound 

estimate of potential compliance costs 

based upon the assumption that affected 

units would install a partial roof canopy 

above the crane rails to ensure 0 percent 

melt shop opacity compared to a 

hypothetical baseline model facility 

meeting 6 percent opacity. These costs 

are estimated to be $60,000, $800,000, 

and $4,000,000 per year per facility for 

small, medium, and large model 

facilities, respectively. 

Total annual costs for 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart AAb, based on nine new 

facilities in the first 10 years after 

proposal are $180,000 per year for three 

small facilities, $3,200,000 per year for 

four medium facilities, and $8,000,000 

per year for two large facilities for a total 

of $11,380,000 per year by the tenth 

year after proposal using the same 

staggered startup rate described above 

for testing costs. Details of the cost 

estimates can be found in the Cost 

Memorandum.6

For the proposed mass-based PM 

standard in mg/kg (lb/ton) for facilitywide total baghouse PM emissions, we 

estimated the capital and annual costs 

between a baseline scenario based on 

the current NSPS individual baghouse 

limit (in mg/dscm (gr/dscf)) and a 

scenario based on a lower total facilitywide baghouse PM emissions in mg/kg 

(lb/ton), the format for the BSER we are 

proposing. Because data from the 31 

existing EAF facilities in the 2010 data 

acquired by the EPA that was used to 

develop the facility-wide PM limit show 

these facilities already could meet the 

79 mg/kg (0.16 lb/ton) total facility 

baghouse PM limit, we expect the 

proposed mass-based standard applied 

to future new, modified, and 

reconstructed EAF facilities would be 

feasible and pose minimal cost impacts, 

if any. The EPA asks for comments on 

these cost assumptions and for emission 

test reports, where appropriate. 

Additional cost analysis, including 

calculation of costs using the upper 

bound cost estimates for the installation 

of partial roof canopies, can be found in 

the Economic Impact Analysis (EIA) 

associated with this proposal, which is 

available in the docket for this rule. The 

EIA additionally presents costs in terms 

of the present value and equivalent 

annual value of projected compliance 

costs over the 2023 to 2032 period 

discounted at 3 and 7 percent. 

C. What are the economic impacts? 

Economic impact analyses focus on 

changes in market prices and output 

levels. If changes in market prices and 

output levels in the primary markets are 

significant enough, impacts on other 

markets may also be examined. Both the 

magnitude of costs associated with the 

proposed requirements and the 

distribution of these costs among 

affected facilities can have a role in 

determining how the market will change 

in response to a regulatory requirement. 

As discussed in section IV.B., the cost 

analysis incorporates the assumption 

that units affected by the new subpart 

AAb would install a partial roof canopy 

above the crane rails to ensure 0 percent 

melt shop opacity compared to a 

hypothetical baseline model facility 

meeting 6 percent opacity. The costs 

should be viewed as upper bound 


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
29724 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 94 / Monday, May 16, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

26 Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate 

Matter (Final Report, 2019). EPA/600/R–19/188. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, DC. 2019. 

27Estimating 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. 

28Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to 

Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations. 59 FR 

7629, February 16, 1994. 

estimates on the potential compliance 

costs as the EPA expects any new, 

modified or reconstructed facility would 

be able to meet the proposed opacity 

and PM limits without any additional 

control devices beyond those already 

required by the NSR program or 

applicable state requirements or by 

minor process changes to improve 

capture of exhaust flows or other 

process parameters, if needed. As 

discussed in the EIA, even under the 

upper bound cost assumptions 

described above, the EPA expects the 

potential economic impacts of this 

proposal will be small. 

As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA), we performed an 

analysis to determine if any small 

entities might be disproportionately 

impacts the proposed requirements. The 

EPA does not know what firms will 

construct new facilities in the future 

and, as a result, cannot perform a costto-sales analysis with the same 

confidence as we do with firms owning 

existing facilities. However, based on an 

assessment of the new units built during 

the 2011 to 2020 period and the units 

that have been announced, which are all 

owned by firms that are not considered 

to be small businesses, the EPA does not 

believe it is likely that any future 

facilities will be built by a small 

business. See the EIA in the docket for 

this action for additional information on 

the analysis presented in this section. 

D. What are the benefits? 

The proposed revisions to 40 CFR part 

60, subparts AA and AAa would both 

clarify the rule and enhance compliance 

and enforcement. Implementing the 

proposed subpart, 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart AAb, is expected to reduce PM 

emissions, including PM2.5. As 

explained in section IV.A, the proposed 

requirements are projected to reduce 30 

Mg (33 tons) of PM2.5 in 2032. These 

emissions reductions would be expected 

to produce health benefits in the 

affected locations. The Integrated 

Science Assessment for Particulate 

Matter (ISA) report 26 contains 

synthesized toxicological, clinical, and 

epidemiological evidence that the EPA 

uses to determine whether each 

pollutant is causally related to an array 

of adverse human health outcomes 

associated with either acute (i.e., hours 

or days-long) or chronic (i.e., years-long) 

exposure. For each outcome, the ISA 

report includes the EPA conclusions as 

to whether this relationship is causal, 

likely to be causal, suggestive of a causal 

relationship, inadequate to infer a 

causal relationship, or not likely to be 

a causal relationship. 

In the ISA report it was found that 

acute exposure to PM2.5 was causally 

related to cardiovascular effects and 

mortality (i.e., premature death), and 

respiratory effects as likely-to-becausally related. In the ISA report, the 

EPA identified cardiovascular effects 

and total mortality as causally related to 

long-term exposure to PM2.5 and 

respiratory effects as likely-to-be-causal; 

and the evidence was suggestive of a 

causal relationship for reproductive and 

developmental effects as well as cancer, 

mutagenicity, and genotoxicity. 

The benefits per ton (BPT) of the 

PM2.5 emissions reductions cited above 

for years 2025 and 2030 and at 3 percent 

and 7 percent discount rates are 

presented in Table 5 below in 2020 

dollars. Information regarding the 

process by which these BPTs were 

calculated is available in the technical 

support document Estimating the 

Benefit per Ton of Reducing DirectlyEmitted PM2.5, PM2.5 Precursors and 

Ozone Precursors from 21 Sectors.27

TABLE 5—BENEFITS PER TON OF PM2.5 REDUCED

Year 

$/ton PM2.5 emission reductions—$2020 

3 Percent discount rate 7 Percent discount rate 

Low High Low High 

2025 ................................................................................................................. $407,000 $413,000 $366,000 $371,000 

2030 ................................................................................................................. 431,000 449,000 388,000 404,000 

Note: The range reported here reflects the use of risk estimates from two alternative long-term exposure PM-mortality studies. 

E. What are the environmental justice 

impacts? 

Consistent with the EPA’s 

commitment to integrating 

environmental justice (EJ) in the 

agency’s actions, and following the 

directives set forth in multiple 

Executive Orders,28 the Agency has 

carefully considered the impacts of this 

action on communities with EJ 

concerns, as per Executive Order 12898 

(see section V.J below for more 

discussion). We do not know the 

locations of future new, modified, or 

reconstructed facilities that are affected 

by this rule, therefore, we assessed the 

population living in areas around 

existing EAF facilities. 

Demographic proximity analyses 

allow one to assess the proximity of 

vulnerable populations to 

environmental hazards as a proxy for 

exposure and the potential for adverse 

health impacts that may occur at a local 

scale due to economic activity at a given 

location such as noise, odors, and 

traffic. We include the following 

proximity screening analyses to 

characterize the potential for 

communities with EJ concerns to be 

impacted by emissions sources covered 

under this EPA action. 

Although baseline proximity analyses 

are presented here, several important 

caveats should be noted. Emissions are 

not expected to increase from the 

proposed rulemaking, so most 

communities nearby affected facilities 

should not experience increases in 

exposure from directly-emitted 

pollutants. However, facilities may vary 

widely in terms of the risk they already 

pose to nearby populations; therefore, 

proximity to affected facilities does not 

capture the variation in baseline 

exposure across communities. Nor does 

it indicate that any exposures or impacts 

would occur and should not be 

interpreted as a direct measure of 

exposure or impact. These points limit 

the usefulness of proximity analyses 

when attempting to answer question 1 


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 94 / Monday, May 16, 2022 / Proposed Rules 29725 

29Technical Guidance for Assessing 

Environmental Justice in Regulatory Actions. 

Section 3: Key Analytic Considerations, 3.1 

Analyzing Differential Impacts. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Washington, DC. June 2016. p. 

11. See https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/ 

2016-06/documents/ejtg_5_6_16_v5.1.pdf. 

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

or 2 from the EPA’s EJ technical 

guidance: (1) [Does the rule] ‘‘create 

new disproportionate impacts on 

minority populations, low-income 

populations, and/or indigenous 

peoples’’; and (2) [Does the rule] 

‘‘exacerbate existing disproportionate 

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

peoples.’’ 29

We note that while the total 

proportion of people of color in 

proximity to existing EAF facilities is 

similar to the national average, the 

population of African Americans is 

higher than the national average. Also, 

the education level of populations near 

existing sources is similar to the 

national average; however, the percent 

of population living below the poverty 

level is above the national average. 

For the new EAF proposed rule, 

subpart, 40 CFR part AAb, the EPA 

expects that the proposed rule would 

enhance compliance by increasing the 

frequency of emissions testing, reducing 

emissions of PM by meeting a lower 

opacity limit for melt shop roof vents, 

improving the reporting of total facilitywide baghouse emissions, and requiring 

facilities to meet the proposed 

standards, including opacity, at all 

times, thereby overriding compliance 

exemptions in the General Provisions to 

CAA part 60 (part 60.11(c)) provided for 

opacity during periods of startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction. 

Following is a more detailed 

description of how the agency considers 

EJ in the context of regulatory 

development, and specific actions taken 

to address EJ concerns for this action. 

Executive Order 12898 directs the 

EPA to identify the populations of 

concern who are most likely to 

experience unequal burdens from 

environmental harms; specifically, 

minority populations, low-income 

populations, and indigenous peoples 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

Additionally, Executive Order 13985 is 

intended to advance racial equity and 

support underserved communities 

through federal government actions (86 

FR 7009, January 20, 2021). The EPA 

defines EJ as ‘‘the fair treatment and 

meaningful involvement of all people 

regardless of race, color, national origin, 

or income, with respect to the 

development, implementation, and 

enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies.’’ 30 The EPA 

further defines the term fair treatment to 

mean that ‘‘no group of people should 

bear a disproportionate burden of 

environmental harms and risks, 

including those resulting from the 

negative environmental consequences of 

industrial, governmental, and 

commercial operations or programs and 

policies.’’ In recognizing that minority 

and low-income populations often bear 

an unequal burden of environmental 

harms and risks, the EPA continues to 

consider ways of protecting them from 

adverse public health and 

environmental effects of air pollution. 

To examine some population 

demographics of communities residing 

nearby existing sources, we performed a 

demographic analysis, which is an 

assessment of individual demographic 

groups of the populations living within 

5 kilometers (km) and within 50 km of 

the facilities. The EPA then compared 

the data from this analysis to the 

national average for each of the 

demographic groups. 

This action proposes standards of 

performance for new, modified, and 

reconstructed EAF sources that 

commence construction after the rule is 

proposed. Therefore, the locations of the 

construction of new EAF facilities are 

not known. In addition, it is not known 

which of the existing EAF facilities 

would be modified or reconstructed in 

the future. Therefore, the demographic 

analysis was conducted for the 88 

existing EAF facilities as a 

characterization of the demographics in 

areas where these facilities are now 

located. 

The results of the demographic 

analysis (see Table 6) indicate that, for 

populations within 5 km of the 88 

existing EAF facilities, the percent 

minority population (being the total 

population minus the white population) 

is below the national average (37 

percent versus 40 percent). This 

difference is largely driven by the 

percent Hispanic or Latino population 

that is lower than the national average 

(14 percent versus 19 percent). 

However, the percent of the population 

that is African American is above the 

national average (17 percent versus 12 

percent). The percent of people living 

below the poverty level is higher than 

the national average (17 percent versus 

13 percent). The percent of the 

population over 25 without a high 

school diploma and the percent of the 

population in linguistic isolation are 

similar to the national averages. 

The results of the analysis of 

populations within 50 km of the 88 EAF 

facilities is similar to the 5 km analysis 

for minorities, with lower total 

minorities being driven by a smaller 

Hispanic or Latino population and the 

African American population being 

slightly above the national average. 

However, the percent of the population 

living below the poverty level, over 25 

without a high school diploma, and in 

linguistic isolation were all similar to 

the national averages. 

A summary of the demographic 

assessment performed for the EAF 

facilities is included as Table 6. The 

methodology and the results of the 

demographic analysis are presented in a 

technical report, Analysis of 

Demographic Factors for Populations 

Living Near Electric Arc Furnace 

Facilities, available in the docket for this 

action (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2002–0049). 

TABLE 6—DEMOGRAPHIC ASSESSMENT RESULTS FOR EAF FACILITIES

Demographic group Nationwide 

Population 

within 50 km of 

88 existing 

EAF facilities 

Population 

within 5 km of 

88 existing 

EAF facilities 

Total Population ........................................................................................................................... 328,016,242 71,577,375 2,781,377 

White and Minority by Percent 

White ............................................................................................................................................ 60% 62% 63% 

Minority ........................................................................................................................................ 40% 38% 37% 


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
29726 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 94 / Monday, May 16, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 6—DEMOGRAPHIC ASSESSMENT RESULTS FOR EAF FACILITIES—Continued 

Demographic group Nationwide 

Population 

within 50 km of 

88 existing 

EAF facilities 

Population 

within 5 km of 

88 existing 

EAF facilities 

Minority by Percent 

African American ......................................................................................................................... 12% 15% 17% 

Native American .......................................................................................................................... 0.7% 0.3% 0.3% 

Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite) ....................................................................... 19% 15% 14% 

Other and Multiracial ................................................................................................................... 8% 8% 7% 

Income by Percent 

Below Poverty Level .................................................................................................................... 13% 13% 17% 

Above Poverty Level .................................................................................................................... 87% 87% 83% 

Education by Percent 

Over 25 and without a High School Diploma .............................................................................. 12% 11% 11% 

Over 25 and with a High School Diploma ................................................................................... 88% 89% 89% 

Linguistically Isolated by Percent 

Linguistically Isolated ................................................................................................................... 5% 5% 4% 

Notes: 

1. The nationwide population count and all demographic percentages are based on the Census’ 2015–2019 American Community Survey fiveyear block group averages and include Puerto Rico. Demographic percentages based on different averages may differ. The total population 

counts within 5 km and 50 km of all facilities are based on the 2010 Decennial Census block populations. 

2. Minority population is the total population minus the white population. 

3. To avoid double counting, the ‘‘Hispanic or Latino’’ category is treated as a distinct demographic category for these analyses. A person is 

identified as one of five racial/ethnic categories above: White, African American, Native American, Other and Multiracial, or Hispanic/Latino. A 

person who identifies as Hispanic or Latino is counted as Hispanic/Latino for this analysis, regardless of what race this person may have also 

identified as in the Census. 

4. This action proposes standards of performance for new, modified, and reconstructed sources that commence construction after the rule is 

proposed. Therefore, the locations of the construction of new EAF facilities are not known. In addition, it is not known which of the existing EAF 

facilities would be modified or reconstructed in the future. Therefore, the demographic analysis was conducted for the 88 existing EAF facilities 

as a characterization of the demographics in areas where these facilities are now located. 

The EPA expects that the Standards of 

Performance for Steel Plants: Electric 

Arc Furnaces and Argon-Oxygen 

Decarburization Vessels Constructed 

After May 16, 2022 would ensure 

compliance via frequent testing and 

reduce emissions via a lower opacity 

limit for melt shop roof vents and by 

meeting all the proposed standards at all 

times (including periods of startup, 

shutdown, and malfunctions). 

Therefore, there may be a positive, 

beneficial effect for populations in 

proximity to any future affected sources, 

including in communities potentially 

overburdened by pollution, which are 

often minority, low-income and 

indigenous communities. 

The EPA is asking for comment on the 

list of the current 88 EAF facilities 

thought to be subject to the NSPS. The 

ExcelTM file document named ‘‘EAF 

NSPS Facility List 2022’’ in the docket 

for this rulemaking (EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2002–0049) contains the list of the 88 

EAF NSPS facilities and is formatted to 

allow for public comments. Please 

follow the instructions in the file’s first 

worksheet, called ‘‘How to Comment,’’ 

that describes the procedures to 

comment and submit the edited file 

back to the EPA. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at https://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was, therefore, not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection activities 

in this proposed rule have been 

submitted for approval to OMB under 

the PRA. The ICR document that the 

EPA prepared has been assigned the 

EPA ICR number 1060.19. You can find 

a copy of the ICR in the docket for this 

rule, and it is briefly summarized here. 

The information collection requirements 

are not enforceable until OMB approves 

them. 

We are proposing amendments to 40 

CFR part 60, AA and AAa that require 

electronic reporting, and editorial and 

clarifying changes to rule language that 

are estimated to reduce time spent and 

paperwork for rule. We are proposing a 

new subpart for new, modified, or 

reconstructed facilities that start up after 

this proposal (40 CFR part 60, subpart 

AAb) with similar reporting, 

recordkeeping, and compliance 

requirements as 40 CFR part 60, 

subparts AA and AAa. 

Respondents/affected entities: EAF 

facilities. 

Respondent’s obligation to respond: 

Mandatory (40 CFR part 60, subparts 

AA; AAa; and AAb). 

Estimated number of respondents: 90, 

includes 88 estimated current facilities 

subject to 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA 

and AAa, and three new facilities that 

would be subject to 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart AAb in the three years after 

proposal. 

Frequency of Response: One time. 

Total estimated burden: The annual 

recordkeeping and reporting burden for 

facilities to comply with all the 

requirements in the NSPS is estimated 

to be 57,100 hours (per year). Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 94 / Monday, May 16, 2022 / Proposed Rules 29727 

Total estimated cost: The annual 

recordkeeping and reporting costs for all 

facilities to comply with all of the 

requirements in the NSPS is estimated 

to be $6,950,000 (per year), of which 

$61,617 (per year) is for this proposed 

rule ($60,964 for Method 5 compliance 

and $653 for electronic reporting), and 

$6,690,000 for other costs related to 

continued compliance with the NSPS, 

including $200,000 for paperwork 

associated with operation and 

maintenance requirements. The total 

rule costs reflect a reduction cost of 

$400,000 (per year) from the previous 

ICR that reflects savings due to 

electronic reporting. 

An Agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When 

OMB approves this ICR, the Agency will 

announce that approval in the Federal 

Register and publish a technical 

amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display 

the OMB control number for the 

approved information collection 

activities contained in this final rule. 

You may submit your comments on the 

Agency’s need for this information, the 

accuracy of the provided burden 

estimates and any suggested methods 

for minimizing respondent burden to 

the EPA using the docket identified at 

the beginning of this rule. You may also 

send your ICR-related comments to 

OMB’s Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs via email to OIRA_

submission@omb.eop.gov, Attention: 

Desk Officer for the EPA. Since OMB is 

required to make a decision concerning 

the ICR between 30 and 60 days after 

receipt, OMB must receive comments no 

later than June 15, 2022. The EPA will 

respond to any ICR-related comments in 

the final rule. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

I certify that this action would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. This action is not 

expected to impose any requirements on 

the three identified small entities among 

the approximately 90 EAF facilities (36 

companies), because most facilities are 

likely to be performing regular 

compliance tests as part of their permit 

renewal process. Additionally, no 

facilities are expected to be built by 

small entities over the next 10 years 

based on past industry growth and small 

business starts. The three current 

facilities owned by small businesses 

were started in 1912, 1968, and 1994, 

respectively. Further discussion is 

included in the EIA for this proposal. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 (UMRA) 

This action does not contain an 

unfunded mandate of $100 million or 

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

1531–1538, and does not significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. 

While this action creates an enforceable 

duty on the private sector, the cost does 

not exceed $100 million or more. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It would not have 

substantial direct effects on the states, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. It would not have 

substantial direct effects on tribal 

governments, on the relationship 

between the Federal government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal government and Indian tribes. 

No tribal governments own facilities 

that are the subject of this rulemaking. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because the EPA does not 

believe there are any environmental 

health or safety risks that 

disproportionately affects children due 

to this action. In addition, we believe 

there would be a positive, beneficial 

health effect for children as well as 

others living in proximity to new 

affected sources as a result of the 

specific aspects of the proposed rule not 

in the current rules, such as ensuring 

compliance via frequent testing, meeting 

a lower opacity limit for melt shop roof 

vents, reporting baghouse emissions as 

a facility-wide total, and meeting all the 

proposed standards at all times, 

including periods of startup, shutdown, 

and malfunctions. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR 

Part 51 

This action involves technical 

standards. Therefore, the EPA 

conducted searches for the EAF NSPS 

through the Enhanced National 

Standards Systems Network Database 

managed by the American National 

Standards Institute (ANSI). We also 

contacted voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS)organizations and 

accessed and searched their databases. 

We conducted searches for EPA 

Methods 1, 2, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 5D, and 

22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. 

During the EPA’s VCS search, if the title 

or abstract (if provided) of the VCS 

described technical sampling and 

analytical procedures that are similar to 

the EPA’s reference method, the EPA 

reviewed it as a potential equivalent 

method. We reviewed all potential 

standards to determine the practicality 

of the VCS for this rule. This review 

requires significant method validation 

data that meet the requirements of EPA 

Method 301 for accepting alternative 

methods or scientific, engineering and 

policy equivalence to procedures in the 

EPA reference methods. The EPA may 

reconsider determinations of 

impracticality when additional 

information is available for a particular 

VCS. No applicable VCS were identified 

for EPA Methods 5D and 22. 

The EPA is incorporating by reference 

the VCS ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981, 

‘‘Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,’’ to 

provide that the manual procedures (but 

not instrumental procedures) of VCS 

ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981—Part 10 

may be used as an alternative to EPA 

Method 3B. The manual procedures (but 

not instrumental procedures) of VCS 

ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981—Part 10 

(incorporated by reference—see 40 CFR 

63.14) may be used as an alternative to 

EPA Method 3B for measuring the 

oxygen or carbon dioxide content of the 

exhaust gas. This standard is acceptable 

as an alternative to EPA Method 3B and 

is available from ASME at https://

www.asme.org; by mail at Three Park 

Avenue, New York, NY 10016–5990; or 

by telephone at (800) 843–2763. This 

method determines quantitatively the 

gaseous constituents of exhausts 

resulting from stationary combustion 


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
29728 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 94 / Monday, May 16, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

sources. The gases covered in ANSI/ 

ASME PTC 19.10–1981 are oxygen, 

carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, 

nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, sulfur trioxide, 

nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide, hydrogen 

sulfide, and hydrocarbons; however, the 

use in this rule is only applicable to 

oxygen and carbon dioxide. 

In the proposed rule, the EPA is 

incorporating by reference the VCS 

ASTM D7520–16, Standard Test Method 

for Determining the Opacity of a Plume 

in the Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere, as 

an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 

9 with the following caveats: 

• During the DCOT certification 

procedure outlined in Section 9.2 of 

ASTM D7520–16, the facility or the 

DCOT vendor must present the plumes 

in front of various backgrounds of color 

and contrast representing conditions 

anticipated during field use such as blue 

sky, trees, and mixed backgrounds 

(clouds or a sparse tree stand). 

• The facility must also have standard 

operating procedures in place including 

daily or other frequency quality checks 

to ensure the equipment is within 

manufacturing specifications as 

outlined in Section 8.1 of ASTM 

D7520–16. 

• The facility must follow the 

recordkeeping procedures outlined in 

40 CFR 63.10(b)(1) for the DCOT 

certification, compliance report, data 

sheets, and all raw unaltered JPEGs used 

for opacity and certification 

determination. 

• The facility or the DCOT vendor 

must have a minimum of four 

independent technology users apply the 

software to determine the visible 

opacity of the 300 certification plumes. 

For each set of 25 plumes, the user may 

not exceed 15-percent opacity of anyone 

reading and the average error must not 

exceed 7.5-percent opacity. 

• This approval does not provide or 

imply a certification or validation of any 

vendor’s hardware or software. The 

onus to maintain and verify the 

certification or training of the DCOT 

camera, software, and operator in 

accordance with ASTM D7520–16 is on 

the facility, DCOT operator, and DCOT 

vendor. This method describes 

procedures to determine the opacity of 

a plume, using digital imagery and 

associated hardware and software, 

where opacity is caused by PM emitted 

from a stationary point source in the 

outdoor ambient environment. The 

opacity of emissions is determined by 

the application of a DCOT that consists 

of a digital still camera, analysis 

software, and the output function’s 

content to obtain and interpret digital 

images to determine and report plume 

opacity. The ASTM D7520–16 

document is available from ASTM at 

https://www.astm.org or l100 Barr 

Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 

19428–2959, telephone number: (610) 

832–9500, fax number: (610) 8329555 at 

service@astm.org. 

The EPA is finalizing the use of the 

guidance document, Fabric Filter Bag 

Leak Detection Guidance, EPA–454/R– 

98–015, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards (OAQPS), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 

September 1997. This document 

provides guidance on the use of 

triboelectric monitors as fabric filter bag 

leak detectors. The document includes 

fabric filter and monitoring system 

descriptions; guidance on monitor 

selection, installation, setup, 

adjustment, and operation; and quality 

assurance procedures. The document is 

available at https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ 

ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=2000D5T6.PDF. 

Additional information for the VCS 

search and determinations can be found 

in the three memoranda titled Voluntary 

Consensus Standard Results for 

Standards of Performance for Steel 

Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces 

Constructed After October 21, 1974, and 

On or Before August 17, 1983; Voluntary 

Consensus Standard Results for 

Standards of Performance for Steel 

Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces and 

Argon-Oxygen Decarburization Vessels 

Constructed After August 17, 1983, and 

On or Before May 16, 2022; and 

Voluntary Consensus Standard Results 

for Standards of Performance for Steel 

Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces and 

Argon-Oxygen Decarburization Vessels 

Constructed After May 16, 2022, 

available in the docket for this proposed 

rule. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

The EPA believes that this action does 

not have disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority populations and 

indigenous peoples, as specified in 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994). The impacts of these 

proposed rules are to clarify current 

rules and, for new sources built after 

publication of this proposal, to ensure 

compliance via frequent testing, to meet 

a lower opacity limit for melt shop roof 

vents, to report baghouse emissions as a 

facility-wide total, and to meet all the 

proposed standards at all times, 

including periods of startup, shutdown, 

and malfunctions. The documentation 

for this decision is contained in section 

IV.E of this preamble and in a technical 

report, Analysis of Demographic Factors 

for Populations Living Near Electric Arc 

Furnace Facilities, located in the docket 

for this rule. 

Michael S. Regan, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2022–09589 Filed 5–13–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 118 and 300 

[EPA–HQ–OLEM–2021–0585; FRL–7881– 

03–OLEM] 

RIN 2050–AH17 

Clean Water Act Hazardous Substance 

Worst Case Discharge Planning 

Regulations; Extension of Comment 

Period 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Extension of comment period. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA or the Agency) is 

announcing an extension to the 

comment period for the proposed rule 

requiring an owner or operator of a 

facility to prepare and submit a plan for 

responding, to the maximum extent 

practicable, to a worst case discharge, 

and to a substantial threat of such a 

discharge, of a hazardous substance 

published in the Federal Register on 

March 28, 2022. EPA is proposing to 

require planning for worst case 

discharges of Clean Water Act (CWA) 

hazardous substances for onshore nontransportation-related facilities that 

could reasonably be expected to cause 

substantial harm to the environment by 

discharging CWA hazardous substances 

into or on the navigable waters, 

adjoining shorelines, or exclusive 

economic zone. The comment period is 

being extended to July 26, 2022. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 26, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OLEM–2021–0585, by any of the 

following methods: 

—Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://

www.regulations.gov/ (our preferred 

method). Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

—Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, EPA Docket Center, EPA– 

HQ–OLEM–2021–0585 Docket, Mail 

Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460. 

—Hand delivery or courier (by 

scheduled appointment only): EPA 


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1