Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083-1317
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities Technology Review
Posted Date: 2023-07-31T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 145 (Monday, July 31, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49402-49423]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-15085]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083; FRL-5919.1-01-OAR]
RIN 2060-AV82

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 
Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities Technology Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing 
amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants (NESHAP) for Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing 
Facilities, as required by the Clean Air Act (CAA). To complete the 
required CAA section 112(d)(6) technology review promulgated on July 
13, 2020, the EPA is proposing standards to regulate HAP emissions from 
five unmeasured fugitive and intermittent particulate (UFIP) sources, 
some of which are also referred to as ``fugitive'' sources, that are 
currently not regulated by the NESHAP, as follows: Bell Leaks, 
Unplanned Bleeder Valve Openings, Planned Bleeder Valve Openings, Slag 
Pits, and Beaching. Also, for sinter plants we are proposing standards 
for the following five currently unregulated HAP: carbonyl sulfide 
(COS), carbon disulfide (CS2), mercury (Hg), hydrochloric 
acid (HCl), and hydrogen fluoride (HF); for blast furnace (BF) stoves 
and basic oxygen process furnaces (BOPFs), we are proposing standards 
for the following three unregulated pollutants: total hydrocarbons 
(THC), HCl, and dioxins/furans (D/F); and for BFs, we are proposing 
standards for the following two unregulated pollutants: THC and HCl. As 
an update to the technology review, we are proposing to revise the 
current BOPF shop fugitive 20 percent opacity limit to a 5 percent 
opacity limit and require specific work practices; revise the current 
BF casthouse fugitive 20 percent opacity limit to a 5 percent opacity 
limit; and revise the current standards for D/F and polycyclic 
hydrocarbon (PAH) for sinter plants. We are also proposing a fenceline 
monitoring requirement for chromium (Cr), including a requirement that 
if a monitor exceeds the proposed Cr action level, the facility will 
need to conduct a root cause analysis and take corrective action to 
lower emissions. We solicit comments on all aspects of this proposed 
action.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before September 14, 
2023. 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 August 30, 2023.
    Public hearing: If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing 
on or before August 7, 2023 by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET), we will 
hold a virtual public hearing. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for 
information on requesting and registering for a public hearing.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2002-0083, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/ 
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
     Email: [email protected]. Include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2002-0083 in the subject line of the message.
     Fax: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2002-0083.
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket 
Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, WJC West 
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. 
The Docket Center's hours of operation are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., Monday-
Friday (except Federal holidays).
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID 
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change 
to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information 
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed 
action, contact Phil Mulrine, 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) 541-5289; and email address: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

[[Page 49403]]

    Participation in virtual public hearing.
    To request a virtual public hearing, contact the public hearing 
team at (888) 372-8699 or by email at [email protected]. If 
requested, the hearing will be held via virtual platform on August 15, 
2023. The hearing will convene at 10:00 a.m. 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/integrated-iron-and-steel-manufacturing-national-emission.
    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/integrated-iron-and-steel-manufacturing-national-emission or contact the public hearing team at 
(888) 372-8699 or by email at [email protected]. The last day 
to pre-register to speak at the hearing will be August 14, 2023. Prior 
to the hearing, the EPA will post a general agenda that will list pre-
registered speakers in approximate order at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/integrated-iron-and-steel-manufacturing-national-emission.
    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 4 minutes to provide oral testimony. The 
EPA encourages commenters to provide the EPA with a copy of their oral 
testimony electronically (via email) by emailing it to 
[email protected]. The EPA also recommends submitting the text of 
your oral testimony as written comments to the rulemaking docket.
    The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations 
but will not respond to the presentations at that time. Written 
statements and supporting information submitted during the comment 
period will be considered with the same weight as oral testimony and 
supporting information presented at the public hearing.
    Please note that any updates made to any aspect of the hearing will 
be posted online at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/integrated-iron-and-steel-manufacturing-national-emission. 
While the EPA expects the hearing to go forward as set forth above, 
please monitor our website or contact the public hearing team at (888) 
372-8699 or by email at [email protected] to determine if there 
are any updates. The EPA does not intend to publish a document in the 
Federal Register announcing updates.
    If you require the services of a translator or a special 
accommodation such as audio description, please pre-register for the 
hearing with the public hearing team and describe your needs by August 
7, 2023. 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-2002-0083. All documents in the docket are 
listed in https://www.regulations.gov/. Although listed, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business 
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is 
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard 
copy. With the exception of such material, publicly available docket 
materials are available electronically in Regulations.gov.
    Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2002-0083. 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://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    The https://www.regulations.gov/ website allows you to submit your 
comment anonymously, which means the EPA will not know your identity or 
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. 
If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through 
https://www.regulations.gov/, your email address will be automatically 
captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the 
public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an 
electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and 
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
digital storage media you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment 
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, 
the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files 
should not include special characters or any form of encryption and be 
free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the 
EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA 
through https://www.regulations.gov/. Clearly mark the part or all of 
the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on any 
digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, 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 the Instructions section of this document. 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 CFR (Code of Federal 
Regulations) 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

[[Page 49404]]

submissions must be transmitted directly to the OAQPS CBI Office at the 
email address [email protected], and as described above, should include 
clear CBI markings and note the docket ID. If assistance is needed with 
submitting large electronic files that exceed the file size limit for 
email attachments, and if you do not have your own file sharing 
service, please email [email protected] to request a file transfer link. 
If sending CBI information through the postal service, please send it 
to the following address: OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), 
OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, 
North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083. 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. Throughout this preamble the 
use of ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is intended to refer to the EPA. We 
use multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may 
not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for 
reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms 
here:

1-BP 1-bromopropane
ACI activated carbon injection
BF blast furnace
BOPF basic oxygen process furnace
BTF Beyond-the-Floor
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI Confidential Business Information
COS Carbonyl Sulfide
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
D/F dioxins and furans
EAV equivalent annualized value
EJ environmental justice
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FR Federal Register
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HCl hydrochloric acid
HF hydrogen fluoride
HMTDS hot metal transfer, desulfurization, and skimming
ICR Information Collection Request
km kilometer
MACT maximum achievable control technology
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
PM particulate matter
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PV present value
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RTR residual risk and technology review
THC total hydrocarbon
TEQ toxic equivalents
tpy tons per year
UFIP unmeasured fugitive and intermittent particulate
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
UPL upper prediction limit
VCS voluntary consensus standards
VE visible emissions
VOC volatile organic compound
WP work practice

    Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is 
organized as follows below. Section III of this preamble presents a 
summary of the analytical procedures and decision-making process. 
Section IV of this preamble describes the majority of the Agency's 
analytical results, proposed decisions and the rationale for the 
actions proposed in this action. Other sections include discussion of 
costs and impacts and the applicable executive orders, and other 
relevant topics, as outlined in the following table of contents.

Table of Contents

I. General Information
    A. Executive Summary
    B. Does this action apply to me?
    C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP 
regulate its HAP emissions?
    C. What data collection activities were conducted to support 
this action?
    D. What other relevant background information and data are 
available?
III. Analytical Procedures and Decision-Making
    A. How do we perform the technology review?
    B. How do we develop and calculate CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) 
standards?
IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions
    A. Proposed Standards To Address Five Unregulated UFIP Sources 
for Both New and Existing Sources
    B. Reconsideration of BF Casthouse and BOPF Shop Standards for 
Currently Regulated Fugitive Sources Under CAA 112(D)(6) Technology 
Review for Both New and Existing Sources
    C. Results of Fenceline Monitoring Data Analyses
    D. What are the proposed decisions based on our fenceline 
monitoring data analysis, and what is the rationale for those 
decisions?
    E. Proposed Standards To Address Unregulated Point Sources for 
Both New And Existing Sources
    F. Reconsideration of Standards for D/F and PAH for Sinter 
Plants Under CAA Section 112 (D)(6) Technology Review for Both New 
and Existing Sources
    G. Adding 1-Bromopropane to List of HAP
    H. What compliance dates are we proposing?
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
    A. What are the affected sources?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the benefits? F. What analysis of environmental 
justice did we conduct?
VI. Request for Comments
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and 13563 
Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 
1 CFR Part 51
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations

I. General Information

A. Executive Summary

1. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
    The EPA set maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards 
for the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities major source 
category in 2003 (68 FR 27645) under 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF and 
completed a residual risk and technology review final rule in July 2020 
(85 FR 42074). The purpose of this proposed rule is to (1) fulfill the 
EPA's statutory obligations pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) and the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit's interpretation of that 
statute in Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. EPA, 955 F.3d 1088 
(D.C. Cir. 2020) (``LEAN''), and (2) improve the emissions standards 
for this source category based on new information regarding 
developments in practices, processes and control technologies.
2. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action
    To comply with CAA section 112, we are proposing (1) new emissions 
limits based on MACT for five currently unregulated HAP (COS, 
CS2, Hg, HCl, and HF) from the sinter plants located at 
integrated iron and steel manufacturing facilities and (2) new MACT 
standards, in the form of opacity limits and work practice (WP)

[[Page 49405]]

standards, for five unregulated sources of UFIP emissions: Unplanned 
Bleeder Valve Openings, Planned Bleeder Valve Openings, Slag Pits, 
Beaching, and Bell Leaks. In this context, opacity is a measure of the 
amount of light that is blocked or absorbed by an air pollution plume. 
The components of air pollution that block or absorb light are 
primarily particulate matter (PM), or PM. An opacity level of 0 percent 
means that any plumes of air pollution do not block or absorb light and 
are fully transparent (i.e., no visble emissions). On the other hand, 
an opacity of 100 percent would mean that the plume is quite dense and 
blocks all light (i.e., the trained observer or special camera can not 
see any background behind the plume). Observers are trained and 
certified using smoke generators which produce known opacity levels, 
and periodic recertification is required every six months. More details 
regarding the EPA approved method for opacity readings by a trained 
observer are available at the following website: https://www.epa.gov/emc/method-9-visual-opacity. Alternatively, opacity can be observed 
with special cameras following a specific method (known as the digital 
camera opacity technique (DCOT), 40 CFR 63.7823), and those images 
interpreted by trained individuals. For the Integrated Iron and Steel 
Manufacturing (and a number of other metals processing and production 
sectors), we know that a significant portion of the emitted PM is 
comprised HAP metals (such as arsenic, lead, manganese, chromium) that 
are primarily emitted in particulate form. Therefore, for this industry 
as well as several other industries, PM serves as a surrogate for 
particulate HAP metals.
    We are also proposing new emissions limits for three unregulated 
pollutants for BF stoves and BOPFs: total hydrocarbons (THC), HCl, and 
D/F, and for two unregulated pollutants for BFs: THC and HCl. In this 
action, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), we are also proposing to: 
(1) Revise the current BOPF shop fugitive 20 percent opacity limit to a 
5 percent opacity limit and require certain work practices; (2) revise 
the current BF casthouse fugitive 20 percent opacity limit to a 5 
percent opacity limit; (3) add a fenceline monitoring requirement to 
help ensure the work practices and opacity limits are achieving the 
anticipated reductions; and (4) revise standards for D/F and PAHs from 
sinter plants to reflect the performance of current control devices.
3. Costs and Benefits
    To meet the requirements of E.O. 12866, the EPA projected the 
emissions reductions, costs, and benefits that may result from the 
proposed rule. These results are presented in detail in the regulatory 
impact analysis (RIA) accompanying this proposal developed in response 
to E.O. 12866. The proposed rule is significant under E.O. 12866 
Section 3(f)(1), as amended by E.O. 14094 due to the monetized benefits 
of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) reductions likely to 
result from the UFIP emissions standards included in the proposed rule. 
The RIA, which is available in the docket for this action, focuses on 
the elements of the proposed rule that are likely to result in 
quantifiable cost or emissions changes compared to a baseline without 
the proposed regulatory requirements. We estimated the cost, emissions, 
and benefit impacts for the 2025 to 2034 period, discounted to 2023. We 
show the present value (PV) and equivalent annualized value (EAV) of 
costs, benefits, and net benefits of this action in 2022 dollars. The 
EAV represents a flow of constant annual values that would yield a sum 
equivalent to the PV. The EAV represents the value of a typical cost or 
benefit for each year of the analysis, consistent with the estimate of 
the PV, in contrast to year-specific estimates.
    The initial analysis year in the RIA is 2025 because we assume that 
will be the first year of full implementation of the rule. We are 
proposing that facilities will have 1 year to demonstrate compliance 
with the relevant standards following promulgation. This analysis 
assumes full compliance with the proposed standards will occur in late 
2024 given the expected promulgation of this rule in late 2023. 
Therefore, the first full year of impacts will occur in 2025. The final 
analysis year is 2034, which allows us to provide 10 years of projected 
impacts after the rule takes effect.
    The cost analysis presented in the RIA reflects a nationwide 
engineering analysis of compliance cost and emissions reductions. 
Impacts are calculated by setting parameters on how and when affected 
facilities are assumed to respond to a particular regulatory regime, 
calculating estimated cost and emissions impact estimates for each 
facility, differencing from the baseline scenario, and then summing to 
the desired level of aggregation.
    The EPA expects health benefits due to the emissions reductions 
projected from the rule. We expect that hazardous air pollutant (HAP) 
emission reductions will improve health and welfare associated with 
reduced exposure for those affected by these emissions. In addition, 
the EPA expects that PM2.5 emission reductions that will 
occur concurrent with the reductions in HAP emissions will improve air 
quality and are likely to improve health and welfare associated with 
exposure to PM2.5 and HAP. For the RIA, the EPA monetized 
benefits associated with premature mortality and morbidity from reduced 
exposure to PM2.5. Discussion of both the monetized and non-
monetized benefits can be found in Chapter 4 of the RIA.
    Table 1 presents the emission changes and the PV and EAV of the 
projected monetized benefits, compliance costs, and net benefits over 
the 2025 to 2034 period under the rule. All discounting of impacts 
presented uses social discount rates of 3 and 7 percent.

 Table 1--Monetized Benefits, Costs, Net Benefits, and Emissions Reductions of the Proposed NESHAP Subpart FFFFF
                                         Amendments, 2025 Through 2034 a
                       [Dollar estimates in millions of 2022 dollars, discounted to 2023]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          3 Percent discount rate                 7 Percent discount rate
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          PV                  EAV                 PV                  EAV
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits \b\....................  $2,300 and $2,400.  $260 and $280.....  $1,700 and $1,700.  $220 and $230.
Compliance Costs................  $39...............  $4.6..............  $32...............  $4.6.
Net Benefits....................  $2,300 and $2,400.  $260 and $280.....  $1,700 and $1,700.  $220 and $230.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions Reductions (short                                       2025-2034 Total
 tons).
    HAP.........................                                        790
    PM..........................                                      23,000

[[Page 49406]]

 
    PM2.5.......................                                       5,600
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-monetized Benefits in this    HAP benefits from reducing 790 short tons of HAP from 2025-2034.
 Table.
                                  Non-health benefits from reducing 23,000 tons of PM, of which 5,600 tons is
                                   PM2.5, from 2025-2034.
                                  Visibility benefits.
                                  Reduced ecosystem/vegetation effects.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Totals may not sum due to independent rounding. Numbers rounded to two significant digits unless otherwise
  noted.
\b\ Monetized benefits include health benefits associated with reductions in PM2.5 emissions. The monetized
  health benefits are quantified using two alternative concentration-response relationships from the Di et al.
  (2016) and Turner et al. (2017) studies and presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. The two
  benefits estimates are separated by the word ``and'' to signify that they are two separate estimates. Benefits
  from HAP reductions remain unmonetized and are thus not reflected in the table.

B. Does this action apply to me?

    Table 2 of this preamble lists the NESHAP and associated regulated 
industrial source categories that are the subject of this proposal. 
Table 2 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 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 proposed action. As 
defined in the Initial List of Categories of Sources Under Section 
112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (see 57 FR 31576, 
July 16, 1992) and Documentation for Developing the Initial Source 
Category List, Final Report (see EPA-450/3-91-030, July 1992), the 
Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities source category is 
any facility engaged in producing steel from iron ore. Integrated iron 
and steel manufacturing includes the following processes: sinter 
production, iron production, iron preparation (hot metal 
desulfurization), and steel production. The iron production process 
includes the production of iron in BFs by the reduction of iron-bearing 
materials with a hot gas. The steel production process includes BOPFs.

    Table 2--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This
                                Proposal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Source category                  NESHAP          NAICS code \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Iron and Steel          40 CFR part 63,               331110
 Manufacturing Facilities.          subpart FFFFF.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

C. 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/integrated-iron-and-steel-manufacturing-national-emission-standards. 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.
    A memorandum showing the rule edits that would be necessary to 
incorporate the changes to 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF proposed in 
this action is available in the docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-
0083). The EPA also will post a copy of this document to https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/integrated-iron-and-steel-manufacturing-national-emission-standards.

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    This action proposes to amend the National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Integrated Iron and Steel 
Manufacturing Facilities source category.
    The statutory authority for this action is provided by section 112 
of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.). In the first stage of 
the CAA section 112 standard-setting process, the EPA promulgates 
technology-based standards under CAA section 112(d) for categories of 
sources identified as emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA 
section 112(b). Sources of HAP emissions are either major sources or 
area sources, and CAA section 112 establishes different requirements 
for major source standards and area source standards. ``Major sources'' 
are those that emit or have the potential to emit 10 tons per year 
(tpy) or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of 
HAP. All other sources are ``area sources.'' For major sources, CAA 
section 112(d)(2) provides that the technology-based NESHAP must 
reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable 
(after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality 
health and environmental impacts). These standards are commonly 
referred to as MACT standards. CAA section 112(d)(3) also establishes a 
minimum control level for MACT standards, known as the MACT ``floor.'' 
In certain instances, as provided in CAA section 112(h), the EPA may 
set work practice standards in lieu of numerical emission standards. 
The EPA must also consider control options that are more stringent than 
the floor. Standards more stringent than the floor are commonly 
referred to as ``beyond-the-floor'' (BTF) standards.
    CAA section 112(d)(6) requires the EPA to review standards 
promulgated

[[Page 49407]]

under CAA section 112 and revise them ``as necessary (taking into 
account developments in practices, processes, and control 
technologies)'' no less often than every eight years. While conducting 
this review, which we call the ``technology review,'' the EPA is not 
required to recalculate the MACT floors that were established during 
earlier rulemakings. Nat. Resources Def. Council (NRDC) v. EPA, 529 
F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2008); Ass'n of Battery Recyclers, Inc. v. 
EPA, 716 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2013). The EPA may consider cost in 
deciding whether to revise the standards pursuant to CAA section 
112(d)(6).
    CAA section 112(f) requires the EPA to determine whether 
promulgation of additional standards is needed to provide an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent an adverse 
environmental effect. This review is known as the ``residual risk 
review,'' and it must occur within eight years after promulgation of 
the standards. When EPA conducts the ``technology review'' together 
with the ``residual risk review,'' the combined review is known as a 
``risk and technology review'' or ``RTR.''
    The EPA initially promulgated the Integrated Iron and Steel 
Manufacturing Facilities NESHAP on May 20, 2003 (68 FR 27645), under 
title 40, part 63, subpart FFFFF (the NESHAP). The rule was amended on 
July 13, 2006 (71 FR 39579). The amendments added a new compliance 
option, revised emission limitations, reduced the frequency of repeat 
performance tests for certain emission units, added corrective action 
requirements, and clarified monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements.
    In 2015, a coalition of environmental advocacy groups filed a 
lawsuit to compel the EPA to fulfill its statutory duty to conduct the 
CAA sections 112(d) and 112(f)(2) reviews of 21 NESHAPs, including 
Integrated Iron & Steel Manufacturing Facilities. As a result of that 
litigation, the EPA was required by court order to complete the RTR for 
the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities source category 
by May 5, 2020. California Communities Against Toxics v. Wheeler, No. 
1:15-cv-00512, Order (D.D.C. March 13, 2017, as modified February 20, 
2020). The resulting residual risk and technology review (RTR) 
conducted for the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities 
NESHAP was signed on May 4, 2020. 85 FR 42074 (July 13, 2020).
    In an April 2020 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit, the court held that the EPA has an 
obligation to address unregulated HAP emissions from a source category 
when the Agency conducts the eight-year technology review required by 
CAA section 112(d)(6). LEAN, 955 F.3d at 1098-99. The parties in the 
California Communities Against Toxics case therefore filed a joint 
motion for an extension of the deadline to allow the EPA to revise the 
2020 final rule to comply with the LEAN opinion. The court granted the 
motion, setting a new deadline for this rule of October 26, 2023. 
California Communities Against Toxics, Order (D.D.C. April 14, 2021).
    And finally, in September 2021, industry and environmental advocacy 
groups filed petitions for review of the 2020 final rule, and these 
petitions have been consolidated. American Iron and Steel Inst., et al. 
v. EPA, No. 20-1354 (D.C. Cir.); Clean Air Council, et al. v. EPA, No. 
20-1355 (D.C. Cir.). The consolidated case is in abeyance pending this 
rulemaking. American Iron and Steel Inst., No. 20-1354 (consol.), 
Order, Dec. 7, 2022.
    In light of this litigation history, today's proposed rule 
includes: (1) Proposed new standards to address currently unregulated 
emissions of HAP from the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing 
Facilities source category pursuant to the LEAN decision and CAA 
sections 112(d)(2) and (3) and 112(h) and, (2) proposed revised 
standards for a few currently regulated HAP and fenceline monitoring 
requirements pursuant to the CAA section 112(d)(6) technology review.

B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP 
regulate its HAP emissions?

    As described above, the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing 
Facilities source category includes any facility engaged in producing 
steel from refined iron ore (also known as taconite pellets). These 
facilities first produce iron from iron ore taconite pellets, sinter, 
coke, and other raw materials using blast furnaces (BFs), then produce 
steel from the hot liquid iron from the blast furnaces, along with 
coke, lime, alloys, steel scrap, and other raw materials using basic 
oxygen process furnaces (BOPFs). Integrated iron and steel 
manufacturing includes the following processes: sinter production, iron 
production, iron preparation (hot metal desulfurization), and steel 
production. The iron production process includes the production of iron 
in BFs by the reduction of iron-bearing materials with a very hot gas. 
The steel production process includes BOPFs and ladle metallurgy 
operations. Currently there are eight operating facilities in this 
source category.
    The main sources of HAP emissions from integrated iron and steel 
manufacturing are the BF; BF stove; BOPF; hot metal transfer, 
desulfurization, and skimming (HMTDS) operations; ladle metallurgy 
operations; sinter plant windbox; sinter plant discharge end; and 
sinter cooler. All nine facilities have BFs, BF stoves, BOPFs, HMTDS 
operations, and ladle metallurgy operations. However, only three 
facilities have sinter plants.
    The following are descriptions of the BF, BOPF, and sinter plants:
     The BF is a key integrated iron and steel process unit 
where molten iron is produced from raw materials such as iron ore, 
lime, sinter, coal and coke.
     The BOPF is a key integrated iron and steel process unit 
where steel is made from molten iron, scrap steel, lime, dolomite, 
coal, coke, and alloys.
     Sinter is derived from material formed in the bottom of 
the blast furnace, composed of oily scale, blast furnace sludge, and 
coke breeze, along with tarry material and oil absorbed from the sump 
in which the sinter is recovered. The sinter plant processes the waste 
that would otherwise be landfilled so that iron and other valuable 
materials can be re-used in the blast furnace. Only three sources 
covered by the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facility 
category have sinter plants, down from nine facilities with sinter 
plants in 2003.
    In addition to point sources, the EPA identified seven UFIP 
emission sources for this source category, including BF bleeder valve 
unplanned openings BF bleeder valve planned openings, BF bell leaks, BF 
casthouse fugitives, BF iron beaching, BF and BOPF slag handling and 
storage operations, and BOPF shop fugitives. Some of these UFIP sources 
are also referred to as ``fugitive'' or ``nonpoint'' sources of 
emissions. These UFIP emission sources were identified by observation 
of visible plumes by EPA regional staff during onsite inspections and 
were subsequently investigated to determine the causes and any possible 
methods for reductions. These inspections were documented in numerous 
reports and photographs between 2008 and the present.\1\ The NESHAP 
currently regulates two of these sources--BF casthouse fugitives

[[Page 49408]]

and BOPF shop fugitives--with opacity limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ E.g., communications between B. Dickens and P. Miller, U.S. 
EPA Region V, Chicago, IL, with D. L. Jones, U.S. EPA, Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards, Office of Air and Radiation, 2015-
2018. See also Ample Margin of Safety for Nonpoint Sources in the 
II&S Industry, available in the docket to this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following are descriptions of the seven UFIP sources. More 
details can be found in the technical memoranda discussed below in 
Section II.D.
     The BF is a key integrated iron and steel process unit 
where molten iron is produced from raw materials such as iron ore, 
lime, sinter, coal and coke.
     The BOPF is a key integrated iron and steel process unit 
where steel is made from molten iron, scrap steel, lime, dolomite, 
coal, coke, and alloys.
     Sinter is derived from material formed in the bottom of 
the blast furnace, composed of oily scale, blast furnace sludge, and 
coke breeze, along with tarry material and oil absorbed from the sump 
in which the sinter is recovered. The sinter plant processes the waste 
that would otherwise be landfilled so that iron and other valuable 
materials can be re-used in the blast furnace. Only three sources 
covered by the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facility 
category have sinter plants, down from nine facilities with sinter 
plants in 2003.
     The BOPF shop is the structure that houses the entire BOPF 
and auxiliary activities, such as hot iron transfer, skimming, and 
desulfurization of the iron and ladle metallurgy operations, which 
generate fugitive emissions.
     The BF casthouse is the structure that houses the lower 
portion of the BF and encloses the tapping operation and the iron and 
slag transport operations, which generate fugitive emissions.
     The bleeder valve is a device at the top of the BF that, 
when open, relieves BF internal pressure to the ambient air. The valve 
can operate as both a self-actuating safety device to relieve excess 
pressure and as an operator-initiated instrument for process control. A 
bleeder valve opening means any opening of the BF bleeder valve, which 
allows gas and/or PM to flow past the sealing seat. Multiple openings 
and closings of a bleeder valve that occur within a 30-minute period 
could be considered a single bleeder valve opening. There are two types 
of openings, planned and unplanned.
     A planned bleeder valve opening means an opening that is 
initiated by an operator as part of a furnace startup, shutdown, or 
temporary idling for maintenance action. Operators can prepare the 
furnace for planned openings to minimize or eliminate emissions from 
the bleeder valves.
     An unplanned bleeder valve opening means an opening that 
is not planned and is caused by excess pressure within the furnace. The 
pressure buildup can occur when raw materials do not descend smoothly 
after being charged at the top of the BF and accumulate in large masses 
within the furnace. When the large masses finally dislodge (slip) due 
to their weight, a pressure surge results.
     Slag is a by-product containing impurities that is 
released from the BF or BOPF along with molten iron when the BF or BOPF 
is tapped from the bottom of the furnace. The slag is less dense than 
iron and, therefore, floats on top of the iron. Slag is removed by 
skimmers and then transported to open pits to cool to enable later 
removal. Usually there is one slag pit for every BF or BOPF.
     Iron beaching occurs when iron from BF cannot be charged 
to the BOPF because of problems in steelmaking units; the hot molten 
iron from the BF is placed onto the ground, in some cases within a 
three-sided structure.
     The BF bells are part of the charging system on top of the 
furnace that allows for materials to be loaded into the furnace or next 
bell (as in the case of small bells) without letting BF gas escape. It 
is a two-bell system, where a smaller bell is above a larger bell. 
These bells need to have a tight seal onto the blast furnace when not 
in use for charging so that BF gas and uncontrolled emissions do not 
escape to the atmosphere. Over time, the surfaces that seal the bells 
wear down and need to be repaired (for small bells) or replaced (for 
large bells). If these seals are not repaired or replaced in a timely 
manner, emissions of HAP and PM can increase significantly.
    In the 2020 final rule, the Agency found that risks due to 
emissions of air toxics from this source category were acceptable and 
concluded that the NESHAP provided an ample margin of safety to protect 
public health. Under the technology review in the 2020 RTR, EPA found 
no developments in practices, processes, or control technologies that 
necessitated revision of the standards at that time. However, in 
response to a 2004 administrative petition for reconsideration, the 
2020 final rule promulgated a new MACT emissions limit for mercury 
(0.00026 lbs mercury/ton scrap metal) with two compliance options: (1) 
Conduct annual compliance tests (to demonstrate compliance with the 
MACT limit) or (2) confirm that the facility obtains their auto scrap 
from suppliers that participate in the National Vehicle Mercury Switch 
Recovery Program (NVMRP) or another approved mercury switch removal 
program or that the facility only uses scrap that does not contain 
mercury switches. We also removed exemptions for periods of startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) consistent with a 2008 court decision 
and clarified that the emissions standards apply at all times; added 
electronic reporting of performance test results and compliance 
reports; and made minor corrections and clarifications for a few other 
rule provisions. All documents used to develop the previous 2003, 2006, 
and 2020 final rules can be found in either the legacy docket, A-2000-
44, or the electronic docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083.
    The current NESHAP includes emissions limits for particulate matter 
(PM) and opacity standards (both of which are surrogates for non-
mercury PM HAP metals) for furnaces and sinter plants. To support the 
continued use of PM as a surrogate for certain non-mercury HAP metals, 
we considered the holding in National Lime v. EPA, 233 F.3d 625 (D.C. 
Cir. 2000). In considering whether the EPA may use PM, a criteria 
pollutant, as a surrogate for metal HAP, the D.C. Circuit stated that 
the EPA ``may use a surrogate to regulate hazardous pollutants if it is 
`reasonable' to do so,'' id. at 637, and laid out criteria for 
determining whether the use of PM as a surrogate for non-mercury metal 
HAP was reasonable. The court found that PM is a reasonable surrogate 
for HAP if: (1) ``HAP metals are invariably present'' in the source's 
PM,'' id.; (2) the ``source's PM control technology indiscriminately 
captures HAP metals along with other particulates,'' id. at 639; and 
(3) ``PM control is the only means by which facilities `achieve' 
reductions in HAP metal emissions,'' id. If these criteria are 
satisfied and the PM emission standards reflect what the best sources 
achieve in compliance with CAA section 112(d)(3), ``EPA is under no 
obligation to achieve a particular numerical reduction in HAP metal 
emissions.'' Id. The EPA has established and promulgated PM limits as a 
surrogate for particulate HAP metals successfully in several previous 
NESHAP including Ferroalloys Production (80 FR 37366, June 30, 2015), 
Taconite Iron Ore Processing NESHAP (68 FR 61868), and Primary Copper 
Smelting NESHAP (67 FR 40478, June 12, 2002).
    The NESHAP also includes an operating limit for the oil content of 
the sinter plant feedstock or, as an alternative, an emissions limit 
for volatile organic compounds (VOC) for the sinter plant windbox 
exhaust stream. The oil limit, and the alternative VOC limit, serve as 
surrogates for all organic HAP. Moreover, the NESHAP includes an 
emissions limit for mercury emissions from the BOPF Group, which

[[Page 49409]]

is the collection of BOPF shop steelmaking operating units and their 
control devices including the BOPF primary emission control system, 
BOPF secondary control system, ladle metallurgy units, and hot metal 
transfer, desulfurization and slag skimming units.

C. What data collection activities were conducted to support this 
action?

    The EPA issued a CAA section 114 information request in January 
2022, including a facility questionnaire and source testing request, to 
both parent companies in this source category, resulting in information 
for all eight operating facilities. The questionnaire requested 
information in the following categories: general facility information, 
process unit tables, and UFIP emission information. Facility responses 
provided information regarding which UFIP work practices are currently 
being utilized or have been tried in the past, and any benefits, 
drawbacks, or complications of each one. They also provided information 
about the frequencies of some of their intermittent emissions, such as 
planned and unplanned bleeder valve openings. The compilation of the 
facility responses can be found in the docket for this proposed 
rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083). The information we received on UFIP 
emissions helped us develop the standards in this proposed rule. The 
EPA requested source testing for HAP metals and hydrogen fluoride (HF) 
at the sinter plant windbox control device and opacity data for the 
fugitive and intermittent particulate sources. In addition, the EPA 
requested fenceline monitoring for lead, arsenic and chromium at four 
facilities.
    In September 2022, the EPA issued a supplemental CAA section 114 
information request for additional source testing at one facility for 
each parent company. From one facility, we requested source testing for 
HCl and total hydrocarbons for the BF stove, BF casthouse, and the BOPF 
primary control device, as well as source testing for D/F from the BF 
stove and the BOPF primary control device. From the other facility, we 
requested source testing for HCl and D/F from the BOPF primary control 
device, as well as source testing for D/F at the outlet of the boiler 
from the BF stove. One additional facility voluntarily submitted test 
reports for HCl and THC for the BF stove and BF casthouse, as well as 
THC source testing for the BOPF primary control device. These data were 
gathered to supplement data we already had from the 2020 RTR rule 
development, which is described in the 2019 RTR proposed on August 16, 
2019 (84 FR 42704), and in technical support documents cited in that 
notice. The compilation of source testing results can be found in the 
docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083).

D. What other relevant background information and data are available?

    The EPA used several resources, including industry consultation, 
AP-42 Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Fifth Edition, 
dated January 15, 1995, as amended with Supplements and Updates, EPA 
studies, and other published technical documents to estimate emissions 
for the UFIP sources. The seven UFIP sources and development of 
emissions estimates for these sources at an example facility are 
described in detail in three technical memoranda. The first, Ample 
Margin of Safety for Nonpoint Sources in the II&S Industry May 1, 2019, 
available in the docket for this rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083-0953), 
describes the seven UFIP sources, work practices that can help reduce 
or minimize HAP and PM emissions, estimated costs of these work 
practices, and estimated risks before and after implementation of work 
practices based on the 2019-2020 RTR rulemaking analyses. The second, 
Development of Emissions Estimates for Fugitive or Intermittent HAP 
Emission Sources for an Example Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing 
Facility for Input to the RTR Risk Assessment 5/1/2020, also available 
in the docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083-1094), describes the following: (1) 
The development of emissions estimates for UFIP from processes where 
emissions from UFIP are thought to occur; (2) estimates of PM emissions 
from these processes; (3) HAP-to-PM ratios used to estimate HAP 
emissions from the PM emissions estimates; and (4) the resulting HAP 
emissions estimated. These two memoranda were developed to support the 
2019 proposed RTR rule and the 2020 final RTR rule.
    We further developed updated estimates of HAP, PM, and 
PM2.5 emissions from the UFIP at all other operating 
Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facility sources, which are 
described in the third and most recent 2023 memorandum, Unmeasured 
Fugitive and Intermittent Particulate Emissions and Cost Impacts for 
Integrated Iron and Steel Facilities under 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
FFFFF, available in the docket for this action.
    Also, regarding the proposed requirements for the UFIP sources 
(described below), industry representatives provided additional 
information including suggested opacity limits and work practices (and 
suggested regulatory text).\2\ Furthermore, we received additional data 
and information from industry in April, but we were unable to review 
and analyze this information for this proposal given the timing of its 
submission.\3\ We solicit comments on the information and suggestions 
that industry provided including whether EPA should adopt some or all 
of these suggestions and a thorough explanation as to why, or why not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See February 22, 2023 email from Paul Balserak, American 
Iron and Steel Institute (AISI), and the attachment to that email, 
``II&S DRAFT PROPOSED RULE UFIP LANGUAGE,'' available in the docket 
for this action.
    \3\ See April 12, 2023 email from Paul Balserak, AISI, and two 
attachments, ``PRELIMINARY FEEDBACK ON POTENTIAL STANDARDS FOR THE 
INTEGRATED IRON AND STEEL MANUFACTURING NESHAP'' & ``Attachment A to 
Supp to Jan and Feb Submittals,'' available in the docket for this 
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Analytical Procedures and Decision-Making

A. How do we perform the technology review?

    Our technology review primarily focuses on the identification and 
evaluation of developments in practices, processes, and control 
technologies that have occurred since the MACT standards were 
promulgated. Where we identify such developments, we analyze their 
technical feasibility, estimated costs, energy implications, and non-
air health and environmental impacts. The EPA also considers the 
emission reductions associated with applying each development. This 
analysis informs our decision of whether it is ``necessary'' to revise 
the emissions standards. In addition, the Agency considers the 
appropriateness of applying controls to new sources versus retrofitting 
existing sources. For this exercise, the EPA considers any of the 
following to be a ``development'':
     Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was 
not identified and considered during development of the original MACT 
standards;
     Any improvements to the add-on control technology or other 
equipment that was identified and considered during development of the 
original MACT standards that could result in additional emissions 
reductions;
     Any work practice or operational procedure that was not 
identified or considered during development of the original MACT 
standards;
     Any process change or pollution prevention alternative 
that could be broadly applied to the industry and that was not 
identified or considered during development of the original MACT 
standards; and

[[Page 49410]]

     Any significant changes in the cost (including cost 
effectiveness) of applying controls, including controls the EPA 
considered during the development of the original MACT standards.
    In addition to reviewing the practices, processes, and control 
technologies that were considered at the time the EPA originally 
developed the NESHAP, we review a variety of data sources in our 
investigation of potential practices, processes, or controls to 
consider. The EPA also reviews the NESHAP and the available data to 
determine whether there are any unregulated emissions of HAP within the 
source category and evaluates the data for use in developing new 
emission standards. See sections II.C and II.D of this preamble for 
information on the specific data sources that were reviewed as part of 
the technology review.

B. How do we develop and calculate CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) 
standards?

    The MACT floor limits for relevant HAP are calculated based on the 
average performance of the best-performing five units in each category 
or subcategory and on a consideration of these units' variability. The 
MACT floor for new sources is based on the single best-performing 
source, with a similar consideration of that source's variability. The 
MACT floor for new sources cannot be less stringent than the emissions 
performance that is achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar 
source. To account for variability in the operation and emissions, we 
calculated the MACT floor emissions limits for this source category 
using the 99 percent Upper Predictive Limit (UPL) using the available 
stack emissions test results. We note that the MACT floor limits for 
new units are based on a limited data set.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For more information regarding the general use of the UPL 
and why it is appropriate for calculating MACT floors, see Use of 
Upper Prediction Limit for Calculating MACT Floors (UPL Memo), which 
is available in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The UPL approach addresses variability of emissions test data from 
the best-performing source or sources in setting MACT standards. The 
UPL also accounts for uncertainty associated with emission values in a 
dataset, which can be influenced by components such as the number of 
samples available for developing MACT standards and the number of 
samples that will be collected to assess compliance with the emission 
limit. The UPL approach has been used in many environmental science 
applications. As explained in more detail in the UPL Memo cited above, 
the EPA uses the UPL approach to reasonably estimate the emissions 
performance of the best-performing source or sources to establish MACT 
floor standards when the EPA has emissions test data that allow for 
such calculations.
    After the MACT floor limits are developed, the EPA also evaluates 
potential beyond-the-floor (BTF) options (i.e., more stringent options) 
to determine whether there are cost-effective appropriate standards 
that can achieve additional reductions that should be proposed instead 
of the MACT floor standards.

IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions

A. Proposed Standards To Address Five Unregulated UFIP Sources for Both 
New and Existing Sources

1. BF Unplanned Bleeder Valve Openings
    Sometimes raw material within the BF builds up, fails to descend 
smoothly, and falls or slips. Sometimes these slips create a pressure 
surge that is relieved, along with excess pollutant emissions (e.g., PM 
with HAP metals), out of bleeder valves that are positioned about 100 
feet above the casthouse. If the slip results in the valve opening, we 
call this an ``unplanned opening.'' Unplanned openings can last between 
a few seconds and ten minutes, and occur between 0 to 7 times per 
month, and fewer slips and fewer unplanned openings occur with better 
screening of raw material and more attentive furnace operation to 
enable early action to avoid unplanned openings. Based on the data we 
received through the section 114 requests, the average number of 
unplanned openings of the best performing five furnaces in the source 
category is 5 unplanned openings per year. Therefore, we estimate that 
the MACT floor level of performance is 5 unplanned openings per year.
    All slips are preceded by raw material hanging in the furnace, 
creating a bridge. It is our understanding that because furnaces have 
level indicators, furnace operators should know when conditions for a 
slip are forming, and if they are forming, operators should be able to 
take action to induce a small slip that can avoid a larger slip that 
ultimately causes an unplanned bleeder valve opening. It is our 
understanding that hanging of raw material can be avoided or 
significantly reduced by screening fine particulates from the raw 
material. Therefore, unplanned openings should be limited to a 
significant extent by operators monitoring the furnace and taking 
actions when certain parameter readings indicate a slip may occur.
    We estimate that about 2.1 tpy of HAP metals are emitted from the 
Integrated Iron and Steel source category due to these unplanned 
openings. Because unplanned openings are variable, only last for up to 
10 minutes, and due to the structure of the bleeder valves, it is not 
technically or economically feasible to reliably measure emissions from 
unplanned openings. Therefore, based on our evaluation of available 
information, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) and CAA section 
112(h), we are proposing work practice standards that would require 
facilities to do the following: (1) Install and operate devices (e.g., 
stockline monitors) to continuously measure/monitor material levels in 
the furnace, at a minimum of three locations, using alarms to inform 
operators of static conditions that indicate a slip may occur, and 
therefore, in turn, alert them that there is a need to take action to 
prevent the unplanned openings from occurring; (2) install and operate 
instruments such as a thermocouple and transducer on the furnace to 
monitor temperature and pressure to help determine when a slip may 
occur; (3) install a screen to remove fine particulates from raw 
materials to ensure only properly-sized raw materials are charged into 
the BF; and (4) develop, and submit to the EPA for approval, a plan 
that explains how the facility will implement these requirements. 
Additionally, we are proposing that facilities will need to report the 
unplanned openings (including the date, time, duration, and any 
corrective actions taken) in the semiannual compliance report.
    In addition to the proposed work practices, we are also proposing 
an operational limit of five unplanned openings per year per furnace 
for existing sources, which is an estimate of the MACT floor level of 
performance for existing sources. For new sources, we are proposing an 
operational limit of zero unplanned openings per year because the best 
performing single source in our database reported zero unplanned 
openings for the most recent typical year.
    We estimate that the costs for the entire industry for these 
proposed standards would be $1,470,000 and annualized costs would be 
$239,800, for the eight facilities to comply with these work practice 
requirements, and that these requirements will result in about 0.5 tpy 
emissions reductions.
    We propose that the limit of 5 unplanned openings per year per 
furnace and the work practice standards described above are a 
reasonable

[[Page 49411]]

estimation of the MACT floor level of performance (i.e., represent a 
reasonable estimate of the average performance of the best performing 
five sources). Furthermore, we did not identify any cost-effective and 
appropriate BTF options. Nevertheless, we solicit comments regarding: 
(1) Whether EPA should change or remove any of the specific work 
practices described above, and, if so, an explanation including any 
related analysis to support as to why or why not; (2) whether there are 
cost-effective BTF options; (3) whether EPA should consider a different 
number of unplanned openings per year (e.g., 3, 6, or 10 unplanned 
openings per year, or a different value), and if so, why; (4) whether 
the limit should be an enforceable compliance limit or an action level 
that triggers the need to do root cause analyses and take corrective 
action; and (5) are there furnace design differences that affect 
operations related to unplanned openings. Furthermore, we solicit 
comments on the cost estimates for all aspects of these proposed 
requirements, including costs for the recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements, and we solicit data and suggestions regarding any other 
aspect of these proposed requirements that we should consider as we 
develop the final rule, including any additional data regarding how 
many unplanned openings have occurred per year (e.g., for the past five 
years) for the various blast furnaces in the source category.
    Further information and analyses (regarding the proposed MACT 
standard, BTF options and other relevant topics) are available in the 
document titled Unmeasured Fugitive and Intermittent Particulate 
Emissions and Cost Impacts for Integrated Iron and Steel Facilities 
under 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF which is available in the docket
2. BF Planned Bleeder Valve Openings
    Bleeder valves are opened periodically to allow repair or other 
maintenance. The furnace is turned down to low idle before valves are 
opened, which results in lower emissions than during unplanned 
openings. It is our understanding that planned openings happen up to 2 
times per week for repairs or for maintenance for a total average of 
approximately 15 hours per week per furnace. We estimate that source 
category emissions resulting from these planned openings are about 1.6 
tpy of HAP metals.
    We received opacity data from six of the eight operating facilities 
for planned openings. We reviewed the maximum 6-minute opacity readings 
for all six facilities. Based on the 2022 data, the two best-performing 
facilities had maximum 6-minute opacity readings of 0 percent and 6.25 
percent, respectively. The average opacity readings at these two 
facilities are 0 percent and 3.39 percent respectively. The average of 
the maximum 6-minute opacity values for the best performing five 
facilities is 7.75 percent (rounded to 8 percent). In calculating the 
opacity limit, we did not apply the standard UPL approach (described in 
section III.B of this preamble) because that method has not been used 
in the past when calculating opacity limits. More information and 
explanation regarding opacity, especially in the context of EPA 
emissions standards, is provided in section II.A.2 of this preamble. 
More information regarding the UFIP sources and the development of 
proposed standards for UFIP sources are provided in the document titled 
Unmeasured Fugitive and Intermittent Particulate Emissions and Cost 
Impacts for Integrated Iron and Steel Facilities under 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart FFFFF, which is in the docket for this proposed rule.
    We estimate that the ``MACT floor'' is the average of the maximum 
6-minute opacity levels, which is 8 percent. We also evaluated a limit 
of 5 percent opacity as a potential BTF option for existing sources. We 
also determined based on evaluation of available information that 
emissions can be minimized from bleeder valve planned openings cost 
effectively by implementing various actions before the valves are 
opened such as: (1) Tapping as much liquid (iron and slag) out of the 
furnace as possible; (2) removing fuel and/or stopping fuel injection 
into the furnace; and (3) lowering bottom pressure.
    Based on our evaluation of available information, pursuant to CAA 
section 112(d)(2) and (3) for existing sources we are proposing a MACT 
Floor limit of 8 percent opacity for any 6-minute averaging period for 
the BF planned bleeder valve openings. For new sources, we are 
proposing an opacity of 0 percent because based on the available data, 
the best performing single source had opacity of 0 percent during the 
planned opening. We are not proposing the BTF option of 5 percent 
opacity for existing sources because we assume 5 percent opacity may 
not be feasible for some sources on a consistent basis. We are not 
proposing any work practices under CAA section 112(h) for the BF 
planned bleeder valve openings. Facilities will have the flexibility to 
choose an appropriate approach to meet the opacity limit. We estimate 
that this proposed standard will result in about 0.41 tpy reduction in 
HAP metal emissions. The estimated cost is $54,600/yr for the entire 
category and $6,800/yr per facility. The estimated cost effectiveness 
is $134,000 per ton of HAP metals.
    We solicit comments and additional information regarding these 
proposed requirements, including: (1) Comments regarding the proposed 
opacity limits, including the level of the opacity limits and averaging 
time; (2) whether the EPA should apply the UPL approach (or other 
statistical approach) to derive the opacity limits for UFIP sources and 
if so an explanation of the suggested application of the UPL or other 
statistical approach to derive opacity limits; (3) whether the EPA 
should promulgate work practices instead of the opacity limits and a 
description of those work practices; and (4) whether the EPA should 
promulgate work practices and the opacity limits.
3. BF and BOPF Slag Processing, Handling, and Storage
    Slag (liquid waste on the surface of molten iron or steel) is 
skimmed and transported out of buildings in troughs (or ``runners'') or 
by using pots to large pits where it cools. Emissions occur during four 
activities: (1) dumping of hot slag in pits; (2) storing slag in open 
pits; (3) removing slag from pits with loaders, and; (4) handling 
(e.g., movement into and out of trucks and slag piles), storage, and 
processing. Operators can spray water on the slag or use fogging 
systems, which create and direct fog (tiny water droplets or ice 
crystals suspended in the air) into the slag area to weigh down and 
minimize PM (or dust) emissions during dumping, loading, and digging 
operations. We estimate that about 30 tpy of HAP metals are emitted 
from slag processing, handling, and storage for the source category.
    We received opacity data from seven of the eight operating 
facilities. We reviewed the maximum 6-minute opacity readings for all 
seven facilities. The average of the maximum 6-minute opacity values 
for the best performing five facilities is 9 percent. Based on the 2022 
data, the two best-performing facilities in our dataset had maximum 
opacity readings of 2.5 percent and 5 percent, respectively. The 
average opacity readings at these two facilities are 0.2 percent and 
1.2 percent, respectively. We did not apply the standard UPL approach 
for the same reasons discussed above. Nevertheless, this average of 
maximum opacity values suggests that the ``MACT floor'' is 
approximately 9 percent. We also evaluated a limit of 5 percent opacity 
as

[[Page 49412]]

a potential BTF option. We also determined based on evaluation of 
available information that emissions can be minimized from slag pits 
cost effectively with the application of water spray or fogging. Also, 
other work practices such as installing wind screens, dust suppression 
misters, a high moisture content of the slag during handling, storage, 
and processing and using material handling practices can help minimize 
emissions. Therefore, based on our analyses, pursuant to CAA section 
112(d)(2) and (3), for existing sources we are proposing a BTF opacity 
limit of 5 percent (based on 6-minute averages) for visible emissions 
from slag pits, and during slag handling, storage, and processing. This 
will result in an estimated 7.4 tpy reduction in HAP metal emissions. 
The estimated cost is $308,000 per year for the entire category and 
$38,500 per year per facility. The estimated cost effectiveness is 
$41,900 per ton of HAP metals. Regarding new sources, we are proposing 
an opacity limit of 2.5 percent (based on 6-minute averages) for 
visible emissions from slag pits, and during slag handling, storage, 
and processing.
    However, regarding the proposed limit for existing sources, we are 
soliciting comments as to the feasibility of the 5 percent BTF opacity 
limit for other facilities in the source category, and also soliciting 
comments as to whether the EPA should set the opacity limit at the MACT 
floor level (i.e., 9 percent opacity based on 6-minute averages), or 
possibly at a lower, more stringent value, instead of the 5 percent BTF 
opacity limit, and if so why, or why not. We also solicit comments and 
data regarding the proposed opacity limit for new sources.
4. BF Bell Leaks
    Large and small bells are part of a lock system above the BF that 
is used to charge raw materials into the BF without gases escaping. The 
bells have metal seals that wear down over time from mechanical use and 
movement of bells (they open to charge, then close when charge is done, 
frequently, which results in frequent contact between the metal parts, 
which leads to wear and tear overtime). Overtime, the seals wear down 
or are damaged, which eventually results in gases being emitted to the 
atmosphere. Therefore, the bells need to be repaired or replaced 
periodically to prevent emissions. We estimate that about 76 tpy of HAP 
metals are emitted from Bell Leaks for the source category.
    Based on our evaluation, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3), 
we are proposing 10 percent opacity as an action level for large bell 
leaks (not a MACT emissions limit), as described below. We are also 
proposing that the BF top will need to be observed monthly for visible 
emissions (VE) with EPA Method 22, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, which 
determines the presence or absence of a visible plume, to identify 
leaks, and if VE are detected out of the interbell relief valve 
(indicating leaks from the large bell), we are proposing that the 
facility would then need to perform EPA Method 9, 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A-4, tests which determines the opacity (i.e., degree to which 
a plume obscures the background), monthly and if opacity is greater 
than 10 percent (based on a 3-minute average), the large bell seals 
will need to be repaired or replaced within 4 months. For the small 
bell, we are proposing that facilities will need to replace or repair 
seals prior to a metal throughput limit, specified by the facility, 
that has been proven and documented to produce no opacity from the 
small bells. This will result in an estimated 31 tpy reduction in HAP 
metal emissions. The estimated cost is $935,000 per year for the entire 
category and $120,000 per facility. The estimated cost effectiveness is 
$30,000 per ton of HAP metals. There could potentially be some 
additional incremental costs due to this proposed requirement due to 
the possible need to repair or replace the seals more frequently than 
facilities currently do the repairs or replacement to account for 
additional capital costs and loss of production due to more frequent 
furnace shutdowns to do such repairs or replacement, however, we have 
insufficient information to estimate these possible additional 
incremental costs at this time.
    We are soliciting comments regarding these proposed requirements, 
including whether the opacity action level should be set at a higher or 
lower percent value and, if so, for what averaging period. We also 
solicit comments regarding all other aspects of these proposed 
requirements including the 4-month time period (to repair or replace 
seals) described above, and the estimated costs (including costs due to 
loss production, if any) and emissions reductions associated with these 
proposed requirements.
5. Beaching of Iron From BFs
    When the BOPF is stopped suddenly and cannot accept iron, then hot 
iron from the BF is dumped onto the ground and fumes are emitted. We 
estimate that less than 1 tpy of HAP metals are emitted from beaching 
for the source category.
    Available data and responses to the 2022 CAA section 114 request 
indicate that one facility does not have beaching and another facility 
had not done any beaching for 3 years (2019, 2020, or 2021). Of the 
remaining six operating facilities, four facilities have full or 
partial enclosures or use CO2 to suppress fumes, and all six 
facilities minimize the height, slope, and speed of beaching. 
Therefore, we conclude these actions approximately represent the MACT 
floor level of performance. Furthermore, we did not identify any more 
stringent cost-effective BTF options. For these reasons, pursuant to 
CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) and CAA section 112(h), we are proposing 
a MACT standard that would require facilities to: (1) Have full or 
partial enclosures for the beaching process or use CO2 to 
suppress fumes; and (2) minimize the height, slope, and speed of 
beaching. We expect this will result in a small amount of unquantified 
emission reductions since baseline emissions are already low (less than 
1 tpy of HAP) and because most facilities are already following some or 
all of these work practices. The estimated cost is $55,000 per year for 
the entire category and an average annual cost of $6,800 per facility. 
More information regarding the proposed standards, and the BTF options 
considered, for unregulated UFIP sources is available in the following 
document: Unmeasurable Fugitive and Intermittent Particulate Emissions 
and Cost Impacts for Integrated Iron and Steel Facilities under 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart FFFFF, which is available in the docket for this 
action.
    We solicit comments and additional information regarding all 
aspects of these proposed beaching requirements.

B. Reconsideration of BF Casthouse and BOPF Shop Standards for 
Currently Regulated Fugitive Sources Under CAA 112(d)(6) Technology 
Review for Both New and Existing Sources

1. How did we develop the proposed revised CAA section 112(d)(6) 
technology review standards for BOPF shop fugitive emissions?
    The BOPF shop fugitive emissions occur from hot metal and scrap 
charging, tapping steel, hot metal transfer, and metallurgical 
processes. Hoods collect some fugitives and route them to controls. 
Uncaptured fugitives exhaust through roof vents, doors, or other 
openings such as removed or damaged sections of the enclosure or 
building that were not part of the original design. We estimate the 
current total emissions from BOPF shops in the source category are 
about 123 tpy of HAP metals (such as manganese, arsenic, chromium and 
lead). The

[[Page 49413]]

current NESHAP has a 20 percent opacity limit for the BOPF shop.
    When EPA was developing the 2020 RTR, EPA had very limited data 
regarding the opacity levels being achieved by facilities at that time 
and limited data regarding the types of work practices being applied by 
facilities. The EPA explained in the 2019 proposed rule (84 FR 42704, 
August 16, 2023), and again in the 2020 final rule (85 FR 42074, July 
13, 2020) that EPA did not propose any of these work practices 
primarily because there were significant uncertainties in the technical 
assessment of UFIP emissions that included estimates of the baseline 
UFIP emissions, the estimated HAP reductions that would be achieved by 
the work practices, and the costs of the work practices. In addition, 
EPA also stated that there were uncertainties in the effect the work 
practices would have on facility operations, economics, and safety.
    Based on our review and analyses of the CAA section 114 information 
request responses we received in 2022 and 2023, and further review of 
the data and analyses the EPA assembled to support the 2020 RTR, we now 
conclude that a standard comprising a 5 percent opacity limit with 
several specific work practices is feasible and cost effective. For 
example, based on the data we received, the maximum 3-minute opacity 
readings for the BOPF shops at four facilities are less than 5 percent. 
Furthermore, the use of work practices (described below) by the best 
performing facilities in the industry leads us to conclude that these 
work practices are feasible, and accordingly, we are proposing a 5 
percent opacity limit (based on 3-minute average) and work practices.
    Specifically, we are proposing that facilities will need to do the 
following: (1) Keep all openings, except roof monitors (vents) and 
other openings that are part of the designed ventilation of the 
facility, closed during tapping and material transfer events (the only 
openings that would be allowed during these events are the roof vents 
and other openings or vents that are part of the designed ventilation 
of the facility) to allow for more representative opacity observations 
from a single opening; (2) have operators conduct regular inspections 
of BOPF shop structure for unintended openings and leaks; (3) optimize 
positioning of hot metal ladles with respect to hood face and furnace 
mouth; (4) monitor opacity twice per month from all openings, or from 
the one opening known to have the highest opacity, for a full steel 
cycle, which must include a tapping event; and (5) develop and operate 
according to an Operating Plan to minimize fugitives and detect 
openings and leaks. We are proposing that the BOPF Shop Operating Plan 
shall include:
    [ssquf] An explanation regarding how the facility will address and 
implement the four specific work practices listed above;
    [ssquf] A maximum hot iron pour/charge rate (pounds/second) for the 
first 20 seconds of hot metal charge (i.e., the process of adding hot 
iron from the BF into the basic oxygen process furnace);
    [ssquf] A description of operational conditions of the furnace and 
secondary emission capture system that must be met prior to hot metal 
charge, including:
    [ssquf] A minimum flowrate of the secondary emission capture system 
during hot metal charge;
    [ssquf] A minimum number of times, but at least once, the furnace 
should be rocked between scrap charge and hot metal charge;
    [ssquf] A maximum furnace tilt angle during hot metal charging: 
and;
    [ssquf] An outline of procedures to attempt to reduce slopping.
    We estimate the costs to implement these WPs will be about $500,000 
per year for the source category ($60,000 per facility), and the WPs 
will achieve about 25 tpy reduction in HAP metal emissions, with cost 
effectiveness of $19,600 per ton HAP metals.
    We solicit comments and additional information regarding these 
proposed requirements, including: (1) Comments regarding the specific 
work practices and opacity limit, including the level of the opacity 
limit, averaging time and frequency of the Method 9 opacity tests to 
demonstrate compliance; (2) whether the EPA should only promulgate the 
opacity limit and not include specific work practices; (3) whether the 
EPA should only include the work practices and not the opacity limit; 
(4) whether EPA should remove or change any of the specific work 
practices described above, and if so, an explanation with supporting 
analysis as to what changes should be made and why. We also are 
soliciting comments on whether EPA should provide an alternative limit 
to the 5 percent opacity limit for a small period of time during each 
cycle, or for a certain time period (e.g., once per month or once per 
3-month period), similar to the alternative standard that is in the 
current subpart FFFFF NESHAP for new top blown BOPF shops, which says 
that new top blown BOPF shops must not exceed an opacity of ``10 
percent, except that one 3-minute period greater than 10 percent but 
less than 20 percent may occur once per steel production.'' (See 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart FFFFF), or whether EPA should make the standard, or 
standards, also dependent on a percentage of operating time.
2. How did we develop the revised CAA section 112(d)(6) technology 
standards for BF casthouse fugitive emissions?
    Fugitive emissions from the BF leave the casthouse through roof 
vents, doors left open, and other openings. We estimate the current 
total emissions from BF casthouses in the source category are about 46 
tpy of HAP metals (such as manganese, arsenic, chromium and lead). The 
current NESHAP includes 20 percent opacity limits for the casthouse. 
Based on review of the CAA section 114 information request responses, 
we determined that a 5 percent opacity limit is feasible and cost 
effective. For example, based on recent 2022 data, two facilities 
(Braddock and Gary) are already below 5 percent opacity (e.g., maximum 
6-minute opacity readings of 3.54 and 4.17 percent, respectively). 
Furthermore, based on thirteen Method 9 tests (each about 2 to 3.5 
hours long) in 2018 to 2021 for casthouse fugitives at the Indiana 
Harbor facility (which are available in the docket for this action), 
the maximum 6-minute opacity from all of those tests was less than 2 
percent opacity. Therefore, we have data indicating that at least three 
facilities' BFs are already below 5 percent and therefore can meet the 
proposed 5 percent opacity limit (based on 6-minute averages) with no 
new control costs, and we expect the other 5 facilities can achieve 5 
percent or lower opacity with cost-effective improvements in their 
operations (as described in the technical memorandum cited below). 
Therefore, we are proposing a 5 percent opacity limit (based on 6-
minute averages) as an update to the CAA section 112(d)(6) technology 
review and proposing that facilities will need to measure opacity 
during the tapping operations (at least 2 times per month). We are not 
proposing specific work practices for the BF casthouse, except that we 
are proposing that the facilities will need to keep all openings, 
except roof monitors, closed during tapping and material transfer 
events (the only openings that would be allowed during these events are 
those that were present in the original design of the shop). We 
estimate the costs to achieve and maintain the 5 percent opacity, 
conduct and record the opacity readings, and ensure the openings 
(described above) are closed will be approximately $740,000 per year 
for the source category ($93,000 per facility). We estimate that these 
actions would

[[Page 49414]]

achieve roughly 14.4 tpy reduction in emissions of HAP metals, with a 
cost-effectiveness of about $51,400 per ton HAP metals. Additional 
information regarding the emissions estimates and the cost calculations 
for BOPF shop and casthouse is available in the following documents: 
Unmeasured Fugitive and Intermittent Particulate Emissions and Cost 
Impacts for Integrated Iron and Steel Facilities under 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart FFFFF, which is available in the docket for this action.
    EPA solicits comments regarding any suggested modifications to the 
BF casthouse proposed standards, with thorough explanations to support 
any suggestions with regard to opacity limits and/or work practices 
(and suggested regulatory text) including those described in an email 
from Paul Balserak of the AISI and in an attachment to that email 
titled: II&S DRAFT PROPOSED RULE UFIP LANGUAGE, February 22, 2023, 
which are available in the docket for this action. However, we received 
this information too late for us to be able to review and analyze for 
this proposal. We solicit comments on the information that industry 
representatives provided including whether EPA should adopt some or all 
of these suggestions for the final rule, and a thorough explanation 
including supporting analysis as to why, or why not. We also solicit 
comments regarding whether EPA should provide an alternative to the 5 
percent opacity limit for the BF casthouse, such as the potential 
alternative described above for top blown BOPF shops opacity, or some 
other type of alternative, and if so, an explanation of that possible 
alternative and why, or whether EPA should make the standard, or 
standards, also dependent on a percentage of operating time.
    A summary of estimated annual costs, HAP metal emission reductions, 
and cost-effectiveness for the proposed standards of each UFIP source 
are summarized in Table 3.

    Table 3--Estimated Annual Costs, HAP Metal Emission Reductions, and Cost-Effectiveness for Proposed UFIP
                                                    Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Annualized costs                              Cost-
                                                 --------------------------------    HAP metal     effectiveness
                     Source                          Total for      Average per      reduction      ($/ton HAP
                                                     industry        facility          (tpy)         removed)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BF Unplanned Openings...........................        $239,800         $30,000             0.5        $478,800
BF Planned Openings.............................          54,600           6,800            0.41         134,000
Slag Handling & Storage.........................         308,000          38,500             7.4          41,900
BF Bell Leaks...................................         935,000         120,000              31          30,000
BF Iron Beaching................................          55,000           6,800          0.0035      15,800,000
BOPF Shop Fugitives.............................         500,000          60,000              25          19,600
BF Casthouse Fugitives..........................         740,000          93,000            14.4          51,400
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total for the 7 UFIP sources................       2,828,200         353,500              79          35,924
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Results of Fenceline Monitoring Data Analyses

    In the 2020 RTR, we identified arsenic and chromium as the HAP 
metals driving the highest risk. Lead also had relatively high 
emissions estimates in the RTR proposal and is a criteria air pollutant 
with the potential to cause significant adverse health effects. 
Therefore, with our 2022 CAA section 114 information requests, we 
directed certain facilities to monitor these three HAP metals along 
their fencelines using the sampling method described in 40 CFR part 50, 
Appendix B. We requested fenceline data (i.e., measured concentrations 
of the pollutant in the air at, or near, the fenceline in units of 
micrograms per cubic meter of air ([micro]g/m\3\)) for arsenic, 
chromium, and lead from four facilities at a minimum of four sampling 
locations per facility (or a total of 16 monitoring sites for the 
category) using Method 40 CFR part 50, appendix B. Each sampling period 
lasted 24 hours with five-day intervals in between each sampling period 
for a total of 6 months (i.e., facilities conducted air sampling for 24 
hours every sixth day for a six-month period at each site). These 
results were averaged at all sampling locations and periods for each 
facility, resulting in a six-month average concentration for each metal 
at each of the 16 fenceline locations.
1. Lead and Arsenic Results
    For lead, the highest measured 6-month average fenceline 
concentration (from the 2022-2023 CAA section 114 request sampling) is 
3 times greater than the highest modeled concentration for the example 
facility (US Steel Gary) evaluated in the 2019 RTR proposed rule (84 FR 
42704, August 16, 2019) and the 2020 RTR final rule (85 FR 42074, July 
13, 2020).
    We compared the average 6-month fenceline measurements at each of 
the 16 monitoring locations to the Pb National Ambient Air Quality 
Standard (NAAQS), which is 0.15 [micro]g/m\3\ (based on a three-month 
rolling average). For all locations at all facilities, the averages 
were well below the NAAQS level, with the highest average only 20 
percent of the NAAQS, indicating that lead concentrations are below 
levels of concern at the fenceline for this source category.
    For arsenic, the average concentrations measured at the fencelines 
of the four facilities ranged from 0.001 to 0.015 ug/m\3\. Compared to 
the 2019-2020 modeled results, the highest measured fenceline 
concentration for arsenic is 6 times higher than the highest modeled 
concentration at the same example facility.
2. Chromium/Chromium VI Results
    Chromium concentrations measured at the fencelines of the four 
facilities ranged from 0.001 to 0.175 ug/m\3\. Compared to the 2019-
2020 modeled results, the highest measured fenceline concentration of 
Cr is 28 times higher than the highest modeled Cr concentration at the 
same example facility.
    Chromium has the highest potential for adverse health effects when 
it is in the chromium VI oxidized state (Cr\6+\), which is toxic and 
classified as a human carcinogen; therefore, we estimated the 
percentage of total chromium at the fenceline that is Cr\6+\. To do so, 
we used a combination of previous emissions data from the emissions 
release stacks from the 2020 RTR database and values provided by 
industry--from ambient monitoring data from a site in Michigan that is 
approximately 250 meters from the fenceline of an integrated iron and 
steel facility--to determine a range of

[[Page 49415]]

ratios for Cr\6+\ to total Cr. The stack testing data from the EPA's 
RTR proposed and final rules and the recent submittal from industry 
regarding the ambient monitoring data are provided in the following 
documents: Integrated Iron and Steel Risk and Technology Review: Point 
Source Data Summary Memorandum (IIS_Data_Memo_05-01-19-PROPOSAL-
RTI.pdf) and DRAFT: Review of Available Hexavalent and Total Chromium 
Ambient Monitoring Data (2022-12-16 427pm Draft--Review of Hex Chrome 
to Chrome Ambient Air Data--Copy-c.pdf), which can be found in the 
docket.
    The stack testing data collected from the 2011 Integrated Iron and 
Steel Manufacturing Facilities CAA section 114 request to industry 
provided ratios of 10 percent to 39 percent of total Cr that is Cr\6+\ 
for secondary and primary BOPF units, respectively. These data are 
presented in the technical memorandum titled Integrated Iron and Steel 
Risk and Technology Review: Point Source Data Summary, which is 
available in the docket for the 2020 RTR final rule. Further inspection 
into the data from this request revealed three issues with the values 
of Cr\6+\ and total Cr, as follows: (1) Some values of Cr\6+\ were 
higher than total Cr, which is scientifically impossible; (2) one value 
of Cr\6+\ was equal to total Cr, which we expect is quite improbable 
because only one value from one facility of the total 22 values from 11 
facilities (provided in the 2020 document cited above) reported equal 
results for Cr\6+\ and total chromium; and (3) there were a few 
extremely high and low outliers. The data that fell under each of these 
three categories were removed, and the ratio of Cr\6+\ to total Cr was 
recalculated. This resulted in a new estimated range of ratios from 10 
percent to 18 percent of the total Cr being in the Cr\6+\ form for 
secondary and primary BOPF units, respectively.
    In addition, industry provided feedback on the original ratio range 
of 10 percent to 39 percent Cr\6+\ with data supporting a much lower 
ratio, around 1 percent. They provided ratios from ambient air data 
collected from 2007-2012 at an EPA air toxics monitor approximately 250 
meters from the Dearborn, MI Integrated Iron and Steel facility as well 
as ratios from a Detroit Air Toxics Initiative (DATI) study in 2001 and 
2006. The DATI study found ratios from 0.98 percent to 1.18 percent 
Cr\6+\, while the Dearborn air monitoring analysis found ratios from 
0.68 percent to 0.97 percent Cr\6+\. The DATI study and other Michigan 
data mentioned above are available in the following document: 2022-12-
16 427pm Draft--Review of Hex Chrome to Chrome Ambient Air Data--Copy-
c.pdf, which is in the docket for this action.
    After considering all analysis, we concluded that an estimated 
range for the ratio of Cr\6+\ to total Cr at the fenceline is 1 percent 
to 18 percent and applied this range to the average total chromium 
fenceline measurements to calculate lower- and upper-bound Cr\6+\ 
fenceline concentrations. The range of Cr\6+\ concentrations at the 
fenceline across all four facilities using these ratios is 0.0001 to 
0.0315 ug/m\3\. When compared to the 2020 modeled results, the highest 
measured concentration of Cr\6+\ at the fenceline was anywhere from 2 
to 32 times higher than the highest concentration modeled. This 
indicates Cr and Cr\6+\ (using a ratio of 1 percent to 18 percent to 
estimate measurements at the fenceline) emissions were underestimated 
in the 2020 RTR risk modeling assessment. We expect this difference 
between modeled and monitored levels is mainly due to an 
underestimation of fugitive Cr emissions in the RTR.

D. What are the proposed decisions based on our fenceline monitoring 
data analysis, and what is the rationale for those decisions?

    Based on our analysis of the available data and reductions we 
expect would be achieved by the proposed work practices and opacity 
limits described above in sections IV.A and B, we are proposing a 
fenceline monitoring requirement in the NESHAP pursuant to CAA section 
112(d)(6). Fenceline monitoring refers to the placement of monitors 
along the perimeter of a facility to measure pollutant concentrations. 
Coupled with requirements for root cause analysis and corrective action 
upon triggering an actionable level, this work practice standard is a 
development in practices considered under CAA section 112(d)(6) for the 
purposes of managing fugitive emissions. The measurement of these 
pollutant concentrations and comparison to concentrations estimated 
from mass emissions via dispersion modeling can be used to ground-truth 
emission estimates from a facility's emissions inventory. If 
concentrations at the fenceline are greater than expected, the likely 
cause is that there are underreported or unknown emission sources 
affecting the monitors. In addition to the direct indication that 
emissions may be higher than inventories would suggest, fenceline 
monitoring provides information on the location of potential emissions 
sources. Further, when used with a mitigation strategy, such as root 
cause analysis and corrective action upon exceedance of an action 
level, fenceline monitoring can be effective in reducing emissions and 
reducing the uncertainty associated with emissions estimation and 
characterization. Finally, public reporting of fenceline monitoring 
data provides public transparency and greater visibility, leading to 
more focus and effort in reducing emissions.
    Specifically, for the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing 
NESHAP, we are proposing that facilities must install four ambient air 
monitors at or near the fenceline at appropriate locations around the 
perimeter of the facility, regardless of facility size, based on a site 
specific plan approved by the EPA and collect and analyze samples for 
total chromium every sixth day, as well as implement the following work 
practice requirement: if an installed fenceline monitor has a 12-month 
rolling average delta c concentration, calculated as the annual average 
of the highest sample value for a given sample period minus the lowest 
sample value measured during that sample, that is above the proposed 
action level of 0.1 [micro]g/m\3\ for total chromium, the facility must 
conduct a root cause analysis and take corrective action to prevent 
additional exceedances. Data will be reported electronically to the 
EPA's Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) on a 
quarterly basis and subsequently available to the public via the Web 
Factor Information Retrieval system (WebFIRE) website. We solicit 
comments regarding this proposed electronic reporting, specifically 
whether when, when required, a corrective action plan should be 
submitted via CEDRI and subsequently available through WebFIRE, subject 
to CBI limitations.
    We chose to only propose fenceline measurements for chromium 
because it is found to be a good surrogate for other HAP metals, 
especially arsenic, which was the other risk driving HAP metal in the 
2020 RTR risk analyses (as described in section IV.C of this preamble). 
Arsenic values at the fenceline are found to correlate approximately 
90% with chromium values at the fenceline according to linear 
regression. Thus, the fenceline requirement for chromium will allow for 
the effective management of fugitive emissions of other HAP metals.
    We derived the proposed action level of 0.1 [micro]g/m\3\ by first 
evaluating all the fenceline Cr results to determine the highest 
measured 6-month delta c average level across all facilities (which was 
determined to be 0.154 [micro]g/m\3\ at the US Steel Gary facility). 
The 2nd highest 6-month average monitoring delta c

[[Page 49416]]

result across all facilities was 0.115 [micro]g/m\3\ at the Granite 
City facility. Both other facilities (Cleveland Works and Burns Harbor) 
have delta c 6-month averages below 0.08 [micro]g/m\3\. To establish 
the proposed action level, we evaluated the estimated reductions of HAP 
metals that we expect will be achieved at Gary through the proposed 
work practices and opacity limits. We estimate that the Gary facility 
will achieve at least a 20 percent reduction in HAP metals by complying 
with the proposed opacity limits and work practices. A 20 percent 
reduction would result in an estimated highest 6-month delta c 
concentration of about 0.123 [micro]g/m\3\. Because of the variability 
and limitations in the data, to establish the proposed action level we 
rounded off this highest 6-month value (i.e., 0.122) to one significant 
figure (i.e., 0.1 [micro]g/m\3\). We determined that more significant 
figures would not be appropriate based on such a data set. Therefore, 
we are proposing 0.1 [micro]g/m\3\ as the action level for the 
fenceline monitoring requirement. Given that: (1) Two of the four 
facilities are already below 0.08 [micro]g/m\3\; (2) we project that 
another facility (Granite City) will be below 0.1 after implementation 
of the work practices and opacity limits; and (3) since the fourth 
facility (Gary) is expected to have post control levels that are very 
close to 0.1 [micro]g/m\3\ (and round-off to 0.1 [micro]g/m\3\) we 
propose that an action level of 0.1 [micro]g/m\3\ is appropriate and 
will ensure the effective management of fugitive emissions of other HAP 
metals.
    We also considered a potential action level of 0.08 [micro]g/m\3\ 
or 0.09 [micro]g/m\3\ based in part on the following information. As 
mentioned above, two of the four facilities already have 6-month delta 
c averages below 0.08 [micro]g/m\3\ and one facility (Granite City) is 
expected to be at 0.09 [micro]g/m\3\ after implementation of the work 
practices and opacity limits. Furthermore, the fourth facility would 
only need to achieve about a 42% reduction of UFIP emissions, therefore 
we think an action level of 0.09 [micro]g/m\3\ (or some other level 
such as 0.08 [micro]g/m3) might be appropriate and cost effective. 
Therefore, we solicit comments and information as to whether an action 
level of 0.09 [micro]g/m\3\ (or some other level such as 0.08 [micro]g/
m\3\) would be more appropriate than the proposed 0.1 [micro]g/m\3\ 
action level, and if so, why.
    Furthermore, we are proposing to also include a sunset provision 
whereby if the 12-month average values remain 50 percent below (or 
lower) than the action level (i.e., below 0.05 [micro]g/m\3\) for a 24-
month period, then that facility would not need to continue with 
fenceline monitoring as long as they continue to comply with all other 
proposed requirements described in this proposed rule along with all 
other requirements already established in the current NESHAP. We 
solicit comments regarding this proposed sunset provision, including 
whether a reduced frequency of monitoring would be more appropriate 
than a complete termination of such monitoring, and if so, what 
frequency would be appropriate, or whether a reduced number of monitors 
would be more appropriate (e.g., allow removal of each monitor that 
remains below the 0.05 [micro]g/m\3\ for a period of time).
    More information regarding the estimated reductions of fugitive 
emissions are provided in the document titled Unmeasurable Fugitive and 
Intermittent Particulate Emissions and Cost Impacts for Integrated Iron 
and Steel Facilities under 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF, which is 
available in the docket for this action.
    We expect that the proposed combination of work practices and 
opacity limits described above in sections IV.A and B will likely 
ensure fenceline concentrations remain below this action level most, if 
not all, of the time, so we expect the only costs for this requirement 
will be the costs for developing the plans, setting up monitoring 
equipment, collecting and analyzing the samples, and reporting the 
results. The estimated cost for this requirement is $25,000 capital 
cost and $41,000/yr in annual costs per monitor, $100,000 capital costs 
and $164,000/yr in annual costs per facility, and $800,000 capital 
costs and $1.3M/yr in annual costs for the entire source category. This 
includes equipment, installation, lab costs, and maintenance and labor.

E. Proposed Standards To Address Unregulated Point Sources for Both New 
and Existing Sources

    In addition to the unregulated UFIP sources, we identified five 
unregulated HAP from sinter plant point sources (CS2, COS, 
HCl, HF, and Hg), three unregulated HAP (D/F, HCl and THC [as a 
surrogate for organic HAP other than D/F]) from BF stove and BOPF point 
sources, and two unregulated HAP (HCl and THC) from BF point sources.
    The proposed MACT limits for HCl and THC from BF stove point 
sources were calculated based on data from nine runs each at two 
different facilities. Six of these runs had no production data or lb/
ton emissions data in the test report. The lb/ton emissions values for 
these six runs were calculated using the average of the BF stove 
production values in the three test runs from the facility's 2012 HAP 
metal emissions test report.
    The proposed MACT limit for THC from BOPF point sources were 
calculated based on data from six runs at two different facilities. 
Three of these runs had no production data or lb/ton emissions data in 
the test report. The lb/ton emissions values for these three runs were 
calculated using the average of the BOPF production values in the three 
test runs from the facility's 2012 HAP metal emissions test report.
    We did not identify any cost-effective BTF options for these 13 
unregulated HAP. The BTF options we considered and the estimated costs 
and reductions that the BTF options would achieve are described in the 
Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standard Calculations, Cost 
Impacts, and Beyond-the-Floor Cost Impacts for Integrated Iron and 
Steel Facilities under 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF, which is 
available in the docket for this action. Therefore, we are proposing 
MACT floor limits for the five unregulated HAP from sinter plant point 
sources, the three unregulated HAP from BF stove and BOPF point 
sources, and the two unregulated HAP from BF casthouse control devices, 
as shown in Table 4. We expect no control costs or emissions reductions 
as a result of these emissions limits, except there will be some costs 
for compliance testing, recordkeeping, and reporting which are 
described in sections V.C and VIII.B of this preamble.
    As explained above, we are proposing MACT floor limits (not BTF 
limits), so we think all facilities should be able to comply with these 
MACT floor limits with their current controls (i.e., we expect there 
will be no new control costs for the new MACT floor limits). 
Nevertheless, EPA solicits comment regarding this conclusion.

[[Page 49417]]

                   Table 4--Estimated HAP Emissions and Proposed MACT Limits for Point Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Estimated source
              Process                          HAP             category emissions        Proposed MACT limit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sinter Plants......................  CS2...................  23 tpy................  Existing and new sources:
                                                                                      0.028 lb/ton sinter.
Sinter Plants......................  COS...................  72 tpy................  Existing sources: 0.064 lb/
                                                                                      ton sinter.
                                                                                     New sources: 0.030 lb/ton
                                                                                      sinter.
Sinter Plants......................  HCl...................  12 tpy................  Existing sources: 0.025 lb/
                                                                                      ton sinter.
                                                                                     New sources: 0.0012 lb/ton
                                                                                      sinter.
Sinter Plants......................  HF....................  1.3 tpy...............  Existing and new sources:
                                                                                      0.0011 lb/ton sinter.
Sinter Plants......................  Hg....................  55 pounds/yr..........  Existing sources: 3.5e-5 lb/
                                                                                      ton sinter.
                                                                                     New sources: 1.2e-5 lb/ton
                                                                                      sinter.
BF casthouse control devices.......  HCl...................  1.4 tpy...............  Existing sources: 0.0013 lb/
                                                                                      ton iron.
                                                                                     New sources: 5.9e-4 lb/ton
                                                                                      iron.
BF casthouse control devices.......  THC...................  270 tpy...............  Existing sources: 0.092 lb/
                                                                                      ton iron.
                                                                                     New sources: 0.035 lb/ton
                                                                                      iron.
BOPF...............................  D/F (TEQ\1\)..........  3.6 grams/yr..........  Existing and new sources:
                                                                                      4.7e-8 lb/ton steel.
BOPF...............................  HCl...................  200 tpy...............  Existing sources: 0.078 lb/
                                                                                      ton steel.
                                                                                     New sources: 1.9e-4 lb/ton
                                                                                      steel.
BOPF...............................  THC...................  13 tpy................  Existing sources: 0.04 lb/
                                                                                      ton steel.
                                                                                     New sources: 0.0017 lb/ton
                                                                                      steel.
BF Stove...........................  D/F (TEQ).............  0.076 grams/year......  Existing and new sources:
                                                                                      3.8e-10 lb/ton iron.
BF Stove...........................  HCl...................  4.5 tpy...............  Existing sources: 5.2e-4 lb/
                                                                                      ton iron.
                                                                                     New sources: 1.4e-4 lb/ton
                                                                                      iron.
BF Stove...........................  THC...................  200 tpy...............  Existing sources: 0.1 lb/
                                                                                      ton iron.
                                                                                     New sources: 0.0011 lb/ton
                                                                                      iron.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Toxic equivalents.

    The EPA solicits comment on the data used to calculate the MACT 
floor limits (shown in Table 4). EPA also welcomes the submittal of 
more test data from stakeholders, as soon as possible, to further 
inform the development of appropriate MACT limits for the final rule. 
We are also soliciting comments on whether the format of the limits 
(lbs/ton) for BF Stoves is most appropriate or whether a different 
format would be more appropriate for the BF Stoves such as lbs of HAP 
per cubic foot of gas or lbs of HAP per British thermal unit (BTU). EPA 
also solicits comment on whether an averaging compliance alternative 
should be considered for the NESHAP to demonstrate compliance with the 
limits and if so what types of alternatives should be considered. We 
also solicit comment on whether there are surrogates that are 
representative of any of the new HAP limits that EPA should consider 
and, if so, why, including an explanation as to how that surrogate 
might be appropriate for any of these HAP.

F. Reconsideration of Standards for D/F and PAH for Sinter Plants Under 
CAA Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for Both New and Existing 
Sources

    As part of our updates to the CAA section 112(d)(6) review, we 
analyzed available test data for D/F and PAH from sinter plants. We 
also evaluated potential emissions limits for D/F and PAHs. First, we 
developed a regulatory option that reflects the current control 
technologies and practices (current performance) at the existing sinter 
plants at the three source category facilities that have sinter plants. 
The sinter plants are currently controlled with baghouses or wet 
scrubbers. To derive an emissions limit that reflects current controls, 
we used the UPL approach we typically use for calculation of MACT floor 
limits (described above in section III.B). Using the UPL method, we 
calculated an emissions limit of 3.5E-08 lbs/ton of sinter for D/F 
(TEQ) and an emissions limit of 5.9E-03 lbs/ton for PAHs for existing 
sinter plant windboxes and limits of 3.1E-09 lbs/ton of sinter for D/F 
(TEQ) and 1.5E-03 lbs/ton of sinter for PAHs for new sinter plant 
windboxes.
    Second, as part of the technology review, we analyzed and evaluated 
an option based on the addition of new controls (i.e., activated carbon 
injection or ACI) to reduce emissions of D/F and PAHs. We estimate the 
total capital costs of these controls would be $950,000, the annual 
costs would be $2.3 million, and the controls would achieve 8 grams per 
year reduction of D/F TEQ and 5.4 tpy reduction of PAHs, with cost 
effectiveness of $287,000 per gram and $340,000 per ton, respectively.
    Based on that analysis and evaluation of regulatory options, we 
conclude that the second option (i.e., addition of ACI) is not cost 
effective. This conclusion is consistent with the EPA's decisions made 
in the 2020 RTR final rule as part of our ample margin of safety 
analysis for D/F in 2020. Therefore, we are proposing the emissions 
limits of 3.5E-08 lbs/ton of sinter for D/F (TEQ) and 5.9E-03 lbs/ton 
of sinter for PAHs for existing sinter plant windboxes, and limits of 
3.1E-09 lbs/ton of sinter for D/F (TEQ) and 1.5E-03 lbs/ton of sinter 
for PAHs for new sinter plant windboxes that reflect current 
performance. We estimate all three facilities with sinter plants would 
be able to meet these limits with no additional controls so there will 
be no emissions reductions with these new existing standards. The 
estimated costs for compliance tests are $50,000 to $75,000 per 
facility, once every 5 years. Furthermore, we do not expect any new 
sinter plants will be constructed in the foreseeable future. Therefore, 
we expect no impacts due to these new source emissions limits.
    Regarding the second option described above (i.e., an emissions 
limit based on addition of ACI), although we are not proposing this 
option, we solicit comments regarding this option, including the cost 
effectiveness determination and whether or not EPA should establish a 
tighter limit (based on application of ACI) and if so why and analysis 
to support that conclusion. For more details regarding our data and 
analyses of options, see the technical memorandum titled: Maximum 
Achievable Control Technology Standard Calculations, Cost Impacts, and 
Beyond-the-Floor Cost Impacts for Integrated Iron and Steel Facilities 
under 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF, which is available in the docket 
for this action.
    EPA also solicits comment on whether the proposed new limits for 
dioxin/furans and PAHs are appropriate

[[Page 49418]]

or if EPA should instead maintain the current approach in the NESHAP 
which is that the sinter plant oil content limit of the feedstock to 
the sinter plant and/or the VOC emission limit from the windbox exhaust 
stream are surrogates for the dioxin/furans and PAH emissions for 
sinter plants.

G. Adding 1-Bromopropane to List of HAP

    On January 5, 2022, the EPA published a final rule amending the 
list of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) under the CAA to add 1-
bromopropane (1-BP) in response to public petitions previously granted 
by the EPA. (87 FR 393). Consequently, as each NESHAP is reviewed, we 
are evaluating whether the addition of 1-BP to the CAA section 112 HAP 
list impacts the source category. For the Integrated Iron and Steel 
Manufacturing Facilities source category, we conclude that the 
inclusion of 1-BP as a regulated HAP would not impact the 
representativeness of the MACT standard because, based on available 
information, we have no evidence that 1-BP is emitted from this source 
category. As a result, no changes are being proposed to the subpart 
FFFFF NESHAP based on the January 2022 rule adding 1-BP to the list of 
HAP. Nevertheless, we are requesting comments regarding the use of 1-BP 
and any potential emissions of 1-BP from this source category.

H. What compliance dates are we proposing?

    Amendments to the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing 
Facilities NESHAP proposed in this rulemaking for adoption under CAA 
section 112(d)(2), (3), and (6) and 112(h) are subject to the 
compliance deadlines outlined in the CAA under section 112(i). For 
existing sources, CAA section 112(i)(3) provides there shall be 
compliance ``as expeditiously as practicable, but in no event later 
than 3 years after the effective date of such standard . . . .'' 
subject to certain exemptions further detailed in the statute.\5\ In 
determining what compliance period is as ``expeditious as 
practicable,'' we consider the amount of time needed to plan and 
construct projects and change operating procedures. As provided in CAA 
section 112(i), all new affected sources must comply with these 
provisions by the effective date of the final amendments to the 
Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities NESHAP or upon 
startup, whichever is later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Ass'n of Battery Recyclers v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667, 672 (D.C. 
Cir. 2013) (stating that ``section 112(i)(3)'s 3-year maximum 
compliance period applies generally to `any emission standard . . . 
promulgated under [CAA section 112]''' (quoting 42 U.S.C. 7412(i)(3) 
(brackets in original)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All affected facilities would have to continue to meet the current 
provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF until the applicable 
compliance date of the amended rule. The final action is expected to 
qualify under the definition in 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so the effective date 
of the final rule will be 60 days after the promulgation date as 
specified in the Congressional Review Act. See 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(3)(A).
    With regard to the new emissions limits for sinter plant windboxes, 
since we have test data from all three existing sinter plants except 
for HF from one facility, and because these facilities already have 
controls in place to meet the new emissions limits (as described 
above), we expect facilities will be able to comply with the new 
emissions limits in a relatively short time period after the final rule 
is published in the Federal Register. However, we expect the sources 
will need some time (e.g., up to 6 months) to conduct applicability 
reviews, conduct performance testing, and implement monitoring to 
comply with the new emissions limits. Therefore, for all affected 
sinter plant windbox sources that commence construction or 
reconstruction on or before July 31, 2023, we are proposing that owners 
or operators must comply with the new emissions limits within 6 months 
after the promulgation date of the final rule.
    With regard to fenceline monitoring requirements, a method for the 
fenceline measurement of metals has not yet been promulgated. Once the 
method is promulgated, we expect that sources will need up to 6 months 
to begin the required monitoring because they first need to develop 
fenceline monitoring plans, submit those plans to the EPA for review 
and approval, and then they will require time to set up all the 
fenceline monitors which will include, in some cases, installing new 
electric powerlines to support the new monitors. Therefore, for all 
affected sources that commence construction or reconstruction on or 
before July 31, 2023, we are proposing that owners or operators must 
comply with the proposed fenceline monitoring requirements within 1 
year of promulgation of the fenceline method for metals or 2 years 
after the promulgation date of the final rule, whichever is later. This 
would mean that facilities would need to begin the fenceline monitoring 
no later than 1 year after the promulgation date of the fenceline 
method or 2 years after promulgation of the rule. The EPA intends to 
propose a metals fenceline method sometime in 2024 through a separate 
action. Subsequently, the proposed action level and requirements for 
root cause analyses and other actions would apply 12 months later since 
the action level is based on 12-month rolling average concentrations.
    With regard to the proposed opacity limits and work practice 
standards, although we do not expect the need for any additional add-on 
controls, we expect facilities need up to 12 months to install and 
operate various types of equipment, such as devices to continuously 
measure/monitor material levels in BFs with alarms to inform operators 
of static conditions which increase likelihood of unplanned bleeder 
valve openings; instruments on the BF to monitor temperature and 
pressure; water spray equipment or fogging equipment to minimize 
emissions from slag; full or partial enclosures or CO2 gas 
suppression equipment to minimize emissions during beaching; improved 
hooding or fans to increase draft velocities to capture more fugitives 
in BF casthouse or BOPF shop; or improved runner covers in the BF 
casthouses. Furthermore, facilities may need several months to repair 
unintended openings in the BF casthouse or BOPF shop that are not part 
of the original or modified building design. Therefore, for all 
affected sources that commence construction or reconstruction on or 
before July 31, 2023, we are proposing that owners or operators must 
comply with the opacity limits and work practices for the seven UFIP 
sources described above in sections IV.A and B within 12 months after 
promulgation.
    With regard to the new emissions limits for HCl, THC, and D/F for 
BFs and BOPFs, as explained above in section IV.E, we expect all 
facilities will be able to comply with the new emissions limits without 
the need for additional controls because all BFs and BOPFs are similar 
and have similar controls. Therefore, for all affected BF and BOPF 
sources that commence construction or reconstruction on or before July 
31, 2023, we are proposing that owners or operators must comply within 
6 months after the promulgation date of the final rule.
    For all affected sources that commence construction or 
reconstruction after July 31, 2023, we are proposing that owners or 
operators must comply with the all the proposed new and revised 
provisions by the

[[Page 49419]]

effective date of the final rule (or upon startup, whichever is later). 
All compliance dates for this proposed rule are summarized in Table 5.

       Table 5--Summary of Compliance Dates for the Proposed Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Source(s)              Rule requirement     Compliance date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All affected sinter plant         Proposed new        6 months after the
 windbox sources that commence     emissions limits    promulgation date
 construction or reconstruction    for mercury, HCl,   of the final
 on or before July 31, 2023.       HF, CS2, COS, D/    rule.
                                   F, and PAH.
All affected sources that         Proposed fenceline  1 year after the
 commence construction or          monitoring          promulgation of
 reconstruction on or before       requirements.       the fenceline
 July 31, 2023.                                        method for metals
                                                       or 2 years after
                                                       the promulgation
                                                       date of the final
                                                       rule, whichever
                                                       is later.
                                  Proposed opacity    12 months after
                                   limits and work     the promulgation
                                   practices for the   date of the final
                                   seven UFIP          rule.
                                   sources.
All affected BF and BOPF sources  Proposed new        6 months after the
 that commence construction or     emissions limits    promulgation date
 reconstruction on or before       for HCl, THC, and   of the final
 July 31, 2023.                    D/F.                rule.
All affected sources that         All proposed new    Effective date of
 commence construction or          and revised         the final rule
 reconstruction after July 31,     provisions.         (or upon startup,
 2023.                                                 whichever is
                                                       later).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We solicit comment on these proposed compliance periods, and we 
specifically request submission of information from sources in this 
source category regarding specific actions that would need to be 
undertaken to comply with the proposed amended provisions and the time 
needed to make the adjustments for compliance with any of the revised 
provisions. We also solicit comment on whether and how efforts to meet 
the proposed compliance periods would impact decarbonization efforts or 
other efforts to address hazardous air pollutants. We note that 
information provided could result in changes to the proposed compliance 
dates, if appropriate.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected sources?

    The affected sources are facilities in the Integrated Iron and 
Steel Manufacturing Facilities source category. This includes any 
facility engaged in producing steel from iron ore. Integrated iron and 
steel manufacturing includes the following processes: sinter 
production, iron production, iron preparation (hot metal 
desulfurization), and steel production. The iron production process 
includes the production of iron in BFs by the reduction of iron-bearing 
materials with a hot gas. The steel production process includes BOPF. 
Based on the data we have, there are eight operating integrated iron 
and steel manufacturing facilities subject to this NESHAP, and one idle 
facility.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    We project emissions reductions of about 79 tpy of HAP metals and 
about 560 tpy of PM2.5 from UFIP sources in the Integrated 
Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities source category due to the new 
and revised standards for UFIP sources.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    The estimated capital costs are $5.4M and annualized costs are 
$2.8M per year for the source category for the new UFIP control 
requirements. Also, compliance testing for all the new standards is 
estimated to cost about $1.7M once every 5 years for the source 
category (which equates to about an average of roughly $320,000 per 
year). The estimated cost breakdown for the fenceline monitoring 
requirement is $25,000 capital cost and $41,100 annual operating costs 
per monitor, $100,000 capital costs and $164,000 annual operating costs 
per facility, and $800,000 capital costs and $1.3M annual operating 
costs for the source category (assumes 8 operating facilities). 
Additional monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements 
associated with the proposed rule are expected to cost $7,500 per 
facility per year ($60,000 for the source category per year, assuming 
eight facilities). The total estimated capital costs are $6.2 million 
and total estimated annualized costs are $4.9 million for all the 
proposed requirements for the source category. However, annual costs 
could decrease after facilities complete 2 years of fenceline 
monitoring because we are proposing a sunset provision whereby if 
facilities remain below the action level for 2 full years, they can 
terminate the fenceline monitoring as long as they continue to comply 
with all other rule requirements. There may be some energy savings from 
reducing leaks of BF gas from bells, which is one of the work practices 
described in this preamble, however those potential savings have not 
been quantified.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    The EPA conducted an economic impact analysis for the proposed rule 
in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), which is available in the 
docket for this action. If the compliance costs, which are key inputs 
to an economic impact analysis, are small relative to the receipts of 
the affected industries, then the impact analysis may consist of a 
calculation of annual (or annualized) costs as a percent of sales for 
affected parent companies. This type of analysis is often applied when 
a partial equilibrium or more complex economic impact analysis approach 
is deemed unnecessary given the expected size of the impacts. The 
annualized cost per sales for a company represents the maximum price 
increase in the affected product or service needed for the company to 
completely recover the annualized costs imposed by the regulation. We 
conducted a cost-to-sales analysis to estimate the economic impacts of 
this proposal, given that the EAV of the compliance costs over the 
period 2025-2034 are $4.6 million using a 7 percent or a 3 percent 
discount rate in 2022 dollars, which is small relative to the revenues 
of the steel industry.
    There are two parent companies directly affected by the proposal: 
Cleveland-Cliffs, Inc. and U.S. Steel. Each reported greater than $20 
billion in revenue in 2021. The EPA estimated the annualized compliance 
cost each firm is expected to incur and determined the estimated cost-
to-sales ratio for each firm is less than 0.02 percent. Therefore, the 
projected economic impacts of the expected compliance costs of the 
proposal are likely to be small. The EPA also conducted a small 
business screening to determine the possible impacts of the proposed 
rule on small

[[Page 49420]]

businesses. Based on the Small Business Administration size standards 
and Cleveland-Cliffs, Inc. and U.S. Steel employment information, this 
source category has no small businesses.

E. What are the benefits?

    The proposed UFIP emissions work practices to reduce HAP emissions 
(with concurrent control of PM2.5) could improve air quality 
and the health of persons living in surrounding communities. The 
proposed opacity limits and UFIP work practices are expected to reduce 
about 79 tpy of HAP metal emissions, including emissions of manganese, 
lead, arsenic, and chromium. Due to methodology and data limitations, 
we did not attempt to monetize the health benefits of reductions in HAP 
in this analysis. Instead, we are providing a qualitative discussion of 
the health effects associated with HAP emitted from sources subject to 
control under the proposed action in section 4.2 of the RIA, available 
in the docket for this action. The EPA remains committed to improving 
methods for estimating HAP benefits by continuing to explore additional 
aspects of HAP-related risk from the integrated iron and steel 
manufacturing sector, including the distribution of that risk.
    The proposed opacity limits and UFIP work practices are also 
estimated to reduce PM2.5 emissions by about 560 tpy for the 
source category. The EPA estimated monetized benefits related to 
avoided premature mortality and morbidity associated with reduced 
exposure to PM2.5 for 2025-2034. The present-value (PV) of 
the short-term benefits for the proposed rule range from $2.3 billion 
at a 3 percent discount rate to $1.7 billion at a 7 percent discount 
rate with an equivalent annualized value (EAV) of $260 million and $220 
million, respectively. The EAV represents a flow of constant annual 
values that would yield a sum equivalent to the PV. The PV of the long-
term benefits for the proposed rule range from $2.4 billion at a 3 
percent discount rate to $1.7 billion at a 7 percent discount rate with 
an EAV of $280 million and $230 million, respectively. All estimates 
are reported in 2022 dollars. For the full set of underlying 
calculations see the Integrated Iron and Steel Benefits workbook, 
available in the docket for this action.

F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

    Executive Order 12898 directs EPA to identify the populations of 
concern who are most likely to experience unequal burdens from 
environmental harms, which are specifically minority populations 
(people of color), low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples (59 
FR 7629, February 16, 1994). Additionally, Executive Order 14096 built 
upon and supplemented that order (88 FR 25251) (Apr. 26, 2023). For 
this action, pursuant to the Executive Orders, the EPA conducted an 
assessment of the impacts that would result from the proposed rule 
amendments, if promulgated, on communities with environmental justice 
concerns living near Integrated Iron and Steel facilities.
    Consistent with the EPA's commitment to integrating environmental 
justice (EJ) in the Agency's actions, the Agency has carefully 
considered the impacts of this action on communities with EJ concerns. 
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.'' \6\ The EPA further 
defines fair treatment to mean that ``no group of people should bear a 
disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including 
those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of 
industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and 
policies.'' In recognizing that communities with EJ concerns often bear 
an unequal burden of environmental harms and risks, the EPA continues 
to consider ways of protecting them from adverse public health and 
environmental effects of air pollution. For purposes of analyzing 
regulatory impacts, the EPA relies upon its June 2016 Technical 
Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis,\7\ 
which provides recommendations that encourage analysts to conduct the 
highest quality analysis feasible, recognizing that data limitations, 
time, resource constraints, and analytical challenges will vary by 
media and circumstance. The Technical Guidance states that a regulatory 
action may involve potential EJ concerns if it could: (1) Create new 
disproportionate impacts on minority populations, low-income 
populations, and/or Indigenous peoples; (2) exacerbate existing 
disproportionate impacts on minority populations, low-income 
populations, and/or Indigenous peoples; or (3) present opportunities to 
address existing disproportionate impacts on minority populations, low-
income populations, and/or Indigenous peoples through this action under 
development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice.
    \7\ See https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/technical-guidance-assessing-environmental-justice-regulatory-analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To examine the potential for any EJ issues that might be associated 
with Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities sources, we 
performed a proximity demographic analysis, which is an assessment of 
individual demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km and 
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 approach is consistent with EPA's longstanding approach for 
evaluating the potential for impacts on communities with EJ concerns.
    The results of the proximity demographic analysis (see Table 6) 
indicate that, for populations within 5 km of the nine integrated iron 
and steel facilities, the percent of the population that is African 
American is more than twice the national average (27 percent versus 12 
percent). In addition, the percentage of the population that is living 
below the poverty level (29 percent) and living below 2 times the 
poverty level (52 percent) is well above the national average (13 
percent and 29 percent, respectively). Other demographics for the 
populations living within 5 km are below or near the respective 
national averages.
    Within 50 km of the nine sources within the Integrated Iron and 
Steel Manufacturing Facilities category, the percent of the population 
that is African American is above the national average (20 percent 
versus 12 percent). Within 50 km the income demographics are similar to 
the national averages. Other demographics for the populations living 
within 50 km are below or near the respective national averages.
    The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are 
presented in the document titled Analysis of Demographic Factors for 
Populations Living Near Integrated Iron and Steel Facilities, which is 
available in the docket for this action.
    As discussed in other subsections of the impacts of this action, in 
this action the EPA is proposing requirements for facilities to improve 
UFIP emission control resulting in reductions of both metal HAP and 
PM2.5. We estimate that all facilities will achieve 
reductions of HAP emissions as a result of this proposed rule, 
including the facilities at which the percentage of the population 
living in close proximity who are African American and below poverty 
level is greater than the national average. The proposed changes will

[[Page 49421]]

have beneficial effects on air quality and public health for 
populations exposed to emissions from integrated iron and steel 
facilities.

    Table 6--Proximity Demographic Assessment Results for Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Population
                                                                                   within 50 km     Population
                        Demographic group                           Nationwide         of 9       within 5 km of
                                                                                    facilities     9 facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population................................................     329,824,950      18,966,693         478,761
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                           Race and Ethnicity by Percent
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
White...........................................................              60              63              52
African American................................................              12              20              27
Native American.................................................             0.6             0.1             0.2
Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite)................              19              10              16
Other and Multiracial...........................................               9               7               5
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Income by Percent
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level.............................................              13              13              29
Above Poverty Level.............................................              87              87              71
Below 2x Poverty Level..........................................              29              28              52
Above 2x Poverty Level..........................................              71              72              48
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                               Education by Percent
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without a High School Diploma.......................              12               9              18
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma..........................              88              91              82
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                        Linguistically Isolated by Percent
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated.........................................               5               3               6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
 The nationwide population count and all demographic percentages are based on the Census' 2016-2020
  American Community Survey five-year block group averages and include Puerto Rico. Demographic percentages
  based on different averages may differ. The total population counts are based on the 2020 Decennial Census
  block populations.
 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.

    In addition to the analyses described above, the EPA completed a 
risk-based demographics analysis for the residual risk and technology 
review (RTR) proposed rule (84 FR 42704, August 16, 2019) and the 2020 
RTR final rule (85 FR 42074, July 13, 2020). A description of the 
demographic analyses and the results are provided in those two Federal 
Register documents.

VI. Request for Comments

    We solicit comments on all aspects of this proposed action. In 
addition to general comments on this proposed action, we are also 
interested in receiving comments regarding the estimated emissions from 
UFIP sources, the estimated emissions reductions from the proposed 
measures, the proposed opacity limits and work practices, individually 
or together, to reduce emissions from the nonpoint sources, and the 
estimated costs to comply with the proposed requirements. EPA requests 
comment on the assumptions regarding the costs of capital, work 
practices, and emissions. EPA requests comment on the assumption that 
no additional facilities will close, open, or go idle over the time 
horizon set in our analysis. EPA acknowledges that other ongoing 
rulemaking efforts (including those affecting lime manufacturing, coke 
ovens, taconite iron ore processing, and electric arc furnace sources) 
may impact facilities in this source category and solicits comments on 
the cumulative regulatory burden of rules affecting these facilities. 
We solicit comments of how this proposed action interacts with 
potential timelines and changes to facilities installing carbon capture 
and/or using hydrogen or how the regulation might affect steel 
decarbonization efforts. We solicit comments on potential impacts, if 
any, on: U.S. manufacturing and supply chains; National Security; 
projects that use steel and iron for renewable and clean energy 
projects; aerospace manufacturing; telecommunications; critical 
infrastructure for national defense, and global competitiveness. We 
also solicit comment on the creation or retention of jobs and the 
quality of those jobs. We solicit comment on projects that use iron and 
steel that are funded by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act 
(IIJA) (most commonly known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill) and 
the CHIPS and Science Act.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

    This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted 
to OMB for review mainly because of the estimated benefits of the 
estimated PM2.5 reductions described above. Any changes made 
in response to recommendations received as part of

[[Page 49422]]

Executive Order 12866 review have been documented in the docket.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this proposal have been 
submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The information collection 
request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR 
number 2003.10. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this 
rule, and it is briefly summarized here.
    Respondents/affected entities: Integrated iron and steel 
manufacturing facilities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart FFFFF).
    Estimated number of respondents: 8 facilities.
    Frequency of response: One time.
    Total estimated burden: The annual recordkeeping and reporting 
burden for facilities to comply with all of the requirements in the 
NESHAP is estimated to be 30,400 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 
5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: The annual recordkeeping and reporting cost 
for all facilities to comply with all of the requirements in the NESHAP 
is estimated to be $3,950,000 per year, of which $3,140,000 per year is 
for this proposal, and $803,000 is for other costs related to continued 
compliance with the NESHAP including $108,000 for paperwork associated 
with operation and maintenance requirements.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the 
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the 
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods 
for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified 
at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related 
comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via 
email to [email protected], Attention: Desk Officer for the 
EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR 
between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no 
later than August 30, 2023. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related 
comments in the final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This 
action would not impose any requirements on small entities. No small 
entities are subject to the requirements of this rule.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in 
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, 
local, or Tribal governments or the private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. It will 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 subject to the NESHAP. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does 
not apply to this action.

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

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) directs Federal 
agencies to include an evaluation of the health and safety effects of 
the planned regulation on children in Federal health and safety 
standards and explain why the regulation is preferable to potentially 
effective and reasonably feasible alternatives. This action is not 
subject to Executive Order 13045 because the EPA does not believe the 
environmental health risks or safety risks addressed by this action 
present a disproportionate risk to children.

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 energy action'' because it is not likely to have a 
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of 
energy.

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 Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing 
Facilities NESHAP through the Enhanced National Standards Systems 
Network (NSSN) Database managed by the American National Standards 
Institute (ANSI). We also conducted voluntary consensus standards (VCS) 
organizations and accessed and searched their databases. We conducted 
searches for EPA Methods 1, 2, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 5D, 9, 17, 23, 
25A, 26A, 29, and 30B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, 320 of 40 CFR part 
63 appendix, and SW-846 Method 9071B. 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 
referenced method, the EPA ordered a copy of the standard and 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 referenced methods. The EPA may reconsider determinations of 
impracticality when additional information is available for particular 
VCS.
    No applicable VCS was identified for EPA Methods 1, 2, 2F, 2G, 3, 
3A, 3B, 4, 5, 5D, 9, 17, 23, 25A, 26A, 29, 30B and SW-846 Method 9071B 
not already incorporated by reference in this subpart. The search 
identified one VCS that was potentially applicable for this rule in 
lieu of EPA Method 29. After reviewing the available standard, the EPA 
determined that the VCS identified for measuring emissions of 
pollutants subject to emissions standards in the rule would not be 
practical due to lack of equivalency. The EPA is incorporating by 
reference the VCS ASTM D6348-12(2020), ``Determination of Gaseous 
Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform (FTIR) 
Spectroscopy''. The VCS ASTM D6348-12(2020) may be obtained from 
https://www.astm.org or from the ASTM Headquarters at 100 Barr Harbor 
Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19428-2959. In 
the September 22, 2008, NTTA summary, ASTM D6348-03(2010) was 
determined equivalent to EPA Method 320 with caveats. ASTM D6348-12e1 
is a revised

[[Page 49423]]

version of ASTM D6348-03(2010) and includes a new section on accepting 
the results from direct measurement of a certified spike gas cylinder, 
but still lacks the caveats we placed on the D6348-03(2010) version. 
The voluntary consensus standard ASTM D6348-12e1 has been reaffirmed 
and is now ASTM D6348-12(2020) and is an acceptable alternative to EPA 
Method 320 at this time with caveats requiring inclusion of selected 
annexes to the standard as mandatory. When using ASTM D6348-12(2020), 
the following conditions must be met:
    (1) The test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to 
ASTM D 6348-12(2020), Sections A1 through A8 are mandatory; and
    (2) In ASTM D6348-12(2020) Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique), 
the percent (%) R must be determined for each target analyte (Equation 
A5.5). In order for the test data to be acceptable for a compound, %R 
must be 70% >= R <= 130%. If the %R value does not meet this criterion 
for a target compound, the test data is not acceptable for that 
compound and the test must be repeated for that analyte (i.e., the 
sampling and/or analytical procedure should be adjusted before a 
retest). The %R value for each compound must be reported in the test 
report, and all field measurements must be corrected with the 
calculated %R value for that compound by using the following equation:

Reported Results = ((Measured Concentration in Stack))/(%R) x 100

    The EPA is also incorporating by reference Quality Assurance 
Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume IV: 
Meteorological Measurements, Version 2.0 (Final), March 2008 (EPA-454/
B-08-002). The Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement 
Systems, Volume IV: Meteorological Measurements, Version 2.0 may be 
found at https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=P100FOMB.TXT.
    Additional information for the VCS search and determination can be 
found in the memorandum, Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Integrated 
Iron and Steel Manufacturing, which is available in the docket for this 
action. The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed 
rulemaking and, specifically, invites the public to identify 
potentially applicable VCS, and to explain why the EPA should use such 
standards in this regulation.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) directs 
Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by 
law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying 
and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse 
human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and 
activities on communities with EJ concerns. For this action the EPA 
conducted an assessment of the impacts that would result from the 
proposed rule amendments, if promulgated, on various demographic groups 
living near Integrated Iron and Steel facilities (as described in 
section V.C of this preamble).
    The EPA believes that the human health or environmental conditions 
that exist prior to this action result in or have the potential to 
result in disproportionate and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on communities with EJ concerns. For populations living within 
5 km of the nine integrated iron and steel facilities, the percent of 
the population that is African American is more than twice the national 
average (27 percent versus 12 percent). Specifically, the percent of 
the population that is African American is more than 1.5 times the 
national average within 5 km of six of the nine facilities. The 
percentage of the population that is living below the poverty level (29 
percent) and living below 2 times the poverty level (52 percent) is 
well above the national average (13 percent and 29 percent, 
respectively). Specifically, the percent of the population that is 
living below the poverty level is more than 1.5 times the national 
average within 5 km of seven of the nine facilities. Other demographics 
for the populations living within 5 km are below or near the respective 
national averages.
    The EPA believes that this action is likely to reduce existing 
disproportionate and adverse effects on communities with EJ concerns. 
This action requires facilities to improve UFIP emission control 
resulting in reductions of about 110 tpy of metal HAP and about 820 tpy 
PM2.5. We estimate that all facilities will achieve 
reductions of HAP emissions as a result of this proposed rule, 
including the facilities at which the percentage of the population 
living in close proximity who are African American and below poverty 
level is greater than the national average.
    The information supporting this Executive Order review is contained 
in sections IV and V of this preamble. The demographic analysis is 
available in a document titled Analysis of Demographic Factors for 
Populations Living Near Integrated Iron and Steel Facilities, which is 
available in the docket for this action.

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2023-15085 Filed 7-28-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P