National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities Technology Review, 23294-23336 [2024-05850]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 3, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23294-23336]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-05850]



[[Page 23293]]

Vol. 89

Wednesday,

No. 65

April 3, 2024

Part V





Environmental Protection Agency





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





40 CFR Part 63





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

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 3, 2024 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 23294]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083; FRL-5919.1-02-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: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) 
is finalizing amendments to the National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Integrated Iron and Steel 
Manufacturing Facilities to regulate hazardous air pollutant (HAP) 
emissions. The amendments include: HAP from unmeasured fugitive and 
intermittent particulate (UFIP) sources previously not regulated by the 
NESHAP; previously unregulated HAP for sinter plants:; previously 
unregulated pollutants for blast furnace (BF) stoves and basic oxygen 
process furnaces (BOPFs) primary control devices; and previously 
unregulated pollutants for BF primary control devices. We are also 
finalizing an update to the technology review for this source category.

DATES: This final rule is effective June 3, 2024. The incorporation by 
reference (IBR) of material publications listed in the rule is approved 
by the Director of the Federal Register (FR) beginning June 3, 2024. 
The incorporation by reference (IBR) of certain other material listed 
in the rule was approved by the Director of the Federal Register (FR) 
as of July 13, 2020.

ADDRESSES: The EPA established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083. All documents in the docket are listed on the 
https://www.regulations.gov/ website. Although listed, some information 
is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information 
(CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 
Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on 
the internet and is publicly available only in hard copy. With the 
exception of such materials, publicly available docket materials are 
available electronically in https://www.regulations.gov/ or in hard 
copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, WJC West Building, 1301 
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open 
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 
566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 
566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action, 
contact Katie Boaggio, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-02), 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12055, Research 
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-2223; 
email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. Throughout this document the 
use of ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is intended to refer to the EPA. We 
use multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may 
not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for 
reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms 
here:

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
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HCl hydrochloric acid
HF hydrogen fluoride
HMTDS hot metal transfer, desulfurization, and skimming
ICR Information Collection Request
II&S Integrated Iron and Steel
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
PBT persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PV present value
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RTR residual risk and technology review
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
THC total hydrocarbons
TEQ toxic equivalency
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:

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?
    D. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. What is the source category and how does the current NESHAP 
regulate its HAP emissions?
    C. What changes did we propose for the Integrated Iron and Steel 
Manufacturing Facilities source category?
III. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments 
for the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities source 
category?
    A. 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 Section 112(d)(6) 
Technology Review
    C. What are the decisions for fenceline monitoring?
    D. Standards To Address Unregulated Point Sources for Both New 
and Existing Sources
    E. Reconsideration of Standards for D/F and PAH for Sinter 
Plants Under CAA Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review, and Beyond-
the-Floor Limit for Mercury
    F. Other Major Comments and Issues
    G. Severability of Standards
    H. What are the effective and compliance dates?
IV. 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?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (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. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 
1 CFR Part 51
    H. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in

[[Page 23295]]

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations and Executive Order 
14096: Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to Environmental Justice 
for All
    I. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    J. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

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 rule is to (1) fulfill the EPA's 
statutory obligations pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6); see 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 finalizing: (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) 
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). An opacity level of 0 percent means 
that plumes of air pollution do not block or absorb light and are fully 
transparent (i.e., no visible emissions), while an opacity of 100 
percent means that plumes are dense and block all light (i.e., the 
trained observer or special camera cannot 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 sector (and a number of 
other metals processing and production sectors), a significant portion 
of the emitted PM is composed of HAP metals (such as arsenic, lead, 
manganese, and chromium) that are primarily emitted in particulate form 
as demonstrated in the emissions tests available in the docket for this 
action. Therefore, for the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing 
sector, as well as several other industry sectors, PM and opacity serve 
as surrogates for particulate HAP metals.
    We are also finalizing new emissions limits for three unregulated 
pollutants for BF stoves and BOPFs: THC (as a surrogate for non-dioxin 
and non-furan organic HAP), HCl, and D/F; and for two unregulated 
pollutants for BFs: THC (as a surrogate for non-dioxin and non-furan 
organic HAP) and HCl. In this action, pursuant to CAA section 
112(d)(6), we are also finalizing: (1) work practice standards for the 
basic oxygen process furnace (BOPF) shops; (2) a requirement that 
facilities conduct Method 9 readings two times per month at the BOPF 
Shop and BF casthouse; (3) a fenceline monitoring requirement for 
chromium to help ensure the work practices and opacity limits are 
achieving the anticipated reductions; and (4) revised standards for D/F 
and PAHs from sinter plants to reflect the installation and operation 
of activated carbon injection (ACI) technology. At this time, we are 
not finalizing the proposed revised opacity limits for the BOPF or the 
BF casthouse, as explained later in this preamble.
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 
final rule. These results are presented in detail in the regulatory 
impact analysis (RIA) accompanying this final rule developed in 
response to E.O. 12866. The final 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 
final rule. The RIA, which is available in the docket for this action, 
focuses on the elements of the final rule that are likely to result in 
quantifiable cost or emissions changes compared to a baseline without 
these regulatory requirements. We estimated the cost, emissions, and 
benefit impacts for the 2026 to 2035 period, discounted to 2024. 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 2026 because we assume that 
will be the first year of full implementation of the rule. We are 
finalizing that facilities will have 1 year to demonstrate compliance 
with the relevant standards following promulgation. This analysis 
assumes that full compliance with the standards will occur in early 
2025. Therefore, the first full year of impacts will occur in 2026. The 
final analysis year is 2035, which allows us to provide ten 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 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 2026 to 2035 period under the rule. All discounting

[[Page 23296]]

of impacts presented uses social discount rates of 3 and 7 percent.

  Table 1--Monetized Benefits, Costs, Net Benefits, and Emissions Reductions of the Final NESHAP Subpart FFFFF
                                        Amendments, 2026 Through 2035 \a\
                       [Dollar estimates in millions of 2022 dollars, discounted to 2024]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        3 Percent discount rate                 7 Percent discount rate
                                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         PV                EAV                 PV                   EAV
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits \b\...................  $1,800 and $3,700  $200 and $420....  $1,200 and $2,600  $170 and $340.
Compliance Costs...............  $45..............  $5.3.............  $36..............  $5.1.
Net Benefits...................  $1,800 and $3,700  $190 and $410....  $1,200 and $2,600  $160 and $330.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions Reductions (short                                      2026-2035 Total
 tons).
    HAP........................                                        640
    PM.........................                                       18,000
    PM2.5......................                                       4,700
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-monetized Benefits in this   HAP benefits from reducing 640 short tons of HAP from 2026-2035.
 Table.
                                 Non-health benefits from reducing 18,000 tons of PM, of which 4,700 tons is
                                  PM2.5, from 2026-2035.
                                 Benefits from reducing HCl, HF, Hg, D/F TEQ, COS, and CS2.
                                 Visibility benefits.
                                 Reduced 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 category that is the subject of this final rule. 
Table 2 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 
for readers regarding the entities that this final action is likely to 
affect. The final standards are directly applicable to the affected 
sources. Federal, state, local, and Tribal government entities are not 
affected by this final 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 occurs in the BOPFs where hot liquid iron from the 
BF is loaded (i.e., charged) into the BOPF along with coke, lime, 
alloys, and steel scrap, and includes blowing oxygen into the furnace 
through a lance resulting in oxidation reactions to produce steel.

 Table 2--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Final
                                 Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         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 final 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 final rule and key technical documents at this 
same website.

D. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration

    Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of 
this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in 
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
(D.C. Circuit) by June 3, 2024. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the 
requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged 
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to 
enforce the requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an 
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable 
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public 
hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also 
provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person 
raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was 
impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public 
comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for

[[Page 23297]]

public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and 
if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule. 
Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a 
Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. 
EPA, Room 3000, WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the 
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate 
General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General 
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 
Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    This action finalizes amendments to 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), if it is the judgment of the Administrator that it is 
not feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard, 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, commonly referred to as ``beyond-the-floor'' (BTF) 
standards.
    CAA section 112(d)(6) requires the EPA to review standards 
promulgated under CAA section 112 and revise them ``as necessary 
(taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control 
technologies)'' no 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, et al. 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). However, costs may not be considered when setting the MACT 
floor and may only be considered when determining whether beyond-the-
floor standards are appropriate. See CAA section 112(d)(3).
    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 the 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), codified 
at 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 and 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. 
1:15-00512, Order (D.D.C. March 13, 2017, as modified Feb. 20, 2020). 
The resulting 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, on a petition for review of the EPA's 
NESHAP rulemaking for a different source category (pulp mill combustion 
sources), the court held that the EPA has an obligation to address all 
unregulated HAP emissions from a source category when the Agency 
conducts the eight-year technology review required by CAA section 
112(d)(6). Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. EPA, 955 F.3d 
1088, 1098-99 (``LEAN''). The parties in California Communities Against 
Toxics thereafter filed a joint motion to extend those deadlines to 
allow the EPA to revise the rules in accordance with the LEAN opinion. 
The court granted the motion, setting a new deadline for this rule of 
October 26, 2023. Order, California Communities Against Toxics, No. 15-
512 (D.D.C. April 14, 2021). Based on further negotiation between the 
parties, the deadline for this final rule was changed to March 11, 
2024. Minute Order, California Communities Against Toxics, No. 15-512 
(D.D.C. Sept. 20, 2023).
    In September 2021, industry and environmental advocacy groups filed 
petitions for review of the 2020 Integrated Iron and Steel 
Manufacturing Facilities 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 being held in abeyance pending the 
promulgation of this final rule. See EPA's Unopposed Mot. to Hold Cases 
in Abeyance, No. 20-1354 (consol.) (D.C. Cir.), Dkt. No. 2028131 
(reporting to the D.C. Circuit the March 11, 2024 final rule deadline); 
Order, American Iron and Steel Inst., No. 20-1354 (consol.) (D.C. Cir. 
Dec. 7, 2022).
    In light of this litigation history, this final rule addresses 
multiple issues, including: (1) new standards to address previously 
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) revised 
standards for a few currently regulated HAP, as well as fenceline 
monitoring requirements, pursuant to the CAA section 112(d)(6) 
technology review.

[[Page 23298]]

B. What is the 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 produced 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 eight facilities have BFs, BF stoves, BOPFs, HMTDS 
operations, and ladle metallurgy operations. However, only three 
facilities have sinter plants and only two facilities with currently 
operating 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. These UFIP emission 
sources were identified by observation of visible plumes by EPA 
regional staff during onsite source inspections and were subsequently 
investigated to determine the causes and any possible methods for 
reductions. These inspections are documented in numerous reports and 
photographs between 2008 and the present.\1\ The NESHAP regulates two 
of these sources--BF casthouse fugitives and BOPF shop fugitives--with 
opacity limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See, 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. Both documents are available in the docket to 
this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following are descriptions of the main process units and the 
seven UFIP sources:
     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 a 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 must be tightly sealed to 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 or replaced. 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

[[Page 23299]]

acceptable and concluded that the NESHAP provided an ample margin of 
safety to protect public health. Although the 2020 NESHAP found the 
risks acceptable and no new requirements should be imposed, new data 
was collected via a CAA section 114 request to industry after re-
opening the rule, due to the LEAN court decision. These new data 
necessitated technology review updates, in addition to establishing new 
MACT standards for unregulated HAPs pursuant to the LEAN court 
decision. Under the technology review in the 2020 RTR, the 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 of the 
2003 NESHAP, 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 Sierra Club v. 
EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008); 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 NESHAP includes emissions limits for 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 Ass'n 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, establishing 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), then ``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 NESHAP regulations, 
including Ferroalloys Production (80 FR 37366, June 30, 2015), Taconite 
Iron Ore Processing (68 FR 61868), and Primary Copper Smelting (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 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 changes did we propose for the Integrated Iron and Steel 
Manufacturing Facilities source category?

    On July 31, 2023, the EPA published a proposal in the Federal 
Register to set standards to regulate HAP emissions from five UFIP 
sources that were not previously regulated by the NESHAP: Bell Leaks, 
Unplanned Bleeder Valve Openings, Planned Bleeder Valve Openings, Slag 
Pits, and Beaching. For sinter plants, we proposed standards for five 
previously unregulated HAP: COS, CS2, Hg, HCl, and HF. For 
BF stoves and BOPFs, we proposed standards for three previously 
unregulated pollutants: THC (as a surrogate for non-dioxin and non-
furan organic HAP), HCl, and D/F. And for BFs, we proposed standards 
for two previously unregulated pollutants: THC (as a surrogate for non-
dioxin and non-furan organic HAP) and HCl.
    As an update to the technology review, we proposed to revise the 
previous 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 PAH for sinter 
plants to reflect current control performance of sinter plants for 
these HAP. We also proposed a fenceline monitoring requirement for Cr, 
including a requirement that if a monitor exceeds the proposed Cr 
action level, the facility would need to conduct a root cause analysis 
and take corrective action to lower emissions.

III. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for 
the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities source category?

    For each issue, this section provides a description of what we 
proposed and what we are finalizing, a summary of key comments and 
responses, and the EPA's rationale for the final decisions and 
amendments. For all comments not discussed in this preamble, comment 
summaries and the EPA's responses can be found in the document, Summary 
of Public Comments and Responses for Proposed Amendments to the 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Integrated 
Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities, which is available in the 
docket for this action. This document is also referred to as the 
Response to Comments (RTC) in subsequent sections of this preamble.

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

1. What did we propose for the five previously unregulated UFIP 
sources?
a. BF Unplanned Bleeder Valve Openings
    Based on the data we received through the CAA 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 proposed an operational limit of five unplanned openings 
per year per furnace for existing sources, which was an estimate of the 
MACT floor level of performance for existing sources. For new sources, 
we proposed 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 representative year.

[[Page 23300]]

    Additionally, we proposed 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 alert them that there is a need to take action to prevent the slips 
and 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 proposed that facilities would need to report the 
unplanned openings (including the date, time, duration, and any 
corrective actions taken) in their semiannual compliance reports.
b. BF Planned Bleeder Valve Openings
    Based on our evaluation of available information and pursuant to 
CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3), for existing sources we proposed a MACT 
floor limit of 8 percent opacity for any 6-minute averaging period for 
the BF planned bleeder valve openings. We did not propose the BTF 
option of 5 percent opacity for existing sources because we determined 
that 5 percent opacity may not be feasible for some sources on a 
consistent basis. For new sources, we proposed 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 expect that new 
sources will be able to configure their furnace design and operations 
similarly to the best performing single source which, in combination 
with utilizing the suggested work practices described in the document 
Unmeasurable Fugitive and Intermittent Particulate Emissions and Cost 
Impacts for Integrated Iron and Steel Facilities under 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart FFFFF, should allow them to achieve an opacity of 0 percent. We 
did not propose 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.
c. BF and BOPF Slag Processing, Handling, and Storage
    Based on our analyses and pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and 
(3), for existing sources we proposed 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. Regarding new sources, 
we proposed a MACT floor opacity limit of 2.5 percent based on 6-minute 
averages for visible emissions from slag pits and during slag handling, 
storage, and processing.
d. BF Bell Leaks
    Based on our evaluation and pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and 
(3), we proposed 10 percent opacity as an action level, as described 
below in this paragraph, for large bell leaks (not a MACT emissions 
limit). Along with this action level, we also proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed 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.
e. Beaching of Iron From BFs
    Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) and CAA section 112(h), 
we proposed 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.
2. What comments did we receive on the proposed standards and, what are 
our responses?
a. BF Unplanned Bleeder Valve Openings
    Comment: Commenters stated that in developing the proposed limit on 
the number of unplanned pressure release device (PRD) openings that 
could occur within a year, the EPA treated all BFs alike by placing 
them in a single category. Commenters stated that because larger BFs 
are able to accommodate higher internal pressures before the need for 
an unplanned opening, the EPA should create two separate subcategories 
of blast furnaces. Commenters stated that in reviewing data for 
unplanned PRD openings, they believed that subcategorization is 
appropriate and necessary if an action level or limit of any type is to 
be established for the number of events. In particular, commenters 
noted that large BFs have significantly fewer unplanned openings, where 
``Large BF'' is defined as a BF with a working volume greater than 
2,500 cubic meters (m\3\). Commenters also stated that the EPA did not 
account for variability across sources and asked EPA to apply an upper 
prediction limit (UPL) if it were to finalize a limit on unplanned 
openings. Commenters stated that a 99 percent UPL analysis of the data 
supports limits of 52 unplanned openings for large BFs and 112 
unplanned openings for small BFs.
    Response: We agree with the commenter that larger BFs are able to 
accommodate higher internal pressure and that subcategorization based 
on BF size is appropriate. In this final rule, we define ``large BF'' 
as a BF with a working volume greater than 2,500 m\3\ and are 
establishing separate limits on unplanned openings for large and small 
BF.
    EPA also agrees with commenters that it is important to account for 
variability in the incidence of unplanned openings. Accordingly, in the 
final rule the EPA has decided to base the limit on the highest number 
of unplanned openings reported within the top five sources to ensure 
that we adequately account for variability, rather than the proposed 
approach of basing the limit on the average number of unplanned 
openings within the top five sources.
    EPA disagrees with commenters' suggestion that it should apply a 99 
percent UPL to determine the limit on unplanned openings. The EPA 
commonly uses the 99 percent UPL to calculate numerical emissions 
limits based on stack test data (e.g., grams of HAP per cubic meter of 
stack exhaust gases). The UPL method is not appropriate to evaluate a 
count of unplanned openings because these are discrete events and are 
therefore not analogous to emissions data or test runs. In the context 
of this final rule, application of the UPL would therefore not 
appropriately reflect variability and would lead to an exceedingly high 
limit on unplanned openings that does not reflect the performance 
achieved at top-

[[Page 23301]]

performing sources. As noted above, the EPA has instead accounted for 
variability in this final rule by basing the limit on the highest 
number of unplanned openings observed among the five top-performing 
sources.
b. BF Planned Bleeder Valve Openings
    Comment: Commenters agreed that these opacity limits will result in 
HAP reductions. Accordingly, commenters supported these revisions and 
additions and encouraged the EPA to not weaken any of the proposed 
limits.
    Response: EPA appreciates the support and agrees that these opacity 
limits for planned bleeder valve openings will result in HAP 
reductions.
    Comment: EPA should not adopt the proposed 8% opacity limit and 
weekly Method 9 testing for planned openings in addition to the new 
work practice standards. PRD openings by operators are routinely 
necessary and appropriate for proper BF operation. Emissions from 
planned openings are exceedingly low, ranging from 1.6 tpy to 0.3 tpy, 
with reductions projected between 0.4 and 0.08 tpy across the entire 
industry. The work practice standards are expensive, with estimated 
cost-effectiveness based upon the proposed rule having rates ranging 
from $134,000/ton to $672,000/ton. No regulation of these small 
contributors should occur. If EPA nonetheless moves forward, there 
should be an action level at 15% (based on a more robust UPL analysis).
    Response: Based on our evaluation of public comments and available 
information, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) and the LEAN 
court decision, for existing sources we are promulgating a MACT Floor 
limit of 8 percent opacity for any 6-minute averaging period for the BF 
planned bleeder valve openings. The MACT floor is the least stringent 
standard allowed by section 112 of the Clean Air Act. For new sources, 
we are promulgating 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, which we consider the MACT Floor 
level for new sources pursuant to CAA section 112. As we explained in 
the proposed rule, we 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. However, 
as explained in the proposed rule preamble, we did not propose any 
specific work practices for the BF planned bleeder valve openings and 
we are maintaining the decision to not require any specific work 
practices for the final rule. Facilities will have the flexibility to 
choose an appropriate approach to meet the opacity limit.
    We estimate that this 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.
c. BF and BOPF Slag Processing, Handling, and Storage
    Comment: Commenters stated that the proposed 5 percent opacity 
limit for slag handling operations should not be adopted. They contend 
that it is virtually impossible to enclose the extremely hot slag 
material or to universally apply water at all times to help suppress 
emissions because of the volatile nature of the material and the 
potential for a life-threatening hazardous explosion when the water 
violently expands in the form of steam. Commenters stated that the EPA 
had ignored these important safety concerns in proposing the 5 percent 
opacity limit, and that the control measures the EPA had identified to 
meet this limit could not be reasonably utilized. Commenters also 
argued that even if EPA's suggested control measures were applied, a 
UPL analysis would result in an opacity limit of 20 percent, far 
exceeding the proposed 5 percent level. Commenters noted that the EPA 
had improperly failed to account for variability in the performance of 
sources by declining to apply a UPL or other statistical analysis.
    Response: After considering these comments, we agree that a limit 
of 5 percent opacity could result in higher cost impacts than we 
estimated at proposal for some facilities. As described in the proposed 
rule Federal Register notice published on July 31, 2023 (88 FR 49402), 
the proposed 5 percent opacity limit was a beyond-the-floor limit based 
on the EPA's understanding at that time that emissions could be cost 
effectively minimized from slag pits with the application of water 
spray or fogging and/or other work practices such as installing wind 
screens, dust suppression misters, and maintaining a high moisture 
content of the slag during handling, storage, and processing. However, 
at proposal we did not account for variability and certain other 
factors such as weather conditions and possible safety issues. Although 
we still conclude that these measures can help minimize emissions, 
these measures might not be sufficient to consistently maintain opacity 
below 5 percent.
    In the proposed rule FR notice, we also described a potential MACT 
floor opacity limit of 9 percent for existing sources which was based 
on the straight average of the top five performing facilities. Based on 
the comments submitted, the EPA is finalizing an opacity limit of 10 
percent based on a MACT floor analysis for existing sources. This final 
limit is based on the average opacity of 9 percent reported by the five 
top performing facilities, but rounding up slightly to 10 percent to 
account for variability. The EPA has historically used the UPL approach 
to develop MACT limits for stack emissions of individual pollutants, 
but has not historically determined opacity limits using a UPL 
approach. The UPL calculation introduces a predictive element to the 
statistics in order to account for variability. However, unlike typical 
emissions testing, EPA Method 9 tests frequently result in values of 
zero, which cannot be used in the UPL calculation so this approach for 
accounting for variability was not used. The EPA determined that 
rounding the opacity from 9 percent to 10 percent sufficiently accounts 
for variability in this process. Therefore, in this final rule we are 
promulgating a 10 percent opacity limit (based on six-minute averages) 
for slag processing, handling, and storage. Because this 10 percent 
opacity limit has been achieved in practice by top performing 
facilities, we expect that all facilities will be able to achieve this 
10 percent opacity limit by application of some or all of the work 
practices described above and in the proposed rule Federal Register 
notice (88 FR 49402). Other comments and responses on this issue are 
provided in the RTC.
d. BF Bell Leaks
    Comment: Commenters expressed concerns that the proposed triggers 
for action for large bells are too low and that the repair and 
replacement time should consider lead time and operational concerns. 
Commenters suggested that with this in mind, the EPA could establish a 
20 percent opacity action level (6-minute average) with quarterly EPA 
Method 9 observation requirements. Under this approach, if a facility 
observes opacity in excess of 20 percent, the facility should be 
required to investigate, make operational changes, and conduct a 
repair, followed by repeat testing using EPA Method 9 to confirm the 
efficacy of the repair. If repairs are not successful, only then would 
replacement obligations be triggered. Other

[[Page 23302]]

commenters stated that if the EPA moves forward with work practice 
standards, the EPA should consider an alternative under which a 
facility would need to initiate operational or other corrective actions 
within five business days if an EPA Method 9 test identifies opacity of 
20 percent or more. If the facility does not reduce opacity to less 
than 20 percent with those actions, the facility would have another 
five business days to initiate further operational or other corrective 
actions to reduce opacity to less than 20 percent. Only if the second 
attempt does not result in opacity of 20 percent or less would the test 
result be deemed a deviation requiring reporting and corrective 
actions, such as moving to the repair step or, if necessary, 
replacement of the large bell.
    Response: We agree with the commenter who suggested the two-step 
approach for large bells is appropriate as well as the suggestion of 
20% opacity instead of 10% opacity as a trigger. As discussed by the 
commenter, the replacement of bells is costly and there are numerous 
more cost-effective repair options available that can be achieved in a 
shorter time period to avoid full repair and replacement. This would 
help keep the bell repairs on a more organized schedule. Therefore, we 
decided to finalize a 20 percent opacity action level (instead of the 
proposed 10 percent opacity action level) and provide two five-business 
day periods to investigate the opacity trigger, as suggested by the 
commenter. Specifically, we changed the requirement to the following: 
if EPA Method 9 identifies opacity greater than 20 percent, the 
facility shall initiate corrective actions within five business days. 
If the first attempt to correct fails and EPA Method 9 again identifies 
that opacity is not reduced to 20 percent or lower, the facility would 
have another five business days to initiate further corrective actions 
to reduce opacity to 20 percent or lower. Only if the second attempt 
does not result in an opacity of 20 percent or less would it become a 
deviation, requiring reporting and corrective actions that we included 
in the proposed rule, such as moving to the repair step or, if 
unsuccessful, replacement of the large bell.
e. Beaching of Iron From BF's
    Comment: Commenters supported the proposal to 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. Commenters supported the addition of monitoring 
of vents from the partial enclosures to allow for additional 
information and accountability for these sources.
    Response: EPA appreciates the support for the beaching requirements 
in the proposed rule.
    Comment: Industry commenters stated that the proposed work practice 
standards to address already low emissions from beaching events, which 
the industry consistently works to minimize, would not provide 
meaningful reductions and would be extremely costly. Industry 
commenters estimated about 4 pounds per year of reduction from these 
proposed measures, lower than the estimates EPA provided in the final 
rule. Commenters also pointed out that EPA's estimated cost per ton of 
removal would be $15.8 million/ton and argued that this amount is 
unreasonable notwithstanding EPA's explanation that it must adhere to 
the floor provisions of the statute. Commenters stated that if EPA were 
to use the more accurate emissions and cost information provided by 
industry, the cost-effectiveness rate estimate based upon the proposed 
rule would be multiple times higher at $311 million/ton. Commenters 
also argued that EPA could reasonably interpret Section 112(d) to avoid 
this result.
    Response: As EPA explained in the proposal preamble, as mandated by 
the LEAN court decision and CAA sections 112(d)(2), 112(d)(3), and 
112(h), we proposed a MACT floor standard (which is the least stringent 
standard allowed by section 112 of the Clean Air Act) 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. Regarding costs, when EPA determines the MACT floor level of 
control, per the section 112 of the CAA, the EPA is obligated to 
determine the MACT floor level regardless of costs. It is only the 
potential beyond-the-floor standards for which costs become an 
important consideration. Nevertheless, as we mentioned in the proposal 
preamble, the estimated costs are only $55,000 per year for the entire 
category and an average annual cost of $6,800 per facility. More 
information regarding the standards 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.
    After considering public comments and available information, 
pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) and 112(h) and the LEAN 
court decision, we are promulgating the same MACT Floor standard as 
proposed.
3. What are the final MACT standards and how will compliance be 
demonstrated?
a. BF Unplanned Bleeder Valve Openings
    In certain instances, as provided in CAA section 112(h), if it is 
the judgment of the Administrator that it is not feasible to prescribe 
or enforce an emission standard under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3), 
the EPA may set work practice standards under CAA section 112(h) in 
lieu of numerical emission standards. For BF unplanned bleeder valve 
openings, the Administrator has determined that since there is no 
direct measurement of emissions, we are finalizing a work practice 
standard. We are finalizing an operational limit for two subcategories 
of blast furnaces: large furnaces with a working volume of equal to or 
greater than 2,500 m\3\; and small furnaces with a working volume of 
less than 2,500 m\3\. This is to account for variability in unplanned 
opening occurrences between furnace size due to design elements that 
allow higher operating pressure near the valve openings, which leads to 
less openings per year for large furnaces. For the large blast 
furnaces, we are finalizing an operational limit of four unplanned 
openings per rolling year per furnace. For small blast furnaces, we are 
finalizing an operational limit of 15 unplanned openings per rolling 
year per furnace. Both are based on a qualitative approach of using the 
highest number of unplanned openings from the top five performing 
furnaces (top four for large furnaces as there are only four operating 
large furnaces). For most MACT floor standards in NESHAP rules, we 
typically have actual emissions test data for each of the top five 
sources. To calculate the MACT floor limit we use all the data (all the 
runs) from all 5 sources to calculate the 99th UPL to account for 
variability. And, we conclude that this 99th value (which is higher 
than the true average) represents the average performance of the top 5 
sources with an adjustment to account for variability.
    With unplanned openings, we do not have a UPL type tool. So, as an 
alternative to a UPL, we considered all the data from the top five 
performers,

[[Page 23303]]

and to ensure we account for variability among those top five 
performers, in this particular situation, we conclude that using the 
highest value (i.e., highest number of unplanned openings) from any one 
source within the top five reflects our best estimate of an appropriate 
limit that would reflect performance of the top five sources with an 
adjustment to ensure we adequately account for the variability among 
those top five sources.
    This approach is appropriate because it accounts for variability 
among the top five blast furnaces. For new sources, we are finalizing 
our proposed operational limit of zero unplanned openings per rolling 
year for both large and small furnaces because the best performing 
single source large and small blast furnace in our database reported 
zero unplanned openings for the most recent typical year.
    Additionally, we are finalizing the work practice standards 
proposed for both furnace subcategories that 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 
alert them that there is a need to take action to prevent the slips and 
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, 
facilities shall report the unplanned openings (including the date, 
time, duration, and any corrective actions taken) in their semiannual 
compliance reports.
b. BF Planned Bleeder Valve Openings
    We are finalizing what we proposed for planned bleeder valve 
openings: a MACT floor limit of 8 percent opacity based on 6-minute 
averages. For new sources, we are finalizing an opacity of 0 percent. 
Facilities will have the flexibility to choose an appropriate approach 
to meet these opacity limits.
c. BF and BOPF Slag Processing, Handling, and Storage
    As discussed above, we are finalizing an opacity limit of 10 
percent based on 6-minute averages for BF and BOPF slag processing, 
handling, and storage, and slag pits. Regarding new sources, we are 
finalizing an opacity limit of 3 percent based on 6-minute averages for 
visible emissions from slag pits, and during slag handling, storage, 
and processing.
d. BF Bell Leaks
    For bell leaks, we are finalizing a 20 percent opacity action level 
for large bell leaks as described below for new and existing large 
bells. This is not a numerical MACT emissions standard; because the 
Administrator has determined that it is not feasible to prescribe or 
enforce an emission standard in this instance, pursuant to CAA section 
112(h), the EPA is setting work practice standards in lieu of numerical 
emission standards. We are also finalizing that the BF top must 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 from the interbell relief valve 
(indicating leaks from the large bell). If VE are detected out of the 
interbell relief valve (indicating leaks from the large bell), the 
facility must 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 20 percent 
based on an average of three instantaneous and consecutive interbell 
relief valve openings, the facility must initiate operational or other 
corrective actions within five business days. After those five business 
days, the facility must perform EPA Method 9 tests again and, if 
opacity is greater than 20 percent, the facility will have another five 
business days to initiate further operational or corrective actions to 
reduce opacity to 20 percent or lower. After five additional business 
days (10 business days in total), the facility must perform EPA Method 
9 tests again and, if opacity is still greater than 20 percent, the 
large bell seals must be repaired or replaced within four months. For 
the new and existing small bells, we are finalizing what we proposed, a 
requirement that facilities shall 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. 
Additionally, the facility must conduct monthly visible emissions 
testing for 15 minutes and amend the metal throughput limit in their 
operation and maintenance (O&M) plan as needed.
e. Beaching of Iron From BFs
    As provided in CAA section 112(h), it is the judgment of the 
Administrator that it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce an 
emission standard for emissions from the beaching process, therefore 
the EPA is finalizing the proposed work practice standards in lieu of 
numerical emission standards. This work practice standard requires 
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. This standard applies to both 
existing and new sources.

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

1. What did we propose for the BF casthouse and BOPF shop?
a. BF Casthouse
    We proposed a 5 percent opacity limit based on 6-minute averages as 
an update to the CAA section 112(d)(6) technology review and proposed 
that facilities will need to measure opacity during the tapping 
operations (at least two times per month). We did not propose specific 
work practices for the BF casthouse, except that we proposed that the 
facilities will need to keep all openings, except roof monitors, closed 
during tapping and material transfer events (the only openings allowed 
during these events are those that were present in the original design 
of the casthouse).
b. BOPF Shop
    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 the EPA assembled to support the 2020 RTR, we proposed that a 
standard composed of a 5 percent opacity limit with several specific 
work practices would be feasible and cost-effective for the BOPF shop. 
For example, based on the data we received, in the proposal we found 
that the maximum 3-minute opacity readings for the BOPF shops at four 
facilities were less than 5 percent. Furthermore, the use of work 
practices (described below) by the best performing facilities in the 
industry led us to conclude for the proposal that these work practices 
were feasible and, accordingly, we proposed a 5 percent opacity limit 
based on 3-minute average and work practices.
    Specifically, we proposed that facilities will need to do the 
following: (1) keep all openings, except roof monitors (vents) and 
other openings that

[[Page 23304]]

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 proposed that the BOPF Shop Operating Plan shall 
include:
     An explanation regarding how the facility will address and 
implement the four specific work practices listed above;
     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);
     A description of operational conditions of the furnace and 
secondary emission capture system that must be met prior to hot metal 
charge, including:
     A minimum flowrate of the secondary emission capture 
system during hot metal charge;
     A minimum number of times, but at least once, the furnace 
should be rocked between scrap charge and hot metal charge;
     A maximum furnace tilt angle during hot metal charging: 
and;
     An outline of procedures to attempt to reduce slopping.
2. What comments did we receive on the proposed revised BF casthouse 
and BOPF shop standards, and what are our responses?
a. BF Casthouse
    Comment: Commenters noted that the EPA did not apply UPL 
calculations to the opacity data, even though the EPA's practice has 
been to do so for other numerical standards established on limited data 
sets. Commenters claim that the EPA's proposed opacity limit of 5 
percent, without any adjustment for variability, lacked justification 
or explanation and is therefore arbitrary and capricious. These 
commenters argued that, when utilizing limited datasets, it is 
appropriate for the EPA to account for variability, and there is no 
technical basis for suggesting that some statistical methods should not 
be applied to this data set. When the EPA set the 20 percent opacity 
limits in 2003, the preamble included the EPA's statistical basis 
supporting that the limits were achievable. Commenters also stated the 
EPA should also include a one-time alternative limit per furnace cycle 
similar to the new source standards in the 2003 NESHAP.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the specific approach of using UPL 
calculations to develop opacity limits in the same manner that the UPL 
is used to calculate emissions limits. The EPA has historically used 
the UPL approach to develop MACT limits for stack emissions of 
individual pollutants but has not historically determined opacity 
limits using a UPL approach. The UPL calculation introduces a 
predictive element to the statistics in order to account for 
variability. However, as noted by the commenter, unlike typical 
emissions testing, EPA Method 9 may result in values of zero, which 
cannot be used in the UPL calculation. While the EPA has used the UPL 
approach for floor determinations when setting MACT emissions limits, 
the proposed changes to the BOPF Shop and BF casthouse opacity 
standards were based on a proposed updating of the CAA section 
112(d)(6) technology review. Additionally, in the case of opacity 
measured according to EPA Method 9, the data EPA reviewed to develop 
the proposed standards were the maximum 6-minute (or 3-minute as 
applicable) averages evaluated over the entire test period. Likewise, 
compliance determinations are also based on the same approach. 
Utilizing the maximum short-term average during each test period to 
determine an appropriate standard, and to determine compliance, 
inherently accounts for some variation in the data used to set the 
standard.
    However, with regard to the comments on variability, we acknowledge 
that there are many opacity readings that occurred over the past 2 to 6 
years at the Integrated Iron and Steel (II&S) manufacturing facilities 
that show that there is a substantial amount of variability in opacity 
measurements across time and across furnaces. For example, many opacity 
tests for BOPF and BF furnace cycles that were completed over these 2-6 
years reported maximum 3-minute and 6-minute opacity readings below 5 
percent for a substantial amount of the cycles. In fact, for many 
furnace cycles the maximum opacity was 0 percent. On the other hand, 
the data show that during some BOPF or BF cycles, opacity is above 5 
percent and sometimes well above 20 percent. The EPA has additionally 
continued to receive opacity data and analyses since the close of the 
public comment period on this rulemaking.
    The EPA was not able to adequately analyze all the available data 
before the deadline for this final rule ordered by the court in 
California Communities Against Toxics. Also, for most of the opacity 
tests that had maximum opacity readings above 5 and 10 percent, the EPA 
does not have any information that explains why the opacity readings 
were higher than 5 percent on those particular days. In most cases, the 
EPA is unable to determine the cause of the higher values based on the 
data and information currently available. Until further revision, the 
opacity limits in the NESHAP for existing BOPF Shops and existing BF 
casthouses will remain at 20 percent based on 3-minute averages for the 
BOPF Shop and 6-minute averages for the BF casthouse.
    The opacity data and further explanation of the opacity data and 
related information can be found in the technical memo 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 docket for this final rule.
b. BOPF Shop
    Comment: Some commenters conducted their own assessment of what 
measures would be needed to comply with the proposed opacity limit and 
work practice standards, which is of course facility-specific, because 
every BOPF shop is unique. Based on their assessments, these commenters 
asserted that each BOPF shop--after applying all ``required'' work 
practice standards and even other work practices that the EPA 
suggested--would likely need to install full-shop controls to meet a 5 
percent opacity limit at all times. The commenters represented that the 
cost to apply this type of control would be high and would involve the 
addition of at least one large fabric filter device to properly capture 
fugitive emissions and allow for proper ventilation for the building. 
The commenters asked EPA to take into account the significant changes 
BOPF shops would have to make to meet a 5 percent opacity standard that 
even the best performers cannot currently achieve on a regular basis. 
They suggested that because of the exorbitantly and unreasonably 
expensive measures that would need to be undertaken by this industry 
sector, and the significant possibility that even facilities installing 
such measures would not be able to consistently meet

[[Page 23305]]

the 5 percent opacity standard, the EPA should not move forward with 
the proposed opacity limit, at least until the Agency undertakes a 
robust engineering analysis to determine the technical and economic 
feasibility of controls that would be needed for BOPF shops to meet 
this lower standard.
    Response: After considering public comments, the EPA now recognizes 
some operations may need to make more significant changes than we 
anticipated at proposal to meet the 5 percent opacity standard at all 
times. We acknowledge that there are many opacity readings that 
occurred over the past 2 to 6 years that indicate that there is a 
substantial amount of variability across time and across furnaces. For 
example, many opacity tests for BOPF cycles (i.e., steel cycles) that 
were completed over these 2-6 years reported maximum 3-minute opacity 
readings below 5 percent for a substantial amount of the cycles. On the 
other hand, the data show that during some BOPF cycles, opacity is 
above 5 percent and sometimes above 20 percent.
    The EPA was not able to adequately analyze all the available data 
before the court-ordered deadline for this final rule. Also, for those 
tests that had maximum opacity readings above 10 or 20 percent, in most 
cases, the EPA does not have any information that explains why the 
opacity readings were high on those particular days. In most cases, the 
EPA is unable to determine the cause of the higher values based on the 
data and information we have. Therefore, the EPA is not finalizing any 
changes to the opacity limits for the BOPF Shop in this final action. 
Instead, the EPA intends to continue reviewing and analyzing the 
opacity data from both the BF casthouse and the BOPF shop that we have 
and also collect additional data in the near future so that the EPA can 
gain a better understanding of the achievability of various opacity 
levels and the reasons why opacity levels are sometimes elevated. After 
EPA completes this additional data gathering and analyses, the EPA 
intends to consider potential revisions to the opacity limits in a 
separate future action. Until further revision, the opacity limit in 
the NESHAP for BOPF Shops will remain at 20 percent based on 3-minute 
averages, and the opacity limit in the NESHAP for BF casthouses will 
remain at 20 percent based on 6-minute averages, consistent with the 
current regulation.
    The EPA is still finalizing opacity testing requirements for BF 
casthouse and BOPF shop fugitives as well as the proposed work practice 
standards for BOPF shop fugitives which are expected to reduce HAP 
emissions by 25 tpy. This accounts for 39% of the estimated emission 
reductions from UFIP sources with this promulgation.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA's reliance on the 
limited 2022 CAA section 114 testing results to determine that a 5 
percent opacity standard would be achievable by BOPF shops for 
relatively modest capital and annual operating costs was inappropriate 
and has led the EPA to propose a standard that is technically and 
economically infeasible to meet. In an appendix to their comments, the 
commenters put forward alternative emission factors and cost estimates 
that, in their view, indicate the proposed standards would cost $88 
million per ton to reduce just 2.6 tpy of HAP emissions industrywide. 
This conclusion is very different from the EPA's own analysis of its 
proposed rule, which was based on an assumption that no capital 
expenditures would be needed, and that for less than $500,000 per year 
industry-wide, all 11 existing BOPF shops should be able to meet a 5 
percent opacity standard and comply with the numerous proposed work 
practice standards. Commenters also said that BOPF shops would not be 
able to meet a 5 percent opacity standard based on 3-minute averages 
from every opening at all times without significant capital 
expenditures, and remain concerned that even with this level of 
spending, there may be times when the shops would not be able to meet 
that standard. Commenters stated that until the EPA can demonstrate 
through a robust engineering study that the proposed opacity limit 
would be achievable at a certain spending level and with certain 
technology in place that is reasonable and cost-effective, the EPA 
should not move forward to finalize the proposed standards.
    Response: As stated in previous responses to comments in this 
preamble, the EPA is not finalizing any changes to the opacity limits 
for the BOPF Shop in this final action. See previous responses to 
comments in this preamble for further explanation.
    Comment: Commenters stated that because the proposal establishing 
an absolute 5 percent limit did not take into account the range of 
operations or impacts resulting in variability, it is clear that some 
periods of operation above 5 percent opacity will occur even with 
proper operation. They believe that any proposal that includes an 
opacity standard lower than 20 percent must provide that compliance is 
achieved provided there are no more than a set number of excursions 
above the revised limit in order to capture normal fluctuation events 
that occur during normal operation. Specifically, the EPA should follow 
the form of the current ``new source'' BOPF shop MACT opacity standard: 
maintain the opacity (for any set of 6-minute averages) of secondary 
emissions that exit any opening in the BOPF shop or other building 
housing a BOPF or shop operation at or below 15 percent, except that 6-
minute averages greater than 15 percent but no more than 20 percent may 
occur twice per steel production cycle. A steel production cycle is 
defined in 40 CFR 63.7822.
    Response: As stated in previous responses to comments in this 
preamble, the EPA is not finalizing any changes to the opacity limits 
for the BOPF Shop in this final action. The opacity limit for existing 
BOPF Shops will remain at 20 percent based on 3-minute averages. See 
previous responses to comments in this preamble for further 
explanation.
3. What are the revised standards for the BF casthouse and BOPF shop 
standards and how will compliance be demonstrated?
a. BF Casthouse
    As stated in previous responses to comments in this preamble, the 
EPA is not finalizing any changes to the opacity limits for the BF 
casthouse in this final action. Facilities will need to comply with the 
20 percent opacity limits that are already in the NESHAP. However, the 
EPA is requiring more frequent Method 9 tests as explained elsewhere in 
this preamble. See previous responses to comments in this preamble for 
further explanation.
b. BOPF Shop
    For the reasons discussed in the responses to comments above, we 
are finalizing work practice standards for the BOPF. Specifically, in 
this final rule, we are requiring facilities 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 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

[[Page 23306]]

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.
    The purpose of the Operating Plan is to address variability in unit 
design and operations by creating an individualized strategy for 
implementing work practice standards at each source. Owners and 
operators can develop specific work practices that make sense for each 
unit and that maximize emission reduction efficiency for each unit. We 
require that the BOPF Shop Operating Plan include:
     An explanation regarding how the facility will address and 
implement the four specific work practices listed above;
     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);
     A description of operational conditions of the furnace and 
secondary emission capture system that must be met prior to hot metal 
charge, including:
     A minimum flowrate of the secondary emission capture 
system during hot metal charge;
     A minimum number of times, but at least once, the furnace 
should be rocked between scrap charge and hot metal charge;
     A maximum furnace tilt angle during hot metal charging: 
and;
     An outline of procedures to attempt to reduce slopping.
    The BOPF shop work practice standards and Operating Plan are 
expected to result in the same HAP emission reductions as the Proposed 
Rule at 25 tpy. This accounts for 39% of the estimated emission 
reductions from UFIP sources with this promulgation.

C. What are the decisions for fenceline monitoring?

1. What did we propose for fenceline monitoring?
    Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), we proposed adding fenceline 
monitoring for chromium. 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, we proposed 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 to collect and analyze samples 
for total chromium every sixth day. In addition, we proposed that 
facilities must 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 period--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 would 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. Furthermore, we 
proposed a sunset provision whereby if the annual average delta c 
remain 50-percent or more below the action level (i.e., 0.05 [micro]g/
m\3\ or lower) for a 24-month period, then the facility can request to 
terminate the fenceline monitoring. Termination of the fenceline 
monitoring in no way impacts the requirement for facilities to meet all 
other obligations under this subpart including the general duty to 
minimize emissions of 40 CFR 63.7810(d).
    Because a method has not yet been proposed or promulgated for 
fenceline monitoring of metals, we proposed that fenceline monitoring 
would begin no later than one year after the EPA's promulgation of a 
fenceline test method, or two years after the promulgation of the final 
rule, whichever is later. The EPA is working as expeditiously as 
possible to propose a new metals fenceline method. As part of the prior 
CAA section 114 information collection effort, we relied on a common 
ambient monitoring method \2\ for the collection of the metals samples 
and associated analytical method \3\ for multi-metals for the analysis. 
While these methods are robust and appropriate for ambient trends 
applications, EPA needs to further investigate and revise these 
approaches for a stationary source regulatory program to ensure 
improved precision and accuracy in the method, in the same manner EPA 
developed Method 327 \4\ from TO-15 in the recent Synthetic Organic 
Chemical Manufacturing Industry: Organic National Emission Standards 
for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)--40 CFR 63 Subparts F,G,H,I 
proposed rule, published on April 25, 2023 (88 FR 25080). The required 
determinations of whether the action level has been exceeded and any 
subsequent root cause investigation will begin once the first annual 
rolling average is acquired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Reference Method for the Determination of Suspended 
Particulates in the Atmosphere (High Volume Method), 40 CFR 50, 
Appendix B.
    \3\ Method IO-3, Determination of Metals in Ambient Particulate 
Matter Using Inductively Coupled Plasma (ICP) Spectroscopy.
    \4\ Federal Register Notice published on April 25, 2023 (88 FR 
25080).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. What comments did we receive on the monitoring requirements, and 
what are our responses?
    Comment: Commenters stated that the proposed focus on chromium as a 
``surrogate'' and the proposal to set an action level for only chromium 
is demonstrably inadequate. Emission standards under CAA section 112(d) 
must be ``comprehensive controls for each source category that must 
include limits on each hazardous air pollutant the category emits.'' 
(LEAN, 955 F.3d at 1095-96.) As identified in several background 
documents for this proposed rule, air pollutants from various facility 
processes include multiple toxic metals in addition to chromium 
including arsenic, mercury, and lead; toxic halogenated compounds 
including carbonyl sulfide, carbon disulfide, hydrogen chloride, 
hydrogen fluoride, D/F; and other toxic pollutants such as hydrocarbons 
and PM. The CAA requires ``as many limits as needed to control all the 
emitted air toxics of a

[[Page 23307]]

particular source category.'' (Id. at 1097.) Commenters stated that the 
2023 Proposal is unlawful on its face for only requiring monitoring and 
action level standards for chromium.
    Response: The EPA disagrees that conducting fenceline monitoring 
for only chromium is inadequate or unlawful. The EPA recognizes there 
are multiple toxic metals emitted by various facility processes from 
the iron and steel facilities. We reiterate that we did not intend to 
measure all pollutants, especially pollutants that are emitted from 
point sources that are directly measurable through source tests and 
continuous monitoring systems. These emissions sources and pollutants 
are subject to other standards under these MACT. We disagree that it is 
necessary to conduct fenceline monitoring for every HAP emitted from 
fugitive emission sources at integrated iron and steel facilities. 
Integrated iron and steel emissions can contain many different HAP and 
it is very difficult for any fenceline method to detect every HAP 
potentially emitted from integrated iron and steel facilities. The 
fenceline monitoring standard was proposed as part of the CAA section 
112(d)(6) technology review to improve management of fugitive emissions 
of metal HAPs and not as a risk reduction measure. In order to meet 
that goal of improved management of fugitive emissions, it is not 
necessary to obtain an accurate picture of the level of all HAP 
emitted. We chose to propose fenceline measurements only for chromium 
because it was a risk driver in the 2020 RTR analyses and has been 
determined to be a good surrogate for other HAP metals, especially 
arsenic, which was the other HAP metal driving the risks in the 2020 
RTR risk analyses. Additionally, at the fenceline, based on fenceline 
monitoring conducted in 2022-23 at Integrated Iron and Steel facilities 
in response to the section 114 request, the highest monitored lead 
levels were found to be 5 times lower than the current air quality 
health NAAQS value (last issued in 2015 to provide an ``adequate margin 
of safety to protect public health''). However, based on a lack of 
information on fugitive lead and other metal HAP emissions, the EPA 
does agree with this commenter that there is a need for more data 
gathering, both at the fenceline and from other sources on the 
facilities. EPA did not propose nor are we prepared to promulgate a 
requirement to monitor any metals other than chromium as part of the 
fenceline requirement, but we intend to gather more fenceline 
monitoring data for lead in 2024 at Integrated Iron and Steel 
facilities to better characterize fugitive lead emissions. 
Additionally, we intend to gather more data regarding HAP metals from 
sinter plant stacks through the use of PM continuous monitoring systems 
(PM CEMs). We intend to collect this data in a separate action under 
CAA section 114 that will follow this final rule.
    Comment: Commenters stated that the EPA should require monitoring 
and set action level standards for all HAP metals emitted by II&S 
facilities. These commenters asserted that the incremental cost to 
monitor for all metals is insignificant and would have outsized 
benefits to the community by establishing multiple triggers for 
assessment and corrective action. As an alternative to required 
fenceline monitoring for all HAP metals, commenters stated the EPA 
should consider implementing a fenceline standard for lead because most 
communities surrounding II&S facilities are EJ communities exposed to 
lead from multiple sources. Commenters also specifically supported a 
fenceline monitoring requirement for arsenic.
    Response: The EPA observes that it is technically feasible to 
require further speciation of metal HAPs collected within a single 
sample. Although increasing the analyte list does increase the 
analytical costs because additional calibration standards are required, 
the EPA agrees with commenters that the costs to monitor for additional 
metals would be relatively low. However, the incremental cost of 
monitoring for additional HAPs is not the only consideration in 
determining the scope of a fenceline monitoring requirement for this 
source category. The EPA must also consider the efficacy of instituting 
a fenceline monitoring requirement for additional HAPs, as well as 
practical implementation concerns. At this time, the EPA believes these 
factors weigh in favor of requiring fenceline monitoring for chromium 
while continuing to gather information on other metal HAPs.
    As discussed above, the EPA previously determined in the 2020 RTR 
that chromium is one of the two principal drivers of health risk in 
this source category and is also an effective surrogate for arsenic, 
which is the other most significant contributor to risk. Because the 
principal purpose of fenceline monitoring in this source category is to 
assure compliance with the emission standards that address fugitive 
emissions of particulate HAP metals, implementing this development will 
provide ``necessary'' protection against fugitive emissions of metal 
HAPs (including those that pose greatest risks to public health). 
Fenceline monitoring is a development in practices, for the purpose of 
managing fugitive emissions. In sum, fenceline monitors will be placed 
at or near the perimeter of the applicable facility to measure 
pollutant concentrations; this measurement is coupled with the 
requirement to conduct applicable root cause analyses and implement 
corrective action upon triggering an actionable level. The utilization 
of fenceline monitors will serve to manage fugitive emissions with the 
intent to reduce emissions, as well as to reduce uncertainty associated 
with initial emissions estimation. The use of fenceline monitors, 
coupled with action levels, represents a development in work practices. 
Therefore, focusing fenceline monitoring requirements on chromium is 
appropriate as a development pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). 
Requiring fenceline monitoring for chromium alone also facilitates 
establishing an appropriate action level, reduces analytical costs, and 
simplifies the determination of compliance for integrated iron and 
steel owners and operators.
    By contrast, including additional metal HAPs in the fenceline 
monitoring program would require the EPA to resolve a number of 
technical issues, including how an action level for additional HAPs 
would be set, and whether each metal HAP would have its own action 
level or instead a single action level for the sum of metal HAP 
measured. The EPA was not able to develop the information needed to 
address these issues within the timeframe for this rulemaking. Given 
that the available information indicates that HAP metals emitted from 
the integrated iron and steel facilities other than chromium and 
arsenic do not contribute to significant ambient concentrations at or 
near the facility boundaries (e.g., fenceline) at these facilities, we 
have determined that at present the benefits of including other metal 
HAPs in the scope of the fenceline monitoring requirement are also 
unclear.
    Although we did not propose nor are we prepared to promulgate a 
fenceline monitoring requirement for any metals other than chromium at 
this time, the EPA recognizes that further information on fugitive 
emissions of lead and other HAP metals would be useful in informing 
whether and how a fenceline monitoring requirement for additional HAP 
metals as part of a future rulemaking. Accordingly, we intend to gather 
more data to better characterize fugitive lead and other HAP metals 
through a separate action that will

[[Page 23308]]

follow this final rule as described in the previous response in this 
preamble.
    Comment: Commenters stated that the EPA should not set an action 
level that would be triggered if the UFIP sources were meeting all of 
the proposed opacity limits and work practice standards, which is the 
EPA's stated purpose for establishing the fenceline monitoring program. 
Because the EPA did not consider or analyze whether II&S facilities 
could maintain UFIP emissions at rates to ensure that the action level 
would not be triggered or how much it would cost to maintain emissions 
below the action level, the EPA should not entertain these lower values 
of 0.08 and 0.09 [micro]g/m\3\. Commenters stated that for the EPA to 
do so would be arbitrary and capricious per se.
    Response: The EPA acknowledges the support and is finalizing the 
action level at 0.1 [micro]g/m\3\ as proposed.
    Comment: Commenters stated that regardless of the numeric value 
selected for the action level, the EPA should express the chromium 
action level in [micro]g/m\3\ to at least two decimal places and 
clarify that rounding occurs to the second decimal place (e.g., 0.11 
[micro]g/m\3\ would not round down to 0.10 [micro]g/m\3\ and would 
therefore exceed the action level). The EPA states that ``[b]ecause of 
the variability and limitations in the data, to establish the proposed 
action level we rounded[. . .]to one significant figure (i.e., 0.1 
[micro]g/m\3\).'' Commenters stated that there are two issues with this 
statement: (1) significant figures do not completely characterize 
numerical precision, and (2) reporting chromium concentrations in 
[micro]g/m\3\ to one decimal place does not reflect the precision of 
modern sampling and analytical techniques. Commenters stated that in 
response to the first point, consider two hypothetical reported 
chromium concentrations: 0.1 [micro]g/m\3\ and 0.01 [micro]g/m\3\. Both 
have only one significant digit, but the second concentration is 
reported with a greater level of precision. As for the second point, 
Table 1 in EPA Compendium Method IO-3.5, which was the analytical 
method used to determine fenceline chromium concentrations as part of 
the EPA's CAA section 114 ICR, lists the estimated method detection 
limit for chromium as 0.01 ng/m\3\ (0.00001 [micro]g/m\3\). This low 
method detection limit demonstrates the sensitivity and precision of 
modern sampling and analytical methods. As such, chromium 
concentrations measured with these methods should be reported to at 
least two decimal places (assuming units of [micro]g/m\3\).
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter that more than one 
decimal place should be used for the action level and further disagrees 
with their definition of precision. Measurement precision relates to 
the degree of variation in repeated measurements, and not what decimal 
place a reading is. In the example proposed, 0.1 [micro]g/m\3\ and 0.01 
[micro]g/m\3\, these are merely two values of differing magnitude, and 
not two values of different precision.
    The EPA also disagrees that the detection limit of EPA Compendium 
Method IO-3.5 has meaning in this context. The detection limit is the 
lowest level at which a valid measurement can be collected, beyond 
indicating that, in this case, the measured values are within the 
measurable range, it has no practical impact upon the number of 
significant digits appropriate.
    While the analytical techniques may be able to determine the 
concentration out to more than one significant figure, the setting of 
the action level is based not just upon the measurement itself, but 
upon projected gains under the newly required limits on UFIP and the 
calculation of delta c, further complicating the determination of an 
appropriate action level. The EPA is finalizing the action level at one 
significant figure as proposed.
    Comment: Commenters stated that even if the EPA can sufficiently 
explain why an action level was set for chromium for II&S facilities 
based on fenceline monitoring, the EPA should set the action level 
below 0.1 [micro]g/m\3\ because fenceline data collected as part of 
EPA's CAA section 114 collection request shows that a lower action 
level is achievable. Because the EPA did not request that all eight 
II&S facilities perform fenceline monitoring pursuant to the CAA 
section 114 request, the EPA did not identify the top five best 
performing facilities. However, two of the four facilities that 
conducted fenceline monitoring (Cleveland Works and Burns Harbor) had 
6-month chromium delta c averages below 0.08 [micro]g/m\3\, and a third 
facility (Granite City) is projected to be at 0.09 [micro]g/m\3\ after 
implementing provisions of the rulemaking. The EPA has failed to 
explain why they are requiring an action level that constitutes the 
lowest number (0.1 [micro]g/m\3\) instead of the level that three of 
the four facilities that conducted fenceline monitoring are able to 
meet (0.10 [micro]g/m\3\). Accordingly, the EPA should set the action 
level below 0.1 [micro]g/m\3\.
    Response: Consistent with refineries and all other proposed 
fenceline monitoring standards, we are implementing the action level as 
a single significant digit as discussed further in the response to the 
previous comment of this section.
3. What are the revised standards for the fenceline monitoring 
requirements and how will compliance be demonstrated?
    We are finalizing what we proposed: facilities must install four 
ambient air monitors at or near the fenceline at appropriate locations 
around the perimeter of the facility based on a site-specific plan that 
must be submitted to and approved by the EPA, regardless of facility 
size. These monitors shall collect and analyze samples for total 
chromium every sixth day. The facilities must also implement the 
following work practice requirement: if an installed fenceline monitor 
has a 12-month rolling average delta c concentration that is above the 
action level of 0.1 [micro]g/m\3\ for total chromium, calculated as the 
annual average of the delta c determined during each sample period over 
the year (highest sample value for a given sample period minus the 
lowest sample value measured during that sample period), the facility 
must conduct a root cause analysis and take corrective action to 
prevent additional exceedances.
    A facility may request to terminate fenceline monitoring after 24 
months of consecutive results 50 percent or more below the action 
level. The EPA selected the monitoring locations and sampling frequency 
as specified to maintain the same basis of monitoring as that used in 
the derivation of the action level as discussed in the preamble to the 
proposed rule (88 FR 49414). The use of four monitors was selected and 
not expanded to the same number of monitoring sites as EPA Method 325A 
because, unlike EPA Method 325A that uses passive samplers, the 
methodology used for both the CAA section 114 request and the potential 
candidate method for this rule requires power at each sampling 
location, dramatically increasing the potential cost of each monitoring 
site. The sampling frequency of every six days was selected to both 
mimic that of the CAA section 114 request as well as to ensure 
operations on each day of the week would be represented in the 
calculation of the annual average delta c. Data will be reported 
electronically to CEDRI on a quarterly basis and subsequently available 
to the public via the WebFIRE website.
    In response to many comments regarding fugitive emissions of lead 
and other metals, we recognize the need to gather more data to 
characterize these fugitive emissions at the fenceline and sinter 
plants. We intend to take a separate action on this data collection

[[Page 23309]]

for lead and potentially other metals action under CAA section 114.

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

1. What standards did we propose to address unregulated point 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 from BF stove and BOPF point 
sources (D/F, HCl and THC (as a surrogate for organic HAP other than D/
F)); and two unregulated HAP from BF point sources (HCl and THC (as a 
surrogate for organic HAP other than D/F). The proposed MACT emission 
limits for these unregulated point sources are in Table 3.

                   Table 3--Estimated HAP Emissions and Proposed MACT Limits for Point Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Estimated source category
            Process                       HAP                    emissions               Proposed MACT limit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sinter Plants.................  CS2...................  42 tpy.....................  Existing and new sources:
                                                                                      0.028 lb/ton sinter.
Sinter Plants.................  COS...................  57 tpy.....................  Existing sources: 0.064 lb/
                                                                                      ton sinter. New sources:
                                                                                      0.030 lb/ton sinter.
Sinter Plants.................  HCl...................  11 tpy.....................  Existing sources: 0.025 lb/
                                                                                      ton sinter. New sources:
                                                                                      0.0012 lb/ton sinter.
Sinter Plants.................  HF....................  1.2 tpy....................  Existing and new sources:
                                                                                      0.0011 lb/ton sinter.
Sinter Plants.................  Hg....................  66 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 equivalency.

2. What comments did we receive on the unregulated point sources, and 
what are our responses?
    Comment: Commenters state that they submitted additional stack 
tests in Appendix L that cover the EPA's proposed MACT standards for BF 
Stoves, BF Casthouses, and BOPF Primary Control Devices. These 
commenters do not represent that the additional data submitted in 
Appendix L alone or in combination with data underlying the EPA's 
proposed standards capture the full range of operating conditions for 
these point sources; however, they believe these additional data 
further indicate that the EPA's limited datasets do not sufficiently 
account for variability and, therefore, are not representative of best 
performing units in this source category. The same commenters state 
that the EPA's 15 proposed HAP limits for new sources rely on 
insufficient data and are unlikely to be technologically feasible. They 
are also concerned that any new sources would also not be able to meet 
the emission rates of the best performers given the lack of sufficient 
data underlying the EPA's proposed new source limits for the 15 HAPs 
that inherently do not capture process, operational, raw material, or 
seasonal and measurement variability of the EPA-designated best 
performing source. Achievability of the new source proposed limits is a 
concern because it is also unlikely that it would be technologically 
feasible for pollution control equipment to guarantee any degree of 
control of such low or dilute concentrations of D/F, PAHs, COS, 
CS2, Hg, THC, HF, and HCl, which fall below the lowest 
target concentrations and capture limitations of such equipment. 
Further, the sources of raw materials and their impact on emissions 
variability cannot be reasonably predicted.
    Response: The EPA has considered these additional data and, where 
deemed valid, incorporated the data into updated UPL calculations for 
the point sources and HAPs. The promulgated limits are based on MACT 
floor calculations (UPL) using the available valid data, which 
represents our best estimate of current average performance, accounting 
for variability (i.e., UPL calculations), of the sources for which we 
have valid data (for affected sources). Additionally, based on industry 
comments, we: (1) used surrogate limits for some HAP; (2) changed the 
format of some limits; and (3) established work practices for HAP where 
majority of data were below detection.
    Furthermore, based on the limited data we have, we estimate that 
all facilities will be able to meet these limits without the need for 
new add-on control devices (e.g., we have no data indicating a source 
cannot currently comply with these limits). Nevertheless, we 
acknowledge that there are uncertainties because of the limited data. 
However, pursuant to section 112 of the CAA and the LEAN court 
decision, we must promulgate MACT emissions limits based on available 
data in order to fulfill our court ordered CAA section 112(d)(6) 
obligations.
    Comment: Commenters stated that if EPA nonetheless proceeds with BF 
Stove limits, the form must be revised to lb/MMBtu, and that EPA 
erroneously used iron, rather than steel, production rates. The 
commenter said the agency should use contemporaneous iron production 
rates instead, which were provided on May 25, 2023. Notwithstanding 
these errors, emission limits for combustion units including BF stoves 
would be most appropriately expressed as lb/MMBtu, as although stove 
and blast furnace operations are interrelated, there are significant 
site specific differences in operation which make blast furnace 
production inappropriate to use when developing a limit for BF stoves. 
Lb/MMBtu would be more appropriate because the emissions per amount of 
heat released is more directly related to total quantity of emissions 
generated. Further, gas flow can be directly measured to account for 
varying BF stove operation. Iron production is intermittent with 
tapping and plugging of the furnace, so using emissions per ton could 
produce misleading results and should not be used.
    Response: The EPA agrees that BF stove emission limits in the units 
of lb/MMBtu would be more appropriate than

[[Page 23310]]

unis of lb/ton. We have recalculated UPLs for BF stove emissions in the 
units of lb/MMBtu and are finalizing MACT floor limits for HCl and THC 
emissions from BF stoves in the units of lb/MMBtu. No additional costs 
are expected to meet these limits.
    Comment: Commentors stated that the EPA should not finalize its 
proposed D/F limit for BF Stoves because D/F is not present, or, if 
present, is only in trace amounts. The EPA estimates that the 17 BF 
Stoves in the source category collectively emit 0.076 grams per year of 
D/F. Commentors said that basing the proposed D/F limit on only two 
tests, with a total of only 6 data points (5 of which are BDL) is not 
permissible. If the EPA nevertheless pursues D/F limits for BF Stoves, 
the EPA should review and revise the limits to ones that are 
representative of the emissions limitations being achieved by the best 
performers. The EPA should consider work practices, such as good 
combustion practices, in lieu of numerical limits.
    Response: Pursuant to the LEAN decision, CAA section 112(d)(2)/(3) 
and the court order for the EPA to complete this final rule pursuant to 
CAA section 112(d)(6) by March 11, 2024, the EPA must establish 
standards for previously unregulated HAP based on available data in 
this final rule. The EPA collected emissions test data through the CAA 
section 114 requests. For D/F from BF stoves, when we made a 
determination of BDL according to the procedures outlined in 
Determination of ``non-detect'' from EPA Method 29 (multi-metals) and 
EPA Method 23 (dioxin/furan) test data when evaluating the setting of 
MACT floors versus work practice standards (Johnson 2014) (Johnson 
memo) available in the docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083-1082), two of the 
six runs are determined to be non-detect. Though we disagree in the 
number of non-detect values with the commenter, we agree that, as only 
33 percent of test runs were detected values, a work practice under CAA 
section 112(h) is appropriate for the control of D/F from BF Stoves. 
The EPA generally considers a work practice to be justified if a 
significant majority of emissions data available indicate that 
emissions are so low that they cannot be reliably measured (e.g., more 
than 55 percent of test runs are non-detect) as discussed in the 
Johnson Memo. An appropriate work practice for D/F for the stoves, due 
to their similarity in operation with boilers and other heaters, is 
good combustion practices, represented for this source by the THC 
standard being finalized in this rule. The numerical THC standard 
provides assurance of good combustion practices, and a further tune-up 
style work practice requirement is not necessary.
    Comment: Commentors stated that the EPA should not finalize its 
proposed CS2 and HF limits for sinter/recycling plants 
because the available data demonstrates these pollutants are not 
emitted. The EPA estimates sinter/recycling plants emit: a total 1.3 
tpy of HF and 23 tpy of CS2 for the source category. The EPA 
bases its CS2 estimate on a limited data set of six test 
runs where the EPA flagged 83 percent (5 out of 6) of those results as 
below detection limit (BDL). (2023 Data Memo at app. A) BDL means that 
emissions are so low they are not able to be accurately read, measured, 
or quantified. Similarly, 13 out of 14 (93 percent) of test runs for HF 
from sinter/recycling plants were flagged BDL by the EPA, indicating 
that HF is not emitted or emitted in trace amounts, and thus EPA should 
not set a numerical standard for HF for sinter/recycling plants. The 
commentor stated if the EPA nevertheless proceeds with such numerical 
limits, it must revise its proposed limits upwards to help to account 
for known data variability and limited datasets. Commentors stated that 
data underlying the EPA's proposed CS2 and HF limits 
includes a significant number of readings below the detection limit. 
The EPA explains that ``greater than 50 percent of the data runs were 
BDL'' for HF and CS2 from sinter/recycling plants. (2023 
MACT Costs Memo at 19-21, tbl. 24.) The proposed limits for HF and 
CS2 are not representative of current performance due to the 
frequency of near or BDL. The EPA has noted that ``section 112(d)(2) of 
the CAA specifically allows EPA to establish MACT standards based on 
emission controls that rely on pollution prevention techniques.'' Where 
a majority of BDL values exist, the EPA should instead consider 
pollution control techniques, such as a work practice, rather than 
individual limits for these HAPs. Thus, the EPA should rely on the oil-
content and VOC limit pollution control techniques that are already in 
place for these pollutants.
    Response: Pursuant to the LEAN decision, CAA section 112(d)(2)/(3) 
and the court's Order for EPA to complete this final rule pursuant to 
CAA section 112(d)(6) by March 11, 2024, the EPA must establish 
standards for previously unregulated HAP based on available data in 
this final rule. The EPA reviewed the data in question and agrees with 
the commenter's assessment of the number of non-detect results for 
CS2 and HF. Further, the single test run for which HF was 
detected was only slightly above the detection limit (0.09 ppmv 
detected value versus the detection limit of 0.08 ppmv). The EPA 
generally considers a work practice to be justified if a significant 
majority of emissions data available indicate that emissions are so low 
that they cannot be reliably measured (e.g., more than 55 percent of 
test runs are non-detect) as discussed in the Johnson Memo. Due to the 
extremely high percentage of non-detect values, 83 and 93 percent for 
CS2 and HF respectively, it is appropriate for both of these 
compounds at the sinter plant to be represented by a work practice 
standard according to CAA section 112(h). For CS2, the work 
practice being finalized consists of the existing requirement to 
control the oil content in the sinter or the VOC emissions at the 
windbox exhaust (40 CFR 63.7790(d)) to control the source of the 
sulfur, combined with the new numerical standard for COS being 
finalized in this rulemaking. For HF, where 93 percent of the values 
were below the detection limit and the only detected value is only 
slightly above, the numerical standard for HCl being finalized in this 
rule shall act as a work practice (or surrogate) for HF, as control of 
HCL will also control HF.
3. What are the revised standards for the unregulated point sources and 
how will compliance be demonstrated?
    We are finalizing the MACT Floor emission limits mostly as we 
proposed, but with minor adjustments for some limits based on the 
inclusion of additional valid data in the UPL calculations, the 
revision of the format of BF Stove emission limits as advised in the 
comments received, and the incorporation of work practices and 
surrogates for CS2 and HF at sinter plants and D/F from the 
BF Stove. These work practices are being finalized because under CAA 
section 112(h), the Administrator has determined that it is not 
feasible to prescribe or enforce an emissions standard for these 
unregulated point sources. Furthermore, based on consideration of 
public comments and further analyses, for mercury emissions from 
existing sinter plants, we are promulgating a BTF limit based on 
installation and operation of activated carbon injection (ACI), 
described in section III.E of this preamble. The emission limits, along 
with estimated annual emissions, for the unregulated point sources for 
the final rule are provided in Table 4.

[[Page 23311]]



              Table 4--HAP Emissions and Final MACT Limits for Previously Unregulated Point Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Promulgated MACT emissions
            Process                       HAP            Estimated source category    limit (or other applicable
                                                                 emissions             standard as noted below)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sinter Plants.................  CS2...................  23 tpy.....................  Meet applicable COS limit
                                                                                      and meet requirements of
                                                                                      40 CFR 63.7790(d).
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....................  Meet the applicable HCl
                                                                                      standard.
Sinter Plants.................  Hg....................  55 pounds/yr...............  Existing sources: 1.8e-5 lb/
                                                                                      ton sinter.\2\ New
                                                                                      sources: 1.2e-5 lb/ton
                                                                                      sinter.
BF casthouse control devices..  HCl...................  1.4 tpy....................  Existing sources: 0.0056 lb/
                                                                                      ton iron. New sources:
                                                                                      5.9e-4 lb/ton iron.
BF casthouse control devices..  THC...................  270 tpy....................  Existing sources: 0.48 lb/
                                                                                      ton iron. New sources:
                                                                                      0.035 lb/ton iron.
BOPF..........................  D/F (TEQ \1\).........  3.6 grams/yr...............  Existing and new sources:
                                                                                      9.2e-10 lb/ton steel.
BOPF..........................  HCl...................  200 tpy....................  Existing sources: 0.058 lb/
                                                                                      ton steel. New sources:
                                                                                      2.8e-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...........  Good combustion practices
                                                                                      demonstrated by meeting
                                                                                      the THC limit.
BF Stove......................  HCl...................  4.5 tpy....................  Existing sources: 0.0012 lb/
                                                                                      MMBtu. New sources: 4.2e-4
                                                                                      lb/MMBtu.
BF Stove......................  THC...................  200 tpy....................  Existing sources: 0.12 lb/
                                                                                      MMBtu. New sources: 0.0054
                                                                                      lb/MMBtu.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Toxic equivalency.
\2\ See section III.E for description of the final mercury limit.

E. Reconsideration of Standards for D/F and PAH for Sinter Plants Under 
CAA Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review, and Beyond-the-Floor Limit for 
Mercury

1. What standards did we propose to address the reconsideration of the 
D/F and PAH standards for sinter plants, and new mercury limits from 
sinter plants?
    We proposed emissions limits of 3.5E-08 lbs/ton of sinter for D/F 
toxic equivalency (TEQ) and 5.9E-03 lbs/ton of sinter for PAHs for 
existing sinter plant windboxes. These limits reflect the average 
current performance of the four existing sinter plants for D/F and PAHs 
pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). For mercury, we proposed a MACT 
Floor limit of 3.5E-05 lbs/ton sinter for existing sources, as 
described in section III.D of this preamble.
    For new sources, we proposed emissions 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 the current performance of the one 
best performing sinter plant pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). 
Regarding mercury, we proposed a MACT floor limit of 1.2E-05 lbs/ton 
sinter for new sinter plants.
2. What comments did we receive on the reconsideration of the D/F and 
PAH standards for sinter plants, and mercury emissions, and what are 
our responses?
    Comment: Commenters stated that the Agency's review of ACI during 
the 2020 RTR found that the ACI add-on control technology for sinter/
recycling plant windboxes would not be cost-effective. They said the 
Agency's BTF analysis and evaluation of ACI as a potential control 
option for sinter/recycling plants are flawed. Commenters said that 
they are unaware of any application of ACI with a wet scrubber for 
particulate control being sufficiently demonstrated in practice as a 
control technology for D/F. Commenters also assert that the assumed 
brominated powdered activated carbon (PAC) injection rate of 1.7 lb/
MMacf based on 2012 test data from the Gerdau Sayreville, NJ electric 
arc furnace baghouse is unproven in the II&S industry and that the 
Agency may be underestimating the required injection rates.
    Response: Based on our review of the available information and 
analyses, we estimate the brominated powdered activated carbon (PAC) 
can achieve 85 percent reduction of D/F when used with fabric filters. 
Regarding wet scrubbers, based on a scientific article by H.Ruegg and 
A. Sigg (See ``Dioxin Removal In a Wet Scrubber and Dry Particulate 
Removal'', Chemosphere, Vol. 25, No. 1-2, p. 143-148), we estimate ACI 
used with a wet scrubber will achieve 70 percent reduction. Given that 
PAHs and dioxins are both semi-volatile organic compounds, we assume 
the ACI with a wet scrubber will also achieve 70 percent reduction of 
PAHs from sinter plants with a wet scrubber. We note that only one of 
the 4 sinter plants is controlled with a wet venturi scrubber. The 
other three have baghouses.
    Comment: Commenters stated the EPA's MACT limits for existing 
sinter plants should be lower, arguing that the EPA's establishment of 
separate MACT floors for COS, HCl, and mercury for new plants at less 
than half of the limit for existing sources indicates how outdated the 
50 plus year-old existing sinter plants are. Commenters argued that the 
fact that only two integrated steel mills continue to operate sinter 
plants, down from nine facilities twenty years ago, further suggests 
that American sinter technology is outdated. In commenters' view, the 
EPA should not give these outdated sinter plants a ``pass'' on reducing 
their significant emissions of hazardous air pollutants.
    Commenters further stated that the EPA should reconsider rejecting 
ACI as too expensive, arguing that steel mills can clearly afford this 
control measure based on recent profit margins. The EPA should more 
carefully consider an evaluation of the human health costs associated 
with the HAP emissions and factor that into the Agency's cost estimate. 
Alternatively, the commenters urged EPA to consider advanced or 
additional pollution controls on sinter windboxes, the most significant 
source of emissions from sinter plants. The proposed NESHAP does not 
appear to have considered the use of wet electrostatic precipitators, 
redundant baghouses, or other types of controls.
    Response: To address the comments that sinter plants need more 
controls to reduce emissions of hazardous pollutants, specifically the 
addition of ACI controls, we are finalizing emissions limits pursuant 
to CAA section 112(d)(6) for D/F and PAHs, and CAA section 112(d)(2)/
(3) BTF limits for mercury that reflect the installation and operation 
of ACI controls. We conclude that the estimated costs for these ACI 
controls (described below) are reasonable given that these controls 
will achieve significant reductions of these three HAPs, which are 
persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) HAPs. For example, D/F are 
highly toxic carcinogens that bioaccumulate in various food sources 
such as beef and dairy products. Mercury, once it is converted to 
methylmercury in aquatic

[[Page 23312]]

ecosystems, is also known to bioaccumulate in some food sources, 
especially fish and marine mammals which are consumed by people, 
especially people who rely on subsistence fishing as an important food 
source. Methylmercury is a potent developmental neurotoxin, especially 
for developing fetuses. The PAHs are a subset of the polycyclic organic 
matter (POM), which are a group of HAP that EPA considers to be PB-HAP, 
and includes some known or probable carcinogens such as benzo-a-pyrene.
3. What are the revised standards for the D/F, PAH and mercury for 
sinter plants, and how will compliance be demonstrated?
    Based on the comments received, we are finalizing emissions limits 
that reflect the installation and operation of ACI controls, which are 
emissions limits of 1.1E-08 lbs/ton of sinter for D/F (TEQ), 1.8E-03 
lbs/ton of sinter for PAHs, and 1.8E-05 lbs/ton for mercury for 
existing sinter plant windboxes. Regarding new sources, we are 
promulgating limits of 1.1E-08 lbs/ton of sinter for D/F (TEQ), 1.5E-03 
lbs/ton of sinter for PAHs, and 1.2E-05 lbs/ton for mercury for new 
sinter plant windboxes. The application of this ACI will achieve 
significant reductions of mercury, D/F and PAH emissions, important 
reductions given that all three HAP are highly toxic, persistent, 
bioaccumulative HAP (PB-HAP), as described above. We estimate these 
limits for the three separate HAP will result in total combined capital 
costs of $950K, annualized costs of $2.3M, will achieve 8 grams per 
year reductions of D/F TEQ emissions, 5.4 tpy reduction in PAHs, and 47 
pounds of mercury. The estimated cost effectiveness (CE) for each HAP 
individually are: CE of $287K per gram D/F TEQ, $426K per ton of PAHs, 
and $49,000 per pound for mercury.
    If the EPA evaluated these emissions limits individually (i.e., 
without consideration of the co-control of D/F, PAHs and mercury), the 
EPA might have reached a different conclusion (e.g., maybe not 
promulgated one or more of the individual final limits due to costs and 
cost effectiveness). For example, historically, EPA has accepted cost 
effectiveness for mercury up to about $32,000 per pound. Regarding the 
D/F and PAHs, we have not identified cost effectiveness values that 
have been accepted in the past as part of revising standards under 
EPA's technology reviews pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).
    However, given that ACI is expected to be needed to achieve the 
limits for all three HAP (D/F, PAHs and mercury), as described 
previously in this section, we determined, similar to how we group non-
Hg HAP metals when evaluating cost effectiveness, that it is 
appropriate to consider these three HAP as a group because they would 
be controlled by the same technology. We note that the Hg cost-
effectiveness value is within a factor of 2 of values that we have 
accepted, and that these three HAP are persistent and bioaccumulative 
in the environment. Given that ACI is required to achieve the limits 
for all three PB-HAP (D/F, PAHs and mercury), as described previously 
in this section, we decided it was appropriate to establish these 
limits for these three HAP that reflect application of ACI. Because 
these three pollutants are PB-HAP, as described in more detail in 
response above, we conclude the estimated costs are reasonable, 
especially given that these annual costs are far less than 1 percent of 
revenues for the parent companies, which is discussed further in the 
economic impacts section of this preamble (see section IV.D).

F. Other Major Comments and Issues

    Comment: Commenters stated the EPA's 2023 Proposal for II&S 
facilities poses many challenges to the domestic iron and steel 
manufacturing industries. They stated when taken in conjunction with 
other onerous EPA regulations, including the proposed revisions to the 
NAAQS for PM, the 2023 Taconite Risk and Technology Review proposal and 
the 2023 Coke Ovens and Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks Risk and 
Technology Review proposal, the domestic II&S manufacturers will incur 
significant cost and will struggle to meet these additional, infeasible 
standards. They stated it is critical that the EPA understand this 2023 
Proposal significantly jeopardizes the potential successes of the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) and the Inflation Reduction Act 
(IRA), and, as a result, undercut the decarbonization priorities of the 
administration.
    Commenters acknowledged the iron and steel industry faces 
significant impacts from the 2023 Proposal along with other EPA 
proposed rules including the Taconite MACT, the Coke MACT, the Good 
Neighbor Rule, and the PM2.5 NAAQS. They stated their 
customers, coworkers, suppliers and themselves are concerned for the 
future of iron and steelmaking, an essential industry, in the U.S.
    Commenters stated the regulations moving through the EPA at the 
current time are going to materially impact the Iron Range of Minnesota 
and the entire domestic steel industry. Commenters urged the EPA to be 
prudent and use caution before placing a single new regulation on these 
industries. Commenters asked the EPA to show favor in the Agency's 
decision making to the domestic iron and steel industry.
    Response: As explained in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) and 
in section IV.D of this preamble, the projected economic impacts of the 
expected compliance costs of the rule are likely to be small. This 
rulemaking is estimated to cost less than 1% of the annual revenues of 
the parent companies. This rule should not be financially detrimental 
to the source category. See sections IV.C and IV.D of this preamble, 
and the RIA, for more details.
    Comment: Commenters state that in 2020, the EPA conservatively 
determined that II&S source category risk was well below the acceptable 
levels established by the Congress and that existing standards are 
protective of public health with an ample margin of safety, and the 
proposal does not reopen or even question the EPA's conservative 2020 
determination. As the proposal (briefly) recites, ``[i]n 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.'' (2023 
Proposal) The EPA's decision not to revisit that conclusion confirms 
that the EPA supports the 2020 ample margin of safety determination and 
sees no reason for amendment. In fact, detailed corrected emission and 
modeling data show that the remaining risks are significantly smaller 
than even the low levels the EPA estimated in 2020.
    Response: The EPA is revising the 2020 final rule to satisfy the 
LEAN decision, which requires the EPA to address any remaining 
unregulated sources of emissions from the iron and steel facilities. In 
meeting the requirements of this case law, the EPA collected more data 
to revisit the standards in the 2020 final rule under a technology 
review. Therefore, our revised standards are not based on assessment of 
risk, but instead based on evaluation of additional data. All the 
standards and other requirements in this final rule are being 
promulgated pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) or 112(d)(6). The 
EPA is not promulgating any new or revised standards under CAA section 
112(f)(2) or revising its prior risk assessment results and 
conclusions, but instead are finalizing these standards and other 
requirements based on evaluation of additional data and applicable 
112(d)

[[Page 23313]]

requirements that direct HAP emission reductions.
    Comment: Commenters stated that the EPA's emissions estimates for 
UFIP sources are flawed and must be corrected. The EPA has attempted to 
estimate current HAP emission rates for all seven categories of UFIPs, 
and to estimate emission reductions that it projects would occur if the 
proposed opacity and work practice standards are achieved. The 
commenter claims that EPA's emissions estimates are based, in part, on 
the use of incorrect emission factors, which cause a significant 
overstatement of emissions from UFIPs, and therefore significantly 
overestimates risk from UFIPs. These errors result in significant 
cascading and compounding effects that reveal that the current proposal 
will be prohibitively expensive and cannot be justified, particularly 
given the low-risk determination that the EPA has already made.
    Response: The EPA disagrees that the UFIP emission factors led to a 
significant overestimation of emissions from UFIP sources. The emission 
factors for UFIP sources were developed from the literature, first 
principles, discussions with the II&S industry, or a combination of all 
three. The emission factors used for most UFIP sources are described in 
the memorandum titled Development of Emissions Estimates for Fugitive 
or Intermittent HAP Emission Sources for an Example Integrated Iron and 
Steel Manufacturing Industry Facility for Input to the RTR Risk 
Assessment (Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083-0956). The emission 
factor used for bell leaks was lower than the emission factor used in 
2019 after incorporating previous feedback from industry that the 2019 
emission factor for bell leaks was an overestimation. The emission 
factor used for bell leaks is described in the memorandum titled 
Unmeasured Fugitive and Intermittent Particulate Emissions and Cost 
Impacts for Integrated Iron and Steel Facilities under 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart FFFFF (Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083-1447), this 
document is also referred to as the ``UFIP memorandum'' elsewhere in 
this preamble.
    The PM emission factors for UFIP and capture and control 
efficiencies for control devices were taken primarily from a relatively 
recent (2006) EPA document. However, this document used as its primary 
source of data the 1995 update of the EPA's AP-42 section for the II&S 
manufacturing industry (section 12.5), which relied upon even older 
(1970) data in some cases. However, because the 2006 EPA document was 
developed by the EPA after the II&S manufacturing industry MACT was 
promulgated and was based on an expert evaluation of the available 
emission information, it is considered the most reliable source of 
information about PM emissions for the II&S manufacturing industry 
available to the EPA and, hence, the most reliable information to be 
used for UFIP sources.
    Other data that were used to estimate UFIP emissions not available 
in the 2006 EPA document were taken from reliable sources in the 
literature. In some cases, for the purposes of the II&S manufacturing 
industry RTR, an emission factor from AP-42 for one II&S manufacturing 
industry source was used for another II&S manufacturing industry source 
based on good engineering judgment. For example, if EPA staff 
determined that the two sources were similar (e.g., used similar 
processes, equipment, input materials, control devices, etc.), then 
staff used such a source to estimate emissions from another similar 
source. If not, staff searched for other relevant information to 
estimate emissions. Whenever possible, the original source of data 
referenced by the documents was obtained and reviewed; these references 
are cited in the ``Example Facility memorandum'' along with the 1995 
EPA AP-42 document. Also, where available, AP-42 emission factor 
quality ratings were provided. In some cases, none of the available 
literature provided emission factors considered appropriate for today's 
industry. In these cases, the EPA developed emission factors from basic 
scientific principles, industry data and feedback, emission factors for 
similar sources, and the EPA's knowledge of the process. Further 
explanation and discussion of how emissions were estimated are 
available in the Development of Emissions Estimates for Fugitive or 
Intermittent HAP Emission Sources for an Example Integrated Iron and 
Steel Manufacturing Industry Facility for Input to the RTR Risk 
Assessment (Example facility memorandum) and/or the UFIP memorandum 
cited previously in this preamble, which are available in the docket 
for this action.
    Comment: Commenters stated the EPA must consider additional data in 
setting limits. Although the EPA collected data in 2022 from the eight 
impacted facilities, the commenters urged the EPA to compile and 
consider additional data before finalizing these 2023 amendments. The 
limited data collection did not reflect the full range of variability 
due to seasonal effects and variable operating scenarios. While much of 
the industry meets the proposed limits at times, the variability may 
require investment in controls that are currently excluded from the 
cost estimates in the rules. The EPA must consider additional data and 
revise the proposed limits to adjust them upwards, as appropriate to 
account for variability, or eliminate the proposed limit where test 
results were below detectable levels.
    Response: The EPA has made use of all valid test data, both 
received through the section 114 request in 2022 and submitted during 
the comment period to establish the emissions limits for sinter plants, 
BF stoves, BF Primary control devices and BOPF primary control devices. 
These ``point source'' emissions limits were derived using the UPL 
methodology using all the valid data. Regarding opacity limits for 
planned openings and slag processing, we used all valid data for 2022 
that we received though the section 114 request in electronic format 
and that were gathered following the methods, instruction and 
conditions described in the section 114 request and because these data 
reflected the most current year. The fenceline monitoring requirements 
are based on evaluation all the available fenceline monitoring data 
that EPA received from 16 monitoring sites. EPA considered the 
variability across all 16 sites to determine the appropriate action 
level, which is described in detail in the proposed rule preamble 
published on July 31, 2023 (88 FR 49402). Regarding the work practice 
standards for Bell Leaks, beaching and unplanned openings, those 
standards wer developed using data collected through the section 114 
requests along with additional data and information collected through 
public comments. For more details, see the technical memos cited in 
responses above.
    Comment: Commenters stated that the EPA should expand the proposed 
standards to include best work practices that reduce toxic emissions 
from steel mills at a minimum by 65% as was shown possible in 2019. 
Commenters stated that the EPA should ensure air monitoring and testing 
includes ALL 12 toxic emissions, not simply chromium, as currently 
proposed.
    Response: The change from the 65 percent emission reduction 
estimated in 2019 to the emission reductions calculated for this rule 
is primarily due to calculation improvements based on newly received 
data rather than changes to the set of work practices published. The 
EPA is finalizing many of the same UFIP work practices that were 
published for comment in 2019. However, through the 2022 section 114 
collection the EPA received information about work practices that are 
currently being utilized by facilities. The data

[[Page 23314]]

showed that a subset of the facilities are already utilizing some of 
the UFIP work practices that are being finalized, which was not taken 
into account in the baseline emissions estimate conducted in 2019. In 
the emissions estimate conducted for this rulemaking, baseline 
emissions were adjusted based on facility-specific information on work 
practices that are already in use, resulting in lower baseline 
emissions. If a facility is already using a work practice that is being 
finalized in this rulemaking, the percent reduction of emissions 
estimated for that work practice was also removed from the total 
estimated emission reduction for that facility. The estimated baseline 
emissions and emission reductions are described in the memorandum 
titled Unmeasured Fugitive and Intermittent Particulate Emissions and 
Cost Impacts for Integrated Iron and Steel Facilities under 40 CFR part 
63, subpart FFFFF (Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083-1447).

G. Severability of Standards

    This final rule includes MACT standards promulgated under CAA 
section 112(d)(2)-(3), as well as targeted updates to existing 
standards and work practices promulgated under section 112(d)(6). We 
intend each separate portion of this rule to operate independently of 
and to be severable from the rest of the rule.
    First, each set of standards rests on stand-alone scientific 
determinations that do not rely on judgments made in other portions of 
the rule. For example, our judgments regarding the 112(d)(2)-(3) MACT 
Standard for planned bleeder valve openings rest on the best performing 
units' historical data, based on opacity values; in contrast, our 
judgments regarding 112(d)(6) work practice standards for the basic 
oxygen process furnace rest on different analyses, including updates to 
industry standards in practices. Thus, our assessment that the 
112(d)(2)-(3) MACT standards are feasible and appropriate is fully 
independent of our judgments about the 112(d)(6) technology-review-
update standards, and vice versa.
    Further, EPA also finds that the implementation of each set of CAA 
112(d)(2)-(3) MACT standards and each set of 112(d)(6) technology 
updates, including monitoring requirements, is independent. For 
example, there is nothing precluding a source from complying with its 
unplanned bleeder-valve-opening MACT limit, even if that source does 
not have any data from its fenceline monitors (which measure chromium), 
and vice versa. Thus, each aspect of EPA's overall approach to this 
source category could be implemented even in the absence of any one or 
more of the other elements included in this final rule.
    Accordingly, EPA finds that each set of standards in this final 
rule is severable from and can operate independently of each other set 
of standards, and at a minimum, that the MACT emissions standards, as a 
group, are severable from the 112(d)(6) technology update standards 
(which include the fenceline monitoring requirement).

H. What are the effective and compliance dates?

    All affected facilities must continue to comply with the previous 
provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF until the applicable 
compliance date of this final rule. This final action meets 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). The compliance 
dates are in Table 5. As shown in Table 5, EPA revised compliance dates 
for some of the final rule requirements. For explanation of revised 
compliance dates, see section 6 of the RTC.

                             Table 5--Summary of Compliance Dates for the Final Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Proposed compliance
              Source(s)                    Rule requirement               date            Final compliance date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All affected sinter plant windbox      New emissions limits     6 months after the       3 years after the
 sources that commence construction     for mercury, HCl, COS,   promulgation of the      promulgation date of
 or reconstruction on or before July    D/F, and PAH.            final rule.              the final rule.
 31, 2023.
All affected sources that commence     Fenceline monitoring     Begin 1 year after the   Begin 1 year after the
 construction or reconstruction on or   requirements.            promulgation of the      promulgation of the
 before July 31, 2023.                                           fenceline method for     fenceline method for
                                                                 metals or 2 years        metals or 2 years
                                                                 after the promulgation   after the promulgation
                                                                 date of the final        date of the final
                                                                 rule, whichever is       rule, whichever is
                                                                 later.                   later.
All affected sources that commence     Opacity limits for       12 months after the      12 months after the
 construction or reconstruction on or   Planned Openings, Work   promulgation date of     promulgation date of
 before July 31, 2023.                  Practices for Bell       the final rule.          the final rule.
                                        Leaks, and work
                                        practices for BOPF
                                        Shop.
All affected sources that commence     Work Practices and       12 months after the      24 months after the
 construction or reconstruction on or   Limits for Unplanned     promulgation date of     promulgation date of
 before July 31, 2023.                  Openings, Work           the final rule.          the final rule.
                                        Practices for
                                        Beaching, and Opacity
                                        limit for Slag
                                        Processing.
All affected BF and BOPF sources that  New emissions limits     6 months after the       3 years after the
 commence construction or               for HCl, THC, and D/F    promulgation date of     promulgation date of
 reconstruction on or before July 31,   (see Table 4).           the final rule.          the final rule.
 2023.
All affected sources that commence     All new and revised      Effective date of the    Effective date of the
 construction or reconstruction after   provisions.              final rule (or upon      final rule (or upon
 July 31, 2023.                                                  startup, whichever is    startup, whichever is
                                                                 later).                  later).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. 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 the 
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 64 tpy of HAP metals and 
about 473 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.

[[Page 23315]]

C. What are the cost impacts?

    The estimated capital costs are the same as the proposed estimate 
at $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 the same as the 
proposed estimate at 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 the same as proposed at $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 final rule are expected to 
cost the same as the proposed estimate at $7,500 per facility per year 
($60,000 for the source category per year, assuming eight facilities). 
The cost estimates were primarily revised in response to modifications 
of the rule requirements, with some BTF components being substituted 
for MACT floor options, as well as in response to contractor revisions. 
Additional adjustments were made to recategorize some annual costs that 
were initially miscategorized as capital costs. Based on the comments 
received, emission limits for sinter plants were revised to reflect the 
installation of ACI controls. ACI controls on the sinter plants are 
expected to cost $950,000 in total capital cost and $2.3 million in 
total annual cost. The total estimated capital costs are $7.1 million 
and total estimated annualized costs are $6.7 million for all the 
requirements for the source category. However, annual costs could 
decrease after facilities complete 2 years of fenceline monitoring 
because we have included a sunset provision whereby if facilities 
remain below the one half of the action level for 2 full years, they 
can request to terminate the fenceline monitoring. Termination of the 
fenceline monitoring in no way impacts the requirement for facilities 
to meet all other obligations under this subpart including the general 
duty to minimize emissions of 40 CFR 63.7810(d). 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 final 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 final action, given that the EAV of the 
compliance costs over the period 2026-2035 are $5.1 million using a 7 
percent or $5.3 million using 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 rule: 
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 rule 
are likely to be small. The EPA also conducted a small business 
screening to determine the possible impacts of the rule on small 
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 UFIP emissions work practices to reduce HAP emissions (with 
concurrent control of PM2.5) are anticipated to improve air 
quality and the health of persons living in surrounding communities. 
The opacity limits and UFIP work practices are expected to reduce about 
64 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 rule in section 4.2 of the RIA, available in the 
docket for this action. The EPA remains committed to improving methods 
for estimating HAP-reduction 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 opacity limits and UFIP work practices are also estimated to 
reduce PM2.5 emissions by about 473 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 2026-2035. The present-value (PV) of the short-
term benefits for the rule are estimated to be $1.8 billion at a 3 
percent discount rate and $1.2 billion at a 7 percent discount rate 
with an equivalent annualized value (EAV) of $200 million and $170 
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 rule range are estimated to be $3.7 billion at a 
3 percent discount rate and $2.6 billion at a 7 percent discount rate 
with an EAV of $420 million and $340 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?

    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 assessment, which is an assessment of 
individual demographic groups of the populations living within 5 
kilometers (km) and 50 km of the facilities. The EPA then compared the 
data from this assessment to the national average for each of the 
demographic groups. This assessment did not inform and was not used to 
develop the amended standards established in the final action. The 
amended standards were established based on the technical and 
scientific determinations described herein.
    The EPA defines EJ as ``the just treatment and meaningful 
involvement of all people regardless of income, race, color, national 
origin, Tribal affiliation, or disability, in agency decision-making 
and other Federal activities that affect human health and the 
environment so that people: (i) are fully protected from

[[Page 23316]]

disproportionate and adverse human health and environmental effects 
(including risks) and hazards, including those related to climate 
change, the cumulative impacts of environmental and other burdens, and 
the legacy of racism or other structural or systemic barriers; and (ii) 
have equitable access to a healthy, sustainable, and resilient 
environment in which to live, play, work, learn, grow, worship, and 
engage in cultural and subsistence practices.'' \5\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/04/26/2023-08955/revitalizing-our-nations-commitment-to-environmental-justice-for-all.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For purposes of analyzing regulatory impacts, the EPA relies upon 
its June 2016 ``Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice 
in Regulatory Analysis,'' 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 communities with EJ 
concerns; (2) exacerbate existing disproportionate impacts on 
communities with EJ concerns; or (3) present opportunities to address 
existing disproportionate impacts on communities with EJ concerns 
through this action under development.
    The EPA's EJ technical guidance states that ``[t]he analysis of 
potential EJ concerns for regulatory actions should address three 
questions: (A) Are there potential EJ concerns associated with 
environmental stressors affected by the regulatory action for 
population groups of concern in the baseline? (B) Are there potential 
EJ concerns associated with environmental stressors affected by the 
regulatory action for population groups of concern for the regulatory 
option(s) under consideration? (C) For the regulatory option(s) under 
consideration, are potential EJ concerns created or mitigated compared 
to the baseline?''[1]
    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 Black 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 their 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 Black 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 adding 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 rule, including the 
facilities at which the percentage of the population living in close 
proximity who are Black and below poverty level is greater than the 
national average. The rule changes will 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     Population within
                     Demographic group                        Nationwide    within 50 km of 9      5 km of 9
                                                                                facilities         facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population..........................................     329,824,950         18,966,693            478,761
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Race and Ethnicity by Percent
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
White.....................................................              60                 63                 52
Black.....................................................              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
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------

[[Page 23317]]

 
                                                                     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 notices.

V. 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 Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is a ``significant regulatory action'' as defined under 
section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 
14094. Accordingly, EPA, submitted this action to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for Executive Order 12866 review. Any 
changes made in response to recommendations received as part of 
Executive Order 12866 review have been documented in the docket.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this final action 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 final rule, 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.
    When OMB approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval 
in the Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR 
part 9 to display the OMB control number for the approved information 
collection activities contained in this final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This 
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. The Agency 
confirmed through responses to a CAA section 114 information request 
that there are only eight integrated iron and steel manufacturing 
facilities currently operating in the United States and that these 
plants are owned by two parent companies that do not meet the 
definition of small businesses, as defined by the U.S. Small Business 
Administration.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or 
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This 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. 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

[[Page 23318]]

(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 incorporates by reference 
VCS ASTM D6348-12 (Reapproved 2020), ``Standard Test Method for 
Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface 
Fourier Transform (FTIR) Spectroscopy,'' as an acceptable alternative 
to EPA Method 320 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 63 with caveats 
requiring inclusion of selected annexes to the standard as mandatory. 
The ASTM D6348-12 (R2020) method is an extractive FTIR spectroscopy-
based field test method and is used to quantify gas phase 
concentrations of multiple target compounds in emission streams from 
stationary sources. This field test method provides near real time 
analysis of extracted gas samples. In the September 22, 2008, NTTAA 
summary, ASTM D6348-03(2010) was determined equivalent to EPA Method 
320 with caveats. ASTM D6348-12 (R2020) is a revised 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. We are finalizing 
that the test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to 
ASTM D 6348-12 (R2020), Annexes Al through A8 are mandatory; and in 
ASTM D6348-12 (R2020) Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique), the percent 
(%) R must be determined for each target analyte (Equation A5.5). We 
are finalizing that, 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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03AP24.045

    The ASTM D6348-12 (R2020) method is available at ASTM 
International, 1850 M Street NW, Suite 1030, Washington, DC 20036. See 
www.astm.org/.
    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 is an EPA developed 
guidance manual for the installation, operation, maintenance and 
calibration of meteorological systems including the wind speed and 
direction using anemometers, temperature using thermistors, and 
atmospheric pressure using aneroid barometers, as well as the 
calculations for wind vector data for on-site meteorological 
measurements. This VCS may be obtained from the EPA's National Service 
Center for Environmental Publications (www.epa.gov/nscep).
    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.
    ASTM D7520-16 is already approved for the location in which it 
appears in the amendatory text.

H. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations and 
Executive Order 14096: Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to 
Environmental Justice for All

    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 this action the EPA 
conducted an assessment of the various demographic groups living near 
Integrated Iron and Steel facilities (as described in section V.F of 
this preamble) that might potentially be impacted by emissions from 
Integrated Iron and Steel Facilities. For populations living within 5 
km of the nine integrated iron and steel facilities, the percent of the 
population that is Black is more than twice the national average (27 
percent versus 12 percent). Specifically, within 5 km of six of the 
nine facilities, the percent of the population that is Black is more 
than 1.5 times the national average (ranging between 1.5 times and 7 
times the national average). 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, within 5 km of 
seven of the nine facilities, the percent of the population that is 
living below the poverty level is more than 1.5 times the national 
average (ranging from 1.5 times and 3 times the national average). 
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

[[Page 23319]]

action requires facilities to improve UFIP emission control resulting 
in reductions of about 64 tpy of metal HAP and about 473 tpy 
PM2.5. We estimate that all facilities will achieve 
reductions of HAP emissions as a result of this 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.

I. 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.

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

    This action 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. We have concluded that this action is 
not likely to have any adverse energy effects because it contains no 
regulatory requirements that will have an adverse impact on 
productivity, competition, or prices in the energy sector.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit the rule 
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of 
the United States. This action meets the criteria set forth in 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous 
substances, Hydrogen chloride, Hydrogen fluoride, Incorporation by 
reference, Mercury, Reorting and recordkeeping requirements.

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the 
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS 
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4701, et seq.

Subpart A--General Provisions

0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraphs (i)(88) and (110) 
and paragraph (o) introductory text and adding paragraph (o)(3) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  63.14  Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (88) ASTM D6348-12 (Reapproved 2020), Determination of Gaseous 
Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform (FTIR) 
Spectroscopy, including Annexes A1 through A8, Approved December 1; 
2020, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  63.365(b); 63.7825(g) and (h).
* * * * *
    (110) ASTM D7520-16, Standard Test Method for Determining the 
Opacity of a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere, approved April 1, 
2016; IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  63.1625(b); table 3 to subpart LLLLL; 
63.7823(c) through (f), 63.7833(g); 63.11423(c).
* * * * *
    (o) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue 
NW, Washington, DC 20460; phone: (202) 272-0167; website: www.epa.gov/aboutepa/forms/contact-epa.
* * * * *
    (3) EPA-454/B-08-002, Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution 
Measurement Systems; Volume IV: Meteorological Measurements, Version 
2.0 (Final), Issued March 2008, IBR approved for Sec.  63.7792(b).
* * * * *

Subpart FFFFF--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities

0
3. Amend Sec.  63.7782 by revising paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  63.7782  What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

* * * * *
    (c) This subpart covers emissions from the sinter plant windbox 
exhaust, discharge end, and sinter cooler; the blast furnace casthouse; 
the blast furnace stove; and the BOPF shop including each individual 
BOPF and shop ancillary operations (hot metal transfer, hot metal 
desulfurization, slag skimming, and ladle metallurgy). This subpart 
also covers fugitive and intermittent particulate emissions from blast 
furnace unplanned bleeder valve openings, blast furnace planned bleeder 
valve openings, blast furnace and BOPF slag processing, handling, and 
storage, blast furnace bell leaks, beaching of iron from blast 
furnaces, blast furnace casthouse fugitives, and BOPF shop fugitives.
    (d) A sinter plant, blast furnace, blast furnace stove, or BOPF 
shop at your integrated iron and steel manufacturing facility is 
existing if you commenced construction or reconstruction of the 
affected source before July 13, 2001.
    (e) A sinter plant, blast furnace, blast furnace stove, or BOPF 
shop at your integrated iron and steel manufacturing facility is new if 
you commence construction or reconstruction of the affected source on 
or after July 13, 2001. An affected source is reconstructed if it meets 
the definition of reconstruction in Sec.  63.2.

0
4. Amend Sec.  63.7783 by revising paragraph (a) introductory text and 
adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.7783  When do I have to comply with this subpart?

    (a) If you have an existing affected source, you must comply with 
each emission limitation, standard, and operation and maintenance 
requirement in this subpart that applies to you by the dates specified 
in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section. This paragraph does not 
apply to the emission limitations for BOPF group: mercury (Hg); sinter 
plant windbox: Hg, hydrochloric acid (HCl), carbonyl sulfide (COS); 
Blast Furnace casthouse: HCl, total hydrocarbon (THC); Blast Furnace 
stove: HCl and total hydrocarbon (THC); primary emission control system 
for a BOPF: 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) toxic 
equivalent (TEQ), HCl, THC; fugitive and intermittent particulate 
sources.
* * * * *
    (g) If you have an existing affected source or a new or 
reconstructed affected source for which construction or reconstruction 
commenced on or before July 31, 2023, each sinter plant windbox, BF 
casthouse, BF stove,

[[Page 23320]]

primary emission control system for a BOPF, and fugitive and 
intermittent particulate source at your facility must be in compliance 
with the applicable emission limits in table 1 of this subpart through 
performance testing under Sec.  63.7825, April 3, 2025, except for the 
following:
    (1) All affected sinter plant windbox sources that commence 
construction or reconstruction on or before July 31, 2023, must be in 
compliance with Hg, HCl, COS, TEQ, and PAH emissions limits in table 1 
to this subpart through performance testing by April 3, 2027.
    (2) All affected BF and BOPF sources that commence construction or 
reconstruction on or before July 31, 2023, must be in compliance with 
HCl, THC, and TEQ emissions limits in table 1 to this subpart through 
performance testing by April 3, 2027.
    (3) All affected sources that commence construction or 
reconstruction on or before July 31, 2023 must be in compliance with 
work practices and limits for unplanned openings, work practices for 
beaching, and the opacity limit for slag processing in table 1 to this 
subpart through performance testing (or through reporting of number of 
unplanned openings for limits applicable to unplanned openings shown in 
table 1) by April 3, 2026.
    (4) All affected sources that commence construction or 
reconstruction after July 31, 2023, must be in compliance with all new 
and revised provisions in table 1 to this subpart through performance 
testing by April 3, 2024 or upon startup, whichever is later.

0
5. Amend Sec.  63.7791 by revising the section heading to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.7791  How do I comply with the requirements for the control of 
mercury from BOPF Groups?

* * * * *

0
6. Add Sec.  63.7792 to read as follows:


Sec.  63.7792  What fenceline monitoring requirements must I meet?

    The owner or operator must conduct sampling along the facility 
property boundary and analyze the samples in accordance with paragraphs 
(a) through (g) of this section.
    (a) Beginning either 1 year after promulgation of the test method 
for fenceline sampling of metals applicable to this subpart or April 3, 
2026 whichever is later, the owner or operator must conduct sampling 
along the facility property boundary and analyze the samples in 
accordance with the method and paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this 
section.
    (1) The owner or operator must monitor for total chromium.
    (2) The owner or operator must use a sampling period and sampling 
frequency as specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (iii) of this 
section.
    (i) Sampling period. A 24-hour sampling period must be used. A 
sampling period is defined as the period during active collection of a 
sample and does not include the time required to analyze the sample.
    (ii) Sampling frequency. The frequency of sample collection must be 
samples at least every 6 calendar days, such that the beginning of each 
sampling period begins no greater than approximately 144 hours (12 hours) from the end of the previous sample.
    (iii) Sunset provision. When the annual rolling average [Delta]c 
remains less than 0.05 [mu]g/m\3\ for 24 months in succession, a test 
waiver may be requested from the Administrator to remove or reduce 
fenceline sampling requirements. If the annual rolling average [Delta]c 
exceeds 0.05[mu]g/m\3\, the determination of 24 consecutive annual 
average [Delta]c months restarts.
    (3) The owner or operator must determine sample locations in 
accordance with paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through (v) of this section.
    (i) The monitoring perimeter must be located between the property 
boundary and the process unit(s), such that the monitoring perimeter 
encompasses all potential sources of the target analyte(s) specified in 
paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
    (ii) The owner or operator must place a minimum of 4 samplers 
around the monitoring perimeter.
    (iii) To determine sampling locations, measure the length of the 
monitoring perimeter.
    (A) Locate the point downwind of the prevailing wind direction.
    (B) Divide the monitoring perimeter equally into 4 evenly spaced 
sampling points, with one located in accordance with paragraph 
(a)(3)(iii)(A) of this section.
    (4) The owner or operator must follow the procedures in of the 
fenceline metals test method to determine the detection limit of the 
target analyte(s) and requirements for quality assurance samples.
    (b) The owner or operator must collect and record meteorological 
data according to the applicable requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) 
through (3) of this section.
    (1) If monitoring is conducted under paragraph (b) of this section, 
if a near-field source correction is used as provided in paragraph 
(f)(2) of this section, or if an alternative test method is used that 
provides time-resolved measurements, the owner or operator must use an 
on-site meteorological station in accordance with the metals fenceline 
test method applicable to this subpart. Collect and record hourly 
average meteorological data, including temperature, barometric 
pressure, wind speed and wind direction and calculate daily unit vector 
wind direction and daily sigma theta.
    (2) For cases other than those specified in paragraph (c)(1) of 
this section, the owner or operator must collect and record sampling 
period average temperature and barometric pressure using either an on-
site meteorological station in accordance with the metals fenceline 
test method of this part or, alternatively, using data from a National 
Weather Service (NWS) meteorological station provided the NWS 
meteorological station is within 40 kilometers (25 miles) of the 
facility.
    (3) If an on-site meteorological station is used, the owner or 
operator must follow the calibration and standardization procedures for 
meteorological measurements in EPA-454/B-08-002 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  63.14).
    (c) Within 45 days of completion of each sampling period, the owner 
or operator must determine whether the results are above or below the 
action level as follows.
    (1) The owner or operator must determine the facility impact on the 
concentration ([Delta]c) for each sampling period according to either 
paragraph (d)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section, as applicable.
    (i) Except when near-field source correction is used as provided in 
paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section, the owner or operator must 
determine the highest and lowest sample results individually from the 
sample pool and calculate the [Delta]c as the difference in these 
concentrations. Co-located samples must be averaged together for the 
purposes of determining the concentration at a particular sampling 
location, and, if applicable, for determining [Delta]c. The owner or 
operator must adhere to the following procedures when one or more 
samples for the sampling period are below the method detection limit 
for a particular compound:
    (A) If the lowest detected value is below detection, the owner or 
operator must use zero as the lowest sample result when calculating 
[Delta]c.
    (B) If all sample results are below the method detection limit, the 
owner or operator must use the highest method detection limit for the 
sample set as the highest sample result and zero as the

[[Page 23321]]

lowest sample result when calculating [Delta]c.
    (ii) When near-field source correction is used as provided in 
paragraph (g) of this section, the owner or operator must determine 
[Delta]c using the calculation protocols outlined in the approved site-
specific monitoring plan and in paragraph (g) of this section.
    (2) The owner or operator must calculate the annual average 
[Delta]c based on the average of the [Delta]c values for the 61 most 
recent sampling periods. The owner or operator must update this annual 
average value after receiving the results of each subsequent sampling 
period.
    (3) The action level for chromium is 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\. If the annual 
average [Delta]c value (rounded to 1 significant figure) is greater 
than the action level, the concentration is above the action level, and 
the owner or operator must conduct a root cause analysis and corrective 
action in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section.
    (d) Once any action level in paragraph (c)(3) of this section has 
been exceeded, the owner or operator must take the following actions to 
bring the annual average [Delta]c back below the action level(s).
    (1) Within 5 days of updating the annual average value as required 
in (c)(2) and determining that any action level in paragraph (c)(3) of 
this section has been exceeded (i.e., in no case longer than 50 days 
after completion of the sampling period), the owner or operator must 
initiate a root cause analysis to determine appropriate corrective 
action. A root cause analysis is an assessment conducted through a 
process of investigation to determine the primary underlying cause and 
all other contributing causes to an exceedance of the action level(s) 
set forth in paragraph (c)(3).
    (2) The initial root cause analysis may include, but is not limited 
to:
    (i) Visual inspection to determine the cause of the high emissions.
    (ii) Operator knowledge of process changes (e.g., a malfunction or 
release event).
    (3) If the initial root cause cannot be identified using the type 
of techniques described in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, the owner 
or operator must employ more frequent sampling and analysis to 
determine the root cause of the exceedance.
    (i) The owner or operator may first employ additional monitoring 
points or more frequent sampling to determine the root cause of the 
exceedance.
    (ii) If the owner or operator has not determined the root cause of 
the exceedance within 30 days of determining that the action level has 
been exceeded, the owner or operator must employ the appropriate more 
time resolute sampling techniques (e.g., continuous multi metals 
monitors) to locate the cause of the exceedance. If the root cause is 
not identified after 28 days, either the more time resolute monitor 
must be relocated or an additional more time resolute monitor must be 
added. Relocation or addition of extra monitors must continue after 
each 28-day period of nonidentification until the owner or operator can 
identify the root cause of the exceedance.
    (4) If the underlying primary and other contributing causes of the 
exceedance are deemed to be under the control of the owner or operator, 
the owner or operator must take appropriate corrective action as 
expeditiously as possible to bring annual average fenceline 
concentrations back below the action level(s) set forth in paragraph 
(c)(2)(3) of this section. At a minimum, the corrective actions taken 
must address the underlying primary and other contributing cause(s) 
determined in the root cause analysis to prevent future exceedances 
from the same underlying cause(s).
    (5) The root cause analysis must be completed and initial 
corrective actions taken no later than 45 days after determining there 
is an exceedance of an action level.
    (e) An owner or operator must develop a corrective action plan if 
the conditions in either paragraph (e)(1) or (2) of this section are 
met. The corrective action plan must describe the corrective action(s) 
completed to date, additional measures that the owner or operator 
proposes to employ to expeditiously reduce annual average fenceline 
concentrations below the action level set forth in paragraph (c)(3) of 
this section, and a schedule for completion of these measures. The 
corrective action plan must identify actions to address the underlying 
primary and other contributing cause(s) determined in the root cause 
analysis to prevent future exceedances from the same underlying 
cause(s). The corrective action plan does not need to be approved by 
the Administrator. However, if upon review, the Administrator disagrees 
with the additional measures outlined in the plan, the owner or 
operator must revise and resubmit the plan within 7 calendar days of 
receiving comments from the Administrator.
    (1) The owner or operator must develop a corrective action plan if, 
upon completion of the root cause analysis and initial corrective 
actions required in paragraph (d) of this section, the [Delta]c value 
for the next sampling period, for which the sampling start time begins 
after the completion of the initial corrective actions, is greater than 
0.1 [mu]g/m\3\. The owner or operator must submit the corrective action 
plan to the Administrator within 60 days after receiving the analytical 
results indicating that the [Delta]c value for the sampling period 
following the completion of the initial corrective action is greater 
than 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\.
    (2) The owner or operator must develop a corrective action plan if 
complete implementation of all corrective measures identified in the 
root cause analysis required by paragraph (d) of this section will 
require more than 45 days. The owner or operator must submit the 
corrective action plan to the Administrator no later than 60 days 
following the completion of the root cause analysis required in 
paragraph (d) of this section.
    (f) An owner or operator may request approval from the 
Administrator for a site-specific monitoring plan to account for 
offsite upwind sources according to the requirements in paragraphs 
(f)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) The owner or operator must prepare and submit a site-specific 
monitoring plan and receive approval of the site-specific monitoring 
plan prior to using the near-field source alternative calculation for 
determining [Delta]c provided in paragraph (f)(2) of this section. The 
site-specific monitoring plan must include, at a minimum, the elements 
specified in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (v) of this section. The 
procedures in section 12 of Method 325A of appendix A of this part are 
not required, but may be used, if applicable, when determining near-
field source contributions.
    (i) Identification of the near-field source or sources.
    (ii) Location of the additional monitoring stations that must be 
used to determine the uniform background concentration and the near-
field source concentration contribution. Modeling may not be used in 
lieu of monitoring to identify uniform background concentration and 
near-field sources.
    (iii) Identification of the fenceline monitoring locations impacted 
by the near-field source. If more than one near-field source is 
present, identify the near-field source or sources that are expected to 
contribute to the concentration at that monitoring location.
    (iv) A description of (including sample calculations illustrating) 
the planned data reduction including the treatment of invalid data, 
data below detection limits, and data collected during calm wind 
periods; and

[[Page 23322]]

calculations to determine the near-field source concentration 
contribution for each monitoring location.
    (v) A detailed description of the measurement technique, 
measurement location(s), the standard operation procedure, measurement 
frequency, recording frequency, measurement detection limit, and data 
quality indicators to ensure accuracy, precision, and validity of the 
data.
    (2) When an approved site-specific monitoring plan is used, the 
owner or operator must determine [Delta]c for comparison with the 
action level using the requirements specified in paragraphs (f)(2)(i) 
through (iii) of this section.
    (i) For each monitoring location, calculate [Delta]ci 
using the following equation.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03AP24.046


Where:

[Delta]ci = The fenceline concentration, corrected for 
background, at measurement location i, micrograms per cubic meter 
([mu]g/m\3\).
MFCi = The measured fenceline concentration at 
measurement location i, [mu]g/m\3\.
NFSi = The near-field source contributing concentration 
at measurement location i determined using the additional 
measurements and calculation procedures included in the site-
specific monitoring plan, [mu]g/m\3\. For monitoring locations that 
are not included in the site-specific monitoring plan as impacted by 
a near-field source, use NFSi = 0 [mu]g/m\3\.

    (ii) When one or more samples for the sampling period are below the 
method detection limit, adhere to the following procedures:
    (A) If the concentration at the monitoring location(s) used to 
determine the near-field source contributing concentration is below the 
method detection limit, the owner or operator must use zero for the 
monitoring location concentration when calculating NFSi for 
that monitoring period.
    (B) If a fenceline monitoring location sample result is below the 
method detection limit, the owner or operator must use the method 
detection limit as the sample result.
    (iii) Determine [Delta]c for the monitoring period as the maximum 
value of [Delta]ci from all of the fenceline monitoring 
locations for that monitoring period.
    (3) The site-specific monitoring plan must be submitted and 
approved as described in paragraphs (f)(3)(i) through (iv) of this 
section.
    (i) The site-specific monitoring plan must be submitted to the 
Administrator for approval.
    (ii) The site-specific monitoring plan must also be submitted to 
the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs 
Division, U.S. EPA Mailroom (E143-01), Attention: Integrated Iron and 
Steel Sector Lead, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 
27711. Electronic copies in lieu of hard copies may also be submitted 
to [email protected].
    (iii) The Administrator will approve or disapprove the plan in 90 
days. The plan is considered approved if the Administrator either 
approves the plan in writing or fails to disapprove the plan in 
writing. The 90-day period begins when the Administrator receives the 
plan.
    (iv) If the Administrator finds any deficiencies in the site-
specific monitoring plan and disapproves the plan in writing, the owner 
or operator may revise and resubmit the site-specific monitoring plan 
following the requirements in paragraphs (f)(3)(i) and (ii) of this 
section. The 90-day period starts over with the resubmission of the 
revised monitoring plan.
    (4) The approval by the Administrator of a site-specific monitoring 
plan will be based on the completeness, accuracy, and reasonableness of 
the request for a site-specific monitoring plan. Factors that the 
Administrator will consider in reviewing the request for a site-
specific monitoring plan include, but are not limited to, those 
described in paragraphs (f)(4)(i) through (v) of this section.
    (i) The identification of the near-field source or sources and 
evidence of how the sources impact the fenceline concentrations.
    (ii) The monitoring location selected to determine the uniform 
background concentration or an indication that no uniform background 
concentration monitor will be used.
    (iii) The location(s) selected for additional monitoring to 
determine the near-field source concentration contribution.
    (iv) The identification of the fenceline monitoring locations 
impacted by the near-field source or sources.
    (v) The appropriateness of the planned data reduction and 
calculations to determine the near-field source concentration 
contribution for each monitoring location, including the handling of 
invalid data, data below the detection limit, and data during calm 
periods.
    (vi) If more frequent monitoring is proposed, the adequacy of the 
description of and rationale for the measurement technique, measurement 
location(s), the standard operation procedure, measurement frequency, 
recording frequency, measurement detection limit, and data quality 
indicators to ensure accuracy, precision, and validity of the data.
    (g) The owner or operator must comply with the applicable 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements in Sec.  63.7841 and Sec.  
63.7842.
    (1) As outlined in Sec.  63.7(f), the owner or operator may submit 
a request for an alternative test method. At a minimum, the request 
must follow the requirements outlined in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through 
(vi) of this section.
    (i) The alternative method may be used in lieu of all or a partial 
number of the sampling locations required under paragraph (a) of this 
section.
    (ii) The alternative method must be validated according to Method 
301 in appendix A of this part or contain performance-based procedures 
and indicators to ensure self-validation.
    (iii) The method detection limit must nominally be at least three 
times below the action level. The alternate test method must describe 
the procedures used to provide field verification of the detection 
limit.
    (iv) If the alternative test method will be used to replace some or 
all samplers required under paragraph (a) of this section, the spatial 
coverage must be equal to or better than the spatial coverage provided 
under paragraph (a).
    (v) For alternative test methods capable of real time measurements 
(less than a 5-minute sampling and analysis cycle), the alternative 
test method may allow for elimination of data points corresponding to 
outside emission sources for purpose of calculation of the high point 
for the two week average. The alternative test method approach must 
have wind speed, direction, and stability class of the same time 
resolution and within the footprint of the instrument.
    (vi) For purposes of averaging data points to determine the 
[Delta]c for the individual sampling period, all results measured under 
the method detection limit must use the method detection limit. For 
purposes of averaging data points for the individual sampling period 
low sample result, all results measured under the method detection 
limit must use zero.

0
7. Add Sec.  63.7793 to read as follows:

[[Page 23323]]

Sec.  63.7793  What work practice standards must I meet?

    (a) You must meet each work practice limit in table 1 to this 
subpart that applies to you.
    (b) For unplanned bleeder valve openings on a new and existing 
blast furnace, you must meet each work practice standard listed in 
paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Develop and operate according to a ``Slip Avoidance Plan'' to 
minimize slips and submit it to EPA for approval;
    (2) Install devices to continuously measure/monitor material levels 
in the furnace (i.e., stockline), at a minimum of three locations, with 
alarms to inform operators of static (i.e., not moving) stockline 
conditions which increase the likelihood of slips; and
    (3) Install and use instruments on the furnace to monitor 
temperature and pressure to help determine when a slip is likely to 
occur.
    (c) For each large bell on a new and existing blast furnace, you 
must meet each work practice standard listed in paragraphs (c)(1) and 
(2) of this section.
    (1) Maintain metal seats to minimize wear on seals and emissions; 
and
    (2) Replace or repair large bell seals according to Sec.  
63.7833(j).
    (d) For each small bell on a new and existing blast furnace, you 
must meet each work practice standard listed in paragraphs (d)(1) and 
(2) of this section.
    (1) Maintain metal seats to minimize wear on seals; and
    (2) You must repair or replace small bell seals prior to the time 
period or metal throughput limit that has been proven and documented to 
produce no opacity from the small bell.
    (e) For each iron beaching operation, you must meet each work 
practice standard listed in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) Minimize the drop height of molten metal to the ground, the 
slope or grade of the area where beaching occurs, and the rate at which 
molten metal is poured onto the ground; and
    (2) Use carbon dioxide shielding during beaching event; and/or use 
full or partial (hoods) enclosures around beached iron.
    (f) For each BOPF at a new or existing shop, you must develop and 
operate according to a ``BOPF Shop Operating Plan'' to minimize 
fugitive emissions and detect openings and leaks and submit it to EPA 
for approval. Your BOPF Shop Operating Plan may include, but is not 
limited to, any of the items listed in paragraphs (f)(1) through (8) of 
this section.
    (1) List all events that generate VE, including slopping and other 
steps company will take to reduce incidence rate. State the specific 
actions that operators will take when slag foaming approaches the mouth 
of the vessel in order to prevent slopping;
    (2) Minimize hot iron pour/charge rate (minutes) and set a maximum 
pour rate in tons/second;
    (3) Schedule of regular inspections of BOPF shop structure for 
openings and leaks to the atmosphere;
    (4) Optimize positioning of hot metal ladles with respect to hood 
face and furnace mouth;
    (5) Optimize furnace tilt angle during charging and set a maximum 
tilt angle during charging;
    (6) Keep all openings, except roof monitors, closed, especially 
during transfer, to extent feasible and safe. All openings shall be 
closed unless the opening was in the original design of the Shop;
    (7) Use higher draft velocities to capture more fugitives at a 
given distance from hood, if possible; and
    (8) Monitor opacity periodically (e.g., once per month) from all 
openings with EPA Method Alt-082 (camera) or with EPA Method 9 in 
appendix A-4 to part 60 of this chapter.

0
8. Amend Sec.  63.7800 by revising paragraph (b) introductory text and 
adding paragraphs (b)(8) and (9) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.7800  What are my operation and maintenance requirements?

* * * * *
    (b) You must prepare and operate at all times according to a 
written operation and maintenance plan for each capture system or 
control device subject to an operating limit in Sec.  63.7790(b). Each 
plan must address the elements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (9) of this 
section.
* * * * *
    (8) Small Bell repair or replacement period, in weeks, or mass of 
material throughput, in tons, and the specific begin date and end date 
for the chosen repair or replacement period or throughput over which 
there were no visible emissions observed.
    (9) Building drawings of the BF Casthouse and BOPF shop that show 
and list by number the openings, including doors and vents, that are 
part of the original design of the building.

0
9. Amend Sec.  63.7820 by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.7820  By what date must I conduct performance tests or other 
initial compliance demonstrations?

* * * * *
    (e) Notwithstanding the deadlines in this section, existing and new 
affected sources must comply with the deadlines for making the initial 
compliance demonstrations for the BOPF Group mercury emission limit set 
forth in paragraphs (e)(1) through (4) in this section.
* * * * *

0
10. Revise Sec.  63.7821 to read as follows:


Sec.  63.7821  When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?

    (a) You must conduct subsequent performance tests to demonstrate 
compliance with all applicable emission and opacity limits in table 1 
to this subpart at the frequencies specified in paragraphs (b) through 
(m) of this section.
    (b) For each sinter cooler at an existing sinter plant and each 
emissions unit equipped with a control device other than a baghouse, 
you must conduct subsequent particulate matter and opacity performance 
tests no less frequently than twice (at mid-term and renewal) during 
each term of your title V operating permit.
    (c) For each emissions unit equipped with a baghouse, you must 
conduct subsequent particulate matter and opacity performance tests no 
less frequently than once during each term of your title V operating 
permit.
    (d) For sources without a title V operating permit, you must 
conduct subsequent particulate matter and opacity performance tests 
every 2.5 years.
    (e) For each BOPF Group, if demonstrating compliance with the 
mercury emission limit in table 1 to this subpart through performance 
testing under Sec. Sec.  63.7825 and 63.7833, you must conduct 
subsequent performance tests twice per permit cycle (i.e., mid-term and 
initial/final) for sources with title V operating permits, and every 
2.5 years for sources without a title V operating permit, at the outlet 
of the control devices for the BOPF Group.
    (f) For each sinter plant windbox, you must conduct subsequent 
mercury, hydrogen chloride, carbonyl sulfide, dioxin/furan, and 
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon performance tests every 5 years.
    (g) For each blast furnace stove and BOPF shop primary emission 
control device, you must conduct subsequent hydrogen chloride and total 
hydrocarbon testing every 5 years. For the BOPF shop primary emission 
control device, you must also conduct subsequent dioxin/furan testing 
every 5 years.
    (h) For each blast furnace casthouse and BOPF shop, you must 
conduct subsequent opacity tests two times per

[[Page 23324]]

month during a cast, or during a full heat cycle, as appropriate.
    (i) For planned bleeder valve openings on each blast furnace, you 
must conduct opacity tests according to Sec.  63.7823(f) for each 
planned opening.
    (j) For slag processing, handling, and storage operations for each 
blast furnace or BOPF, you must conduct subsequent opacity tests once 
per week for a minimum of 18 minutes for each: BF pit filling; BOPF 
slag pit filling; BF pit digging; BOPF slag pit digging; and one slag 
handling (either truck loading or dumping slag to slag piles).
    (k) For large bells on each blast furnace, you must conduct visible 
emissions testing on the interbell relief valve according to EPA Method 
22 in appendix A-7 to part 60 of this chapter, unless specified in 
paragraphs (k)(1) through (3) of this section. Testing must be 
conducted monthly, for 15 minutes.
    (1) If visible emissions are detected for a large bell during the 
monthly visible emissions testing, you must conduct EPA Method 9 (in 
appendix A-4 to part 60 of this chapter) opacity tests in place of EPA 
Method 22 testing on that bell once per month, taking 3-minute averages 
for 15 minutes, until the large bell seal is repaired or replaced.
    (2) If the average of 3 instantaneous visible emission readings 
taken while the interbell relief valve is exhausting exceeds 20 
percent, you must initiate corrective action within five business days.
    (3) Ten business days after the initial opacity exceedance of 20 
percent, you must conduct an EPA Method 9 opacity test, taking 3-minute 
averages for 15 minutes. If the average of 3 instantaneous visible 
emissions readings from this test exceeds 20 percent, you must repair 
or replace that bell seal within 4 months.
    (l) For small bells on each blast furnace, you must conduct visible 
emissions testing according to EPA Method 22 in appendix A-7 to part 60 
of this chapter. Testing must be conducted monthly for 15 minutes. If 
visible emissions are observed, you must compare the period between the 
visible emissions being present and the most recent bell seal repair or 
replacement. If this time period or throughput is shorter or lower than 
the period or throughput stated in the O&M plan required by 63.7800, 
this new shorter period or lower limit shall be placed in the O&M plan 
as the work practice limit.
    (m) For each blast furnace casthouse, you must conduct subsequent 
hydrogen chloride and total hydrocarbon testing every 5 years.

0
11. Amend Sec.  63.7823 by revising paragraph (a) and adding paragraphs 
(c)(3), (d)(6), and (f) through (h) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.7823  What test methods and other procedures must I use to 
demonstrate initial compliance with the opacity limits?

    (a) For each discharge end of a sinter plant, sinter plant cooler, 
blast furnace casthouse, BOPF shop, and large bell on a blast furnace, 
you must conduct each performance test that applies to your affected 
source based on representative performance (i.e., performance based on 
normal operating conditions) of the affected source for the period 
being tested, according to the conditions detailed in paragraphs (b) 
through (d) of this section. Representative conditions exclude periods 
of startup and shutdown. You shall not conduct performance tests during 
periods of malfunction. You must record the process information that is 
necessary to document operating conditions during the test and include 
in such record an explanation to support that such conditions represent 
normal operation. Upon request, you shall make available to the 
Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the 
conditions of performance tests.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) For the blast furnace casthouse, make observations at each 
opening:
    (i) If EPA Method 9 is used, observations should be made separately 
at each opening.
    (ii) If ASTM D7520-16 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14) 
is used, observations may be read for more than one opening at the same 
time.
    (d) * * *
    (6) Make observations at each opening:
    (i) If EPA Method 9 in appendix A-4 to part 60 of this chapter is 
used, observations should be made separately at each opening.
    (ii) If ASTM D7520-16 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14) 
is used, observations may be read for more than one opening at the same 
time.
* * * * *
    (f) To determine compliance with the applicable opacity limit in 
table 1 to this subpart for planned bleeder valve openings at a blast 
furnace:
    (1) Using a certified observer, determine the opacity of emissions 
according to EPA Method 9 in appendix A-4 to part 60 of this chapter. 
Alternatively, ASTM D7520-16 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
63.14) may be used with the following conditions:
    (i) During the DCOT certification procedure outlined in Section 9.2 
of ASTM D7520-16 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14), the 
owner or operator or the DCOT vendor must be present the plumes in 
front of various backgrounds of color and contrast representing 
conditions anticipated during field use such as blue sky, trees, and 
mixed backgrounds (clouds and/or a sparse tree stand).
    (ii) The owner or operator must also have standard operating 
procedures in place including daily or other frequency quality checks 
to ensure the equipment is within manufacturing specifications as 
outlined in Section 8.1 of ASTM D7520-16 (incorporated by reference, 
see Sec.  63.14).
    (iii) The owner or operator must follow the recordkeeping 
procedures outlined in Sec.  63.10(b)(1) for the DCOT certification, 
compliance report, data sheets, and all raw unaltered JPEGs used for 
opacity and certification determination.
    (iv) The owner or operator or the DCOT vendor must have a minimum 
of four independent technology users apply the software to determine 
the visible opacity of the 300 certification plumes. For each set of 25 
plumes, the user may not exceed 15-percent opacity of any one reading 
and the average error must not exceed 7.5-percent opacity.
    (v) Use of this approved alternative does not provide or imply a 
certification or validation of any vendor's hardware or software. The 
onus to maintain and verify the certification and/or training of the 
DCOT camera, software, and operator in accordance with ASTM D7520-16 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14) and these requirements is 
on the facility, DCOT operator, and DCOT vendor.
    (2) Conduct opacity observations in 6-minute block averages 
starting as soon as event begins or sunrise whichever is later and 
ending either when the bleeder valve closes, sunset, or after the first 
6-minute block average where all readings are zero percent opacity, but 
in no case shall the opacity observation period be less than 6 minutes.
    (g) To determine compliance with the applicable opacity limit in 
table 1 to this subpart for slag processing, handling, and storage 
operations for a blast furnace or BOPF:
    (1) Using a certified observer, determine the opacity of emissions 
according to EPA Method 9 in appendix A-4 to part 60 of this chapter.
    (2) Conduct opacity observations in 6-minute blocks for 30 minutes 
at each: slag dumping to BF pit; BOPF slag dumping to pit; BF pit 
digging, BOPF pit digging; slag dumping to a pile, slag

[[Page 23325]]

dumping to a piece of slag handling equipment such as crusher.
    (h) To determine compliance with the work practice trigger for 
large bells on a blast furnace:
    (1) Using a certified observer, determine the opacity of emissions 
according to EPA Method 9 in appendix A-4 to part 60 of this chapter.
    (2) Conduct opacity observations of 15 instantaneous interbell 
relief valve emissions.

0
12. Amend Sec.  63.7825 by:
0
a. Revising the section heading, paragraph (a) introductory text, and 
paragraphs (b)(1)(v), (b)(2), and (c); and
0
b. Adding paragraphs (g) through (k).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.7825  What test methods and other procedures must I use to 
demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits for hazardous 
air pollutants?

    (a) If demonstrating compliance with the emission limits in Table 1 
to this subpart through performance testing, you must conduct a 
performance test to demonstrate initial compliance with the emission 
limit. If demonstrating compliance with the emission limit through 
performance testing, you must conduct each performance test that 
applies to your affected source based on representative performance 
(i.e., performance based on normal operating conditions) of the 
affected source for the period being tested, according to the 
conditions detailed in paragraphs (b) through (k) of this section. 
Representative conditions exclude periods of startup and shutdown. You 
shall not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. 
Initial compliance tests must be conducted by the deadlines in Sec.  
63.7820(e).
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (v) EPA Method 29 or 30B in appendix A-8 to part 60 of this chapter 
to determine the concentration of mercury from the exhaust stream stack 
of each unit. If performing measurements using EPA Method 29, you must 
collect a minimum sample volume of 1.7 dscm (60 dscf). Alternative test 
methods may be considered on a case-by-case basis per Sec.  63.7(f).
    (2) Three valid test runs are needed to comprise a performance test 
of each unit in table 1 to this subpart as applicable. If the 
performance testing results for any of the emission points yields a 
non-detect value, then the method detection limit (MDL) must be used to 
calculate the mass emissions (lb) for that emission unit and, in turn, 
for calculating the sum of the emissions (in units of pounds of mercury 
per ton of steel scrap or pounds of mercury per ton of product sinter) 
for all units subject to the emission standard for determining 
compliance. If the resulting mercury emissions are greater than the 
MACT emission standard, the owner or operator may use procedures that 
produce lower MDL results and repeat the mercury performance testing 
one additional time for any emission point for which the measured 
result was below the MDL. If this additional testing is performed, the 
results from that testing must be used to determine compliance (i.e., 
there are no additional opportunities allowed to lower the MDL).
* * * * *
    (c) Calculate the mass emissions, based on the average of three 
test run values, for each BOPF Group unit (or combination of units that 
are ducted to a common stack and are tested when all affected sources 
are operating pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section) using equation 
1 to this paragraph (c) as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03AP24.047

Where:

E = Mass emissions of pollutant, pounds (lb);
Cs = Concentration of pollutant in stack gas, mg/dscm;
454,000 = Conversion factor (mg/lb);
Q = Volumetric flow rate of stack gas, dscf/min;
35.31 = Conversion factor (dscf/dscm); and
t = Duration of test, minutes.
* * * * *
    (g) To demonstrate compliance with the emission limit for hydrogen 
chloride in table 1 to this subpart through performance testing, follow 
the test methods and procedures in paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of 
this section.
    (1) Determine the concentration of hydrogen chloride according to 
the following test methods:
    (i) The methods specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (iv) of 
this section, and
    (ii) EPA Method 26A in appendix A-8 to part 60 of this chapter to 
determine the concentration of hydrogen chloride from the exhaust 
stream stack of each unit, with the following conditions; or
    (A) Collect a minimum sample volume of 70 dscf (2 dscm) of gas 
during each run.
    (B) [Reserved]
    (iii) EPA Method 320 in appendix A to this part to determine the 
concentration of hydrogen chloride and hydrogen fluoride from the 
exhaust stream stack of each unit. Alternatively, ASTM D6348-12(R2020), 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14) may be used with the 
following conditions:
    (A) The test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to 
ASTM D 6348-12(R2020), Annexes A1 through A8 are mandatory; and
    (B) In ASTM D6348-12(R2020) 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 equation 2 o to this 
paragraph (g)(1)(iii)(B) as follows:

[[Page 23326]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03AP24.048

Where

cs = measured concentration in stack.

    (2) At least three valid test runs are needed to comprise a 
performance test of each unit in table 1 to this subpart. If the 
performance testing results for any of the emission points yields a 
non-detect value, then the MDL must be used to calculate the mass 
emissions (lb) for that unit and, in turn, for calculating the 
emissions rate (lb/ton of product sinter, lb/ton of iron, or lb/ton of 
steel).
    (3) Calculate the emissions from each new and existing affected 
source in pounds of hydrogen chloride per ton of throughput processed 
or unit of energy (tons of product sinter, tons of iron, tons of steel, 
or MMBtu) to determine initial compliance with the emission limits in 
table 1 to this subpart.
    (h) To demonstrate compliance with the emission limit for carbonyl 
sulfide in table 1 to this subpart through performance testing, follow 
the test methods and procedures in paragraphs (h)(1) through (3) of 
this section.
    (1) Determine the concentration of carbonyl sulfide according to 
the following test methods:
    (i) The methods specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (iv) of 
this section, and
    (ii) EPA Method 15 in appendix A-5 to part 60 of this chapter to 
determine the concentration of carbonyl sulfide from the exhaust stream 
stack of each unit; or
    (iii) EPA Method 320 in appendix A to this part to determine the 
concentration of carbon disulfide and carbonyl sulfide from the exhaust 
stream stack of each unit. Alternatively, ASTM D6348-12 (R2020), 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14) may be used with the 
following conditions:
    (A) The test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to 
ASTM D 6348-12 (R2020), Annexes A1 through A8 are mandatory; and
    (B) In ASTM D6348-12 (R2020) 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 Equation 2 of this 
section.
    (2) Three valid test runs at least one hour in duration are needed 
to comprise a performance test of each unit in table 1 to this subpart. 
If the performance testing results for any of the emission points 
yields a non-detect value, then the MDL must be used to calculate the 
mass emissions (lb) for that unit and, in turn, for calculating the 
emissions rate (lb/ton of product sinter).
    (3) Calculate the emissions from each new and existing affected 
source in pounds of carbonyl sulfide per ton of product sinter to 
determine initial compliance with the emission limits in table 1 to 
this subpart .
    (i) To demonstrate compliance with the emission limit for total 
hydrocarbons in table 1 to this subpart through performance testing, 
follow the test methods and procedures in paragraphs (i)(1) through (5) 
of this section.
    (1) Determine the concentration of total hydrocarbons according to 
the following test methods:
    (i) The methods specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (iv) of 
this section, and
    (ii) EPA Method 25A in appendix A-7 to part 60 of this chapter to 
determine the concentration of total hydrocarbons as propane from the 
exhaust stream stack of each unit.
    (2) Three valid test runs at least one hour in duration are needed 
to comprise a performance test of each unit in table 1 to this subpart. 
If the performance testing results for any of the emission points 
yields a non-detect value, then the MDL must be used to calculate the 
mass emissions (lb) for that unit and, in turn, for calculating the 
emissions rate (lb/ton of iron or lb/ton of steel).
    (3) For BOPF tests, the test runs must include at least one full 
production cycle (from scrap charge to 3 minutes after slag is emptied 
from the vessel) for each run, except for BOPF with closed hood 
systems, where sampling should be performed only during the primary 
oxygen blow and only for 20 heat cycles.
    (4) For blast furnaces, each test run duration must be a minimum of 
1 hour.
    (5) Calculate the emissions from each new and existing affected 
source in pounds of total hydrocarbons as propane per ton of throughput 
processed or unit of energy (tons of iron, tons of steel, or MMBtu) to 
determine initial compliance with the emission limits in table 1 to 
this subpart.
    (j) To demonstrate compliance with the emission limit for D/F TEQ 
in table 1 to this subpart through performance testing, follow the test 
methods and procedures in paragraphs (j)(1) through (4) of this 
section.
    (1) Determine the concentration of each dioxin and furan listed in 
table 5 to this subpart according to the following test methods:
    (i) The methods specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (iv) of 
this section, and
    (ii) EPA Method 23 in appendix A-7 to part 60 of this chapter to 
determine the concentration of each dioxin and furan listed in table 5 
to this subpart from the exhaust stream stack of each unit. You must 
collect a minimum sample volume of 105 dscf (3 dscm) of gas during each 
test run.
    (2) Three valid test runs are needed to comprise a performance test 
of each unit in table 1 to this subpart. For determination of TEQ, zero 
may be used in subsequent calculations for values less than the 
estimated detection limit (EDL). For estimated maximum pollutant 
concentration (EMPC) results, when the value is greater than the EDL, 
the EMPC value must be used in determination of TEQ, when the EMPC is 
less than the EDL, zero may be used.
    (3) For BOPF tests, the test runs must include at least one full 
production cycle (from scrap charge to 3 minutes after slag is emptied 
from the vessel) for each run, except for BOPF with closed hood 
systems, where sampling should be performed only during the primary 
oxygen blow and only for 20 heat cycles or the collection of 105 dscf 
(3 dscm) sample volume, whichever is less.
    (4) Calculate the sum of the D/F TEQ per ton of throughput 
processed (tons of product sinter or tons of steel) to determine 
initial compliance with the emission limits in table 1 using equation 3 
to this paragraph (j)(4) as follows:

[[Page 23327]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03AP24.049

Where:

TEQ = sum of the 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQs, lb/ton of throughput processed
Mi = mass of dioxin or furan cogener i during performance 
test run, lbs
TEFi = 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxic equivalency factor (TEF) for 
cogener i, as provided in Table 5 of this subpart
n = number of cogeners included in TEQ
Tr = time of performance test run, hours
P = production rate during performance test run, tons of throughput 
processed per hour.

    (k) To demonstrate compliance with the emission limit for 
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in table 1 to this subpart through 
performance testing, follow the test methods and procedures in 
paragraphs (k)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Determine the concentration of each polycyclic aromatic 
hydrocarbon listed in table 6 to this subpart according to the 
following test methods:
    (i) The methods specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (iv) of 
this section, and
    (ii) EPA Method 23 in appendix A-7 to part 60 of this chapter to 
determine the concentration of each polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon 
listed in table 6 to this subpart from the exhaust stream stack of each 
unit. You must collect a minimum sample volume of 105 dscf (3 dscm) of 
gas during each test run.
    (2) Three valid test runs are needed to comprise a performance test 
of each unit in table 1 to this subpart. If the performance testing 
results for any of the emission points yields a non-detect value, then 
the EDL must be used to calculate the mass emissions (lb) for that unit 
and, in turn, for calculating the emissions rate (lb/ton of product 
sinter).
    (3) Calculate the sum of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons per ton 
of product sinter to determine initial compliance with the emission 
limits in table 1 to this subpart using equation 4 to this paragraph 
(k)(3) as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03AP24.050

Where:

E = emission rate of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, lb/ton of 
sinter
Mi = mass of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon i, as 
provided in Table 6 to this subpart, during performance test run, 
lbs
n = number of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons included in emissions
Tr = time of performance test run, hours
P = production rate during performance test run, tons of product 
sinter per hour.


0
13. Amend Sec.  63.7830 by revising paragraph (e)(2) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.7830  What are my monitoring requirements?

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) Compute and record the 30-day rolling average of the volatile 
organic compound emissions (lbs/ton of sinter) for each operating day 
using the procedures in Sec.  63.7824(e).

0
14. Amend Sec.  63.7833 by adding paragraph (j) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.7833  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
emission limitations that apply to me?

* * * * *
* * * * *
    (j) For large bells on each blast furnace, you must demonstrate 
continuous compliance by following the requirements specified in 
paragraphs (j)(1) and (2) of this section if a bell seal exceeds a 20 
percent average of 3 instantaneous opacity readings of the interbell 
relief valve emissions.
    (1) Initiate corrective action within five business days.
    (2) Ten business days after the initial opacity exceedance of 20 
percent, if the average of 3 instantaneous visible emissions readings 
from this test exceeds 20 percent, you must repair or replace that bell 
seal within 4 months.

0
15. Amend Sec.  63.7840 by removing paragraphs (g)(3) and (h)(3) and 
adding paragraph (i).
    The addition reads as follows:


Sec.  63.7840  What notifications must I submit and when?

* * * * *
    (i) Confidential business information (CBI): For notifications and 
reports required to be submitted to CEDRI:
    (1) The EPA will make all the information submitted through CEDRI 
available to the public without further notice to you. Do not use CEDRI 
to submit information you claim as CBI. Although we do not expect 
persons to assert a claim of CBI, if you wish to assert a CBI claim for 
some of the information submitted under paragraph (h) of this section, 
you must submit a complete file, including information claimed to be 
CBI, to the EPA.
    (2) The file must be generated using the EPA's ERT or an alternate 
electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT 
website.
    (3) Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim 
to be CBI. Information not marked as CBI may be authorized for public 
release without prior notice. Information marked as CBI will not be 
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 
2.
    (4) The preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be transmitted 
electronically using email attachments, File Transfer Protocol, or 
other online file sharing services. Electronic submissions must be 
transmitted directly to the OAQPS CBI Office at the email address 
[email protected], and as described above, should include clear CBI 
markings and be flagged to the attention of the Group Leader, 
Measurement Policy Group. 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.
    (5) If you cannot transmit the file electronically, you may send 
CBI information through the postal service to the following address: 
OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental 
Protection

[[Page 23328]]

Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Group 
Leader, Measurement Policy Group. The mailed CBI material should be 
double wrapped and clearly marked. Any CBI markings should not show 
through the outer envelope.
    (6) All CBI claims must be asserted at the time of submission. 
Anything submitted using CEDRI cannot later be claimed CBI. 
Furthermore, under CAA section 114(c), emissions data is not entitled 
to confidential treatment, and the EPA is required to make emissions 
data available to the public. Thus, emissions data will not be 
protected as CBI and will be made publicly available.
    (7) You must submit the same file submitted to the CBI office with 
the CBI omitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described in paragraphs 
(g) or (h) of this section.

0
16. Amend Sec.  63.7841 by adding paragraph (b)(14), revising paragraph 
(d), and adding paragraph (h) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.7841  What reports must I submit and when?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (14) For each unplanned bleeder valve opening for each blast 
furnace, you must include the information in paragraphs (b)(14)(i) 
through (iii) of this section.
    (i) The date and time of the event.
    (ii) The duration of the event.
    (iii) Any corrective actions taken in response to the event.
* * * * *
    (d) CEDRI submission. If you are required to submit reports 
following the procedure specified in this paragraph, you must submit 
reports to the EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed through EPA's CDX 
(https://cdx.epa.gov/). You must use the appropriate electronic report 
template on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri) for this subpart. The date report templates become 
available will be listed on the CEDRI website. The report must be 
submitted by the deadline specified in this subpart, regardless of the 
method in which the report is submitted. Do not use CEDRI to submit 
information you claim as CBI. Although we do not expect persons to 
assert a claim of CBI, if you wish to assert a CBI claim for some of 
the information in the report, you must submit a complete file, 
including information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA following the 
procedures in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section. Clearly mark 
the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. 
Information not marked as CBI may be authorized for public release 
without prior notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed 
except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. All 
CBI claims must be asserted at the time of submission. Anything 
submitted using CEDRI cannot later be claimed CBI. Furthermore, under 
CAA section 114(c), emissions data is not entitled to confidential 
treatment, and the EPA is required to make emissions data available to 
the public. Thus, emissions data will not be protected as CBI and will 
be made publicly available. You must submit the same file submitted to 
the CBI office with the CBI omitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as 
described earlier in this paragraph.
    (1) The preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be transmitted 
electronically using email attachments, File Transfer Protocol, or 
other online file sharing services. Electronic submissions must be 
transmitted directly to the OAQPS CBI Office at the email address 
[email protected], and as described above, should include clear CBI 
markings and be flagged to the attention of the Integrated Iron and 
Steel Sector Lead. 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.
    (2) If you cannot transmit the file electronically, you may send 
CBI information through the postal service to the following address: 
OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, 
Attention Integrated Iron and Steel Sector Lead. The mailed CBI 
material should be double wrapped and clearly marked. Any CBI markings 
should not show through the outer envelope.
* * * * *
    (h) Fenceline monitoring reports. For fenceline monitoring systems 
subject to Sec.  63.7792, each owner or operator must submit Fenceline 
Monitoring Reports on a quarterly basis using the appropriate 
electronic report template on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/cedri) for this subpart and 
following the procedure specified in paragraph (d) of this section. The 
first quarterly report must be submitted once the owner or operator has 
obtained 12 months of data. The first quarterly report must cover the 
period beginning on the date one year after the promulgation of the 
metals fenceline method and ending on March 31, June 30, September 30 
or December 31, whichever date is the first date that occurs after the 
owner or operator has obtained 12 months of data (i.e., the first 
quarterly report will contain between 12 and 15 months of data). Each 
subsequent quarterly report must cover one of the following reporting 
periods: Quarter 1 from January 1 through March 31; Quarter 2 from 
April 1 through June 30; Quarter 3 from July 1 through September 30; 
and Quarter 4 from October 1 through December 31. Each quarterly report 
must be electronically submitted no later than 45 calendar days 
following the end of the reporting period.
    (1) Facility name and address.
    (2) Year and reporting quarter (i.e., Quarter 1, Quarter 2, Quarter 
3, or Quarter 4).
    (3) For each sampler: The latitude and longitude location 
coordinates; the sampler name; and identification of the type of 
sampler (e.g., regular monitor, extra monitor, duplicate, field blank, 
inactive). Coordinates shall be in decimal degrees with at least five 
decimal places.
    (4) The beginning and ending dates for each sampling period.
    (5) Individual sample results for each monitored compound, reported 
in units of [micro]g/m\3\, for each monitor for each sampling period 
that ends during the reporting period. Results below the method 
detection limit shall be flagged as below the detection limit and 
reported at the method detection limit.
    (6) Data flags for each outlier determined in accordance with the 
fenceline metals method. For each outlier, the owner or operator must 
submit the individual sample result of the outlier, as well as the 
evidence used to conclude that the result is an outlier.
    (7) The biweekly concentration difference ([Delta]c) for each 
sampling period and the annual average [Delta]c for each sampling 
period.
    (8) Indication of whether the owner or operator was required to 
develop a corrective action plan under Sec.  63.7792(e).

0
17. Amend Sec.  63.7842 by revising paragraph (d) and adding paragraphs 
(f) and (g) to read as follows.


Sec.  63.7842  What records must I keep?

* * * * *
    (d) You must keep the records required in Sec. Sec.  63.7823, 
63.7833, and 63.7834 to show continuous compliance with each emission 
limitation and operation and maintenance requirement that applies to 
you. This includes a record of each large and small bell repair and 
replacement, a record of the date on which the large bell opacity has

[[Page 23329]]

exceeded 20 percent, and the most current time period or throughput 
over which no opacity was observed from the small bell.
* * * * *
    (f) For fenceline monitoring systems subject to Sec.  63.7792 of 
this subpart, each owner or operator must keep the records specified in 
paragraphs (f)(1) through (11) of this section.
    (1) Coordinates of samplers, including co-located samplers and 
field blanks, and if applicable, the meteorological station. The owner 
or operator shall determine the coordinates using an instrument with an 
accuracy of at least 3 meters. The coordinates shall be in decimal 
degrees with at least five decimal places.
    (2) The start and stop times and dates for each sample, as well as 
the sample identifying information.
    (3) Sampling period average temperature and barometric pressure 
measurements.
    (4) For each outlier determined in accordance with the procedures 
specified in the fenceline metals method, the sampler location and the 
concentration of the outlier and the evidence used to conclude that the 
result is an outlier.
    (5) For samples that will be adjusted for uniform background, the 
location of and the concentration measured simultaneously by the 
background sampler, and the perimeter samplers to which it applies.
    (6) Individual sample results, the calculated [Delta]c for each 
sampling period and the two samples used to determine it, whether 
background correction was used, and the annual average [Delta]c 
calculated after each sampling period.
    (7) Method detection limit for each sample, including co-located 
samples and blanks.
    (8) Documentation of the root cause analysis and any resulting 
corrective action taken each time an action level is exceeded, 
including the dates the root cause analysis was initiated and the 
resulting correction action(s) were taken.
    (9) Any corrective action plan developed under Sec.  63.7792(e).
    (10) Other records as required by the sampling method.
    (11) If a near-field source correction is used as provided in Sec.  
63.7792(f), or if an alternative test method is used that provides 
time-resolved measurements, records of hourly meteorological data, 
including temperature, barometric pressure, wind speed and wind 
direction, calculated daily unit vector wind direction, and daily sigma 
theta, and other records specified in the site-specific monitoring 
plan.
    (g) For each unplanned bleeder valve opening for each blast 
furnace, you must keep the records specified in paragraphs (g)(1) 
through (3) of this section.
    (1) The start date and start time of the event.
    (2) The duration of the event in minutes.
    (3) Any corrective actions taken in response to the event.

0
18. Amend Sec.  63.7852 by adding definitions for ``Iron beaching 
operation'', Large blast furnace'', ``Planned bleeder valve opening'', 
``Slip'', ``Small blast furnace'', ``Total hydrocarbons (THC)'', and 
``Unplanned bleeder valve opening'' to read as follows:


Sec.  63.7852  What definitions apply to this subpart?

* * * * *
    Iron beaching operation means pouring hot molten iron from a 
torpedo car onto the ground when the iron from the blast furnace cannot 
be charged to the basic oxygen process furnace.
* * * * *
    Large blast furnace means a blast furnace with a working volume of 
greater than 2,500 m\3\.
* * * * *
    Planned bleeder valve opening means the opening of a blast furnace 
pressure relief safety valve that is initiated by an operator.
* * * * *
    Slip means when raw materials loaded in the top of the furnace fail 
to descend smoothly in the furnace and bind together to form a 
``bridge'' which than ``hangs'' (i.e., accumulates) in one position in 
the furnace. When a ``hang'' eventually falls, or ``slips,'' it creates 
a pressure surge that may open the bleeder valves, releasing emissions 
in the form of a large dust cloud.
    Small blast furnace means a blast furnace with a working volume of 
less than 2,500 m\3\.
* * * * *
    Total hydrocarbons (THC) means the sum of organic compounds 
measured as carbon using EPA Method 25A (appendix A-7 to part 60 of 
this chapter).
    Unplanned bleeder valve opening means the opening of a blast 
furnace pressure relief safety valve that is not a planned bleeder 
valve opening.
* * * * *

0
19. Revise tables 1 through 4 to subpart FFFFF to read as follows:

Table 1 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63--Emission, Opacity, and Work 
Practice Limits

    As required in Sec.  63.7790(a), you must comply with each 
applicable emission, opacity, and work practice limit in the following 
table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      You must comply with each of the
             For . . .                         following . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each windbox exhaust stream at   a. You must not cause to be
 an existing sinter plant.           discharged to the atmosphere any
                                     gases that contain particulate
                                     matter in excess of 0.4 lb/ton of
                                     product sinter;
                                    b. You must not cause to be
                                     discharged to the atmosphere any
                                     gases that contain mercury in
                                     excess of 0.000018 lb/ton of
                                     product sinter;
                                    c. You must not cause to be
                                     discharged to the atmosphere any
                                     gases that contain hydrogen
                                     chloride in excess of 0.025 lb/ton
                                     of product sinter;
                                    d. You must not cause to be
                                     discharged to the atmosphere any
                                     gases that contain carbonyl sulfide
                                     in excess of 0.064 lb/ton of
                                     product sinter;
                                    e. You must not cause to be
                                     discharged to the atmosphere any
                                     gases that contain D/F TEQs in
                                     excess of 1.1E-08 lb/ton of product
                                     sinter; and
                                    f. You must not cause to be
                                     discharged to the atmosphere any
                                     gases that contain polycyclic
                                     aromatic hydrocarbons in excess of
                                     0.0018 lb/ton of product sinter.
2. Each windbox exhaust stream at   a. You must not cause to be
 a new sinter plant.                 discharged to the atmosphere any
                                     gases that contain particulate
                                     matter in excess of 0.3 lb/ton of
                                     product sinter;
                                    b. You must not cause to be
                                     discharged to the atmosphere any
                                     gases that contain mercury in
                                     excess of 0.000012 lb/ton of
                                     product sinter;
                                    c. You must not cause to be
                                     discharged to the atmosphere any
                                     gases that contain hydrogen
                                     chloride in excess of 0.0012 lb/ton
                                     of product sinter;
                                    d. You must not cause to be
                                     discharged to the atmosphere any
                                     gases that contain carbonyl sulfide
                                     in excess of 0.030 lb/ton of
                                     product sinter;
                                    e. You must not cause to be
                                     discharged to the atmosphere any
                                     gases that contain D/F TEQs in
                                     excess of 1.1E-08 lb/ton of product
                                     sinter; and

[[Page 23330]]

 
                                    f. You must not cause to be
                                     discharged to the atmosphere any
                                     gases that contain polycyclic
                                     aromatic hydrocarbons in excess of
                                     0.0015 lb/ton of product sinter.
3. Each discharge end at an         a. You must not cause to be
 existing sinter plant.              discharged to the atmosphere any
                                     gases that exit from one or more
                                     control devices that contain, on a
                                     flow-weighted basis, particulate
                                     matter in excess of 0.02 gr/dscf;
                                     \1\ \2\ and
                                    b. You must not cause to be
                                     discharged to the atmosphere any
                                     secondary emissions that exit any
                                     opening in the building or
                                     structure housing the discharge end
                                     that exhibit opacity greater than
                                     20 percent (6-minute average).
4. Each discharge end at a new      a. You must not cause to be
 sinter plant.                       discharged to the atmosphere any
                                     gases that exit from one or more
                                     control devices that contain, on a
                                     flow weighted basis, particulate
                                     matter in excess of 0.01 gr/dscf;
                                     and
                                    b. You must not cause to be
                                     discharged to the atmosphere any
                                     secondary emissions that exit any
                                     opening in the building or
                                     structure housing the discharge end
                                     that exhibit opacity greater than
                                     10 percent (6-minute average).
5. Each sinter cooler at an         You must not cause to be discharged
 existing sinter plant.              to the atmosphere any emissions
                                     that exhibit opacity greater than
                                     10 percent (6-minute average).
6. Each sinter cooler at a new      You must not cause to be discharged
 sinter plant.                       to the atmosphere any gases that
                                     contain particulate matter in
                                     excess of 0.01 gr/dscf.
7. Each casthouse at an existing    a. You must not cause to be
 blast furnace.                      discharged to the atmosphere any
                                     gases that exit from a control
                                     device that contain particulate
                                     matter in excess of 0.01 gr/dscf;
                                     \2\
                                    b. You must not cause to be
                                     discharged to the atmosphere any
                                     secondary emissions that exit all
                                     openings in the casthouse or
                                     structure housing the blast furnace
                                     that exhibit opacity greater than
                                     20 percent (6-minute average);
                                    c. You must not cause to be
                                     discharged to the atmosphere any
                                     gases that exit from a control
                                     device that contain hydrogen
                                     chloride in excess of 0.0056 lb/ton
                                     of iron;
                                    d. You must not cause to be
                                     discharged to the atmosphere any
                                     gases that exit from a control
                                     device that contain total
                                     hydrocarbons as propane in excess
                                     of 0.48 lb/ton of iron; and
                                    e. You must not cause unplanned
                                     bleeder valve openings in excess of
                                     4 events per year for large blast
                                     furnaces or 15 events per year for
                                     small blast furnaces.
8. Each casthouse at a new blast    a. You must not cause to be
 furnace.                            discharged to the atmosphere any
                                     gases that exit from a control
                                     device that contain particulate
                                     matter in excess of 0.003 gr/dscf;
                                     and
                                    b. You must not cause to be
                                     discharged to the atmosphere any
                                     secondary emissions that exit all
                                     openings in the casthouse or
                                     structure housing the blast furnace
                                     that exhibit opacity greater than
                                     15 percent (6-minute average);
                                    c. You must not cause to be
                                     discharged to the atmosphere any
                                     gases that exit from a control
                                     device that contain hydrogen
                                     chloride in excess of 0.00059 lb/
                                     ton of iron;
                                    d. You must not cause to be
                                     discharged to the atmosphere any
                                     gases that exit from a control
                                     device that contain total
                                     hydrocarbons as propane in excess
                                     of 0.035 lb/ton of iron; and
                                    e. You must not cause unplanned
                                     bleeder valve openings in excess of
                                     zero events per year.
9. Each BOPF at a new or existing   a. You must not cause to be
 shop.                               discharged to the atmosphere any
                                     gases that exit from a primary
                                     emission control system for a BOPF
                                     with a closed hood system at a new
                                     or existing BOPF shop that contain,
                                     on a flow-weighted basis,
                                     particulate matter in excess of
                                     0.03 gr/dscf during the primary
                                     oxygen blow; \2\ \3\
                                    b. You must not cause to be
                                     discharged to the atmosphere any
                                     gases that exit from a primary
                                     emission control system for a BOPF
                                     with an open hood system that
                                     contain, on a flow-weighted basis,
                                     particulate matter in excess of
                                     0.02 gr/dscf during the steel
                                     production cycle for an existing
                                     BOPF shop \2\ \3\ or 0.01 gr/dscf
                                     during the steel production cycle
                                     for a new BOPF shop; \3\
                                    c. You must not cause to be
                                     discharged to the atmosphere any
                                     gases that exit from a control
                                     device used solely for the
                                     collection of secondary emissions
                                     from the BOPF that contain
                                     particulate matter in excess of
                                     0.01 gr/dscf for an existing BOPF
                                     shop \2\ or 0.0052 gr/dscf for a
                                     new BOPF shop;
                                    d. You must not cause to be
                                     discharged to the atmosphere any
                                     gases that exit from a primary
                                     emission control system for a BOPF
                                     that contain hydrogen chloride in
                                     excess of 0.058 lb/ton of steel for
                                     existing sources and 2.8E-04 lb/ton
                                     steel for new sources;
                                    e. You must not cause to be
                                     discharged to the atmosphere any
                                     gases that exit from a primary
                                     emission control system for a BOPF
                                     that contain THC as propane in
                                     excess of 0.04 lb/ton of steel for
                                     existing sources and 0.0017 lb/ton
                                     of steel for new sources; and
                                    f. You must not cause to be
                                     discharged to the atmosphere any
                                     gases that exit from a primary
                                     emission control system for a BOPF
                                     that contain D/F TEQs in excess of
                                     9.2E-10 lb/ton of steel.
10. Each hot metal transfer,        You must not cause to be discharged
 skimming, and desulfurization       to the atmosphere any gases that
 operation at a new or existing      exit from a control device that
 BOPF shop.                          contain particulate matter in
                                     excess of 0.01 gr/dscf for an
                                     existing BOPF shop \2\ or 0.003 gr/
                                     dscf for a new BOPF shop.
11. Each ladle metallurgy           You must not cause to be discharged
 operation at a new or existing      to the atmosphere any gases that
 BOPF shop.                          exit from a control device that
                                     contain particulate matter in
                                     excess of 0.01 gr/dscf for an
                                     existing BOPF shop \2\ or 0.004 gr/
                                     dscf for a new BOPF shop.
12. Each existing BOPF shop.......  You must not cause to be discharged
                                     to the atmosphere any secondary
                                     emissions that exit any opening in
                                     the BOPF shop or any other building
                                     housing the BOPF or BOPF shop
                                     operation that exhibit opacity
                                     greater than 20 percent (3-minute
                                     average).
13. Each new BOPF shop............  a. You must not cause to be
                                     discharged to the atmosphere any
                                     secondary emissions that exit any
                                     opening in the BOPF shop or other
                                     building housing a bottom-blown
                                     BOPF or BOPF shop operations that
                                     exhibit opacity (for any set of 6-
                                     minute averages) greater than 10
                                     percent, except that one 6-minute
                                     period not to exceed 20 percent may
                                     occur once per steel production
                                     cycle; or
                                    b. You must not cause to be
                                     discharged to the atmosphere any
                                     secondary emissions that exit any
                                     opening in the BOPF shop or other
                                     building housing a top-blown BOPF
                                     or BOPF shop operations that
                                     exhibit opacity (for any set of 3-
                                     minute averages) greater than 10
                                     percent, except that one 3-minute
                                     period greater than 10 percent but
                                     less than 20 percent may occur once
                                     per steel production cycle.
14. Each BOPF Group at an existing  You must not cause to be discharged
 BOPF shop.                          to the atmosphere any gases that
                                     exit from the collection of BOPF
                                     Group control devices that contain
                                     mercury in excess of 0.00026 lb/ton
                                     of steel scrap input to the BOPF.
15. Each BOPF Group at a new BOPF   You must not cause to be discharged
 shop.                               to the atmosphere any gases that
                                     exit from the collection of BOPF
                                     Group control devices that contain
                                     mercury in excess of 0.000081 lb/
                                     ton of steel scrap input to the
                                     BOPF.
16. Each planned bleeder valve      You must not cause to be discharged
 opening at a new or existing        to the atmosphere any emissions
 blast furnace.                      that exhibit opacity greater than 8
                                     percent (6-minute average).
17. Each slag processing, handling  You must not cause to be discharged
 and storage operation for a new     to the atmosphere any emissions
 or existing blast furnace or BOPF.  that exhibit opacity greater than
                                     10 percent (6-minute average).
18. Each existing blast furnace     a. You must not cause to be
 stove.                              discharged to the atmosphere any
                                     gases that exit from a control
                                     device that contain HCl in excess
                                     of 0.0012 lb/MMBtu; and
                                    b. You must not cause to be
                                     discharged to the atmosphere any
                                     gases that exit from a control
                                     device that contain THC in excess
                                     of 0.12 lb/MMBtu.
19. Each new blast furnace stove..  a. You must not cause to be
                                     discharged to the atmosphere any
                                     gases that exit from a control
                                     device that contain HCl in excess
                                     of 4.2e-4 lb/MMBtu; and

[[Page 23331]]

 
                                    b. You must not cause to be
                                     discharged to the atmosphere any
                                     gases that exit from a control
                                     device that contain THC in excess
                                     of 0.0054 lb/MMBtu.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This limit applies if the cooler is vented to the same control
  device as the discharge end.
\2\ This concentration limit (gr/dscf) for a control device does not
  apply to discharges inside a building or structure housing the
  discharge end at an existing sinter plant, inside a casthouse at an
  existing blast furnace, or inside an existing BOPF shop if the control
  device was installed before August 30, 2005.
\3\ This limit applies to control devices operated in parallel for a
  single BOPF during the oxygen blow.

Table 2 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63--Initial Compliance With Emission 
and Opacity Limits

    As required in Sec.  63.7826(a)(1), you must demonstrate initial 
compliance with the emission and opacity limits according to the 
following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        You have demonstrated initial
             For . . .                       compliance if . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each windbox exhaust stream at   a. The process-weighted mass rate of
 an existing sinter plant.           particulate matter from a windbox
                                     exhaust stream, measured according
                                     to the performance test procedures
                                     in Sec.   63.7822(c), did not
                                     exceed 0.4 lb/ton of product
                                     sinter;
                                    b. The process-weighted mass rate of
                                     mercury from a windbox exhaust
                                     stream, measured according to the
                                     performance test procedures in Sec.
                                       63.7825, did not exceed 0.000018
                                     lb/ton of product sinter;
                                    c. The process-weighted mass rate of
                                     hydrogen chloride from a windbox
                                     exhaust stream, measured according
                                     to the performance test procedures
                                     in Sec.   63.7825, did not exceed
                                     0.025 lb/ton of product sinter;
                                    d. The process-weighted mass rate of
                                     carbonyl sulfide from a windbox
                                     exhaust stream, measured according
                                     to the performance test procedures
                                     in Sec.   63.7825, did not exceed
                                     0.064 lb/ton of product sinter;
                                    e. The process-weighted mass rate of
                                     D/F TEQs from a windbox exhaust
                                     stream, measured according to the
                                     performance test procedures in Sec.
                                       63.7825, did not exceed 1.1E-08
                                     lb/ton of product sinter; and
                                    f. The process-weighted mass rate of
                                     polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
                                     from a windbox exhaust stream,
                                     measured according to the
                                     performance test procedures in Sec.
                                       63.7825, did not exceed 0.0018 lb/
                                     ton of product sinter.
2. Each windbox exhaust stream at   a. The process-weighted mass rate of
 a new sinter plant.                 particulate matter from a windbox
                                     exhaust stream, measured according
                                     to the performance test procedures
                                     in Sec.   63.7822(c), did not
                                     exceed 0.3 lb/ton of product
                                     sinter;
                                    b. The process-weighted mass rate of
                                     mercury from a windbox exhaust
                                     stream, measured according to the
                                     performance test procedures in Sec.
                                       63.7825, did not exceed 0.000012
                                     lb/ton of product sinter;
                                    c. The process-weighted mass rate of
                                     hydrogen chloride from a windbox
                                     exhaust stream, measured according
                                     to the performance test procedures
                                     in Sec.   63.7825, did not exceed
                                     0.0012 lb/ton of product sinter;
                                    d. The process-weighted mass rate of
                                     carbonyl sulfide from a windbox
                                     exhaust stream, measured according
                                     to the performance test procedures
                                     in Sec.   63.7825, did not exceed
                                     0.030 lb/ton of product sinter;
                                    e. The process-weighted mass rate of
                                     D/F TEQs from a windbox exhaust
                                     stream, measured according to the
                                     performance test procedures in Sec.
                                       63.7825, did not exceed 1.1E-08
                                     lb/ton of product sinter; and
                                    f. The process-weighted mass rate of
                                     polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
                                     from a windbox exhaust stream,
                                     measured according to the
                                     performance test procedures in Sec.
                                       63.7825, did not exceed 0.0015 lb/
                                     ton of product sinter.
3. Each discharge end at an         a. The flow-weighted average
 existing sinter plant.              concentration of particulate matter
                                     from one or more control devices
                                     applied to emissions from a
                                     discharge end, measured according
                                     to the performance test procedures
                                     in Sec.   63.7822(d), did not
                                     exceed 0.02 gr/dscf; and
                                    b. The opacity of secondary
                                     emissions from each discharge end,
                                     determined according to the
                                     performance test procedures in Sec.
                                       63.7823(c), did not exceed 20
                                     percent (6-minute average).
4. Each discharge end at a new      a. The flow-weighted average
 sinter plant.                       concentration of particulate matter
                                     from one or more control devices
                                     applied to emissions from a
                                     discharge end, measured according
                                     to the performance test procedures
                                     in Sec.   63.7822(d), did not
                                     exceed 0.01 gr/dscf; and
                                    b. The opacity of secondary
                                     emissions from each discharge end,
                                     determined according to the
                                     performance test procedures in Sec.
                                       63.7823(c), did not exceed 10
                                     percent (6-minute average).
5. Each sinter cooler at an         The opacity of emissions, determined
 existing sinter plant.              according to the performance test
                                     procedures in Sec.   63.7823(e),
                                     did not exceed 10 percent (6-minute
                                     average).
6. Each sinter cooler at a new      The average concentration of
 sinter plant.                       particulate matter, measured
                                     according to the performance test
                                     procedures in Sec.   63.7822(b),
                                     did not exceed 0.01 gr/dscf.
7. Each casthouse at an existing    a. The average concentration of
 blast furnace.                      particulate matter from a control
                                     device applied to emissions from a
                                     casthouse, measured according to
                                     the performance test procedures in
                                     Sec.   63.7822(e), did not exceed
                                     0.01 gr/dscf;
                                    b. The opacity of secondary
                                     emissions from each casthouse,
                                     determined according to the
                                     performance test procedures in Sec.
                                       63.7823(c), did not exceed 20
                                     percent (6-minute average);
                                    c. The process-weighted mass rate of
                                     hydrogen chloride from a windbox
                                     exhaust stream, measured according
                                     to the performance test procedures
                                     in Sec.   63.7825, did not exceed
                                     0.0056 lb/ton of iron;
                                    d. The process-weighted mass rate of
                                     total hydrocarbons from a windbox
                                     exhaust stream, measured according
                                     to the performance test procedures
                                     in Sec.   63.7825, did not exceed
                                     0.48 lb/ton of iron; and
                                    e. The number of unplanned bleeder
                                     valve openings in one year, as
                                     reported according to the
                                     specifications in Sec.
                                     63.7841(b)(14), did not exceed 4
                                     events for large blast furnaces or
                                     15 events for small blast furnaces.
8. Each casthouse at a new blast    a. The average concentration of
 furnace.                            particulate matter from a control
                                     device applied to emissions from a
                                     casthouse, measured according to
                                     the performance test procedures in
                                     Sec.   63.7822(e), did not exceed
                                     0.003 gr/dscf; and
                                    b. The opacity of secondary
                                     emissions from each casthouse,
                                     determined according to the
                                     performance test procedures in Sec.
                                       63.7823(c), did not exceed 15
                                     percent (6-minute average);
                                    c. The process-weighted mass rate of
                                     hydrogen chloride from a windbox
                                     exhaust stream, measured according
                                     to the performance test procedures
                                     in Sec.   63.7825, did not exceed
                                     0.00059 lb/ton of iron;
                                    d. The process-weighted mass rate of
                                     total hydrocarbons from a windbox
                                     exhaust stream, measured according
                                     to the performance test procedures
                                     in Sec.   63.7825, did not exceed
                                     0.035 lb/ton of iron; and
                                    e. The number of unplanned bleeder
                                     valve openings in one year, as
                                     reported according to the
                                     specifications in Sec.
                                     63.7841(b)(14), did not exceed zero
                                     events.
9. Each BOPF at a new or existing   a. The average concentration of
 BOPF shop.                          particulate matter from a primary
                                     emission control system applied to
                                     emissions from a BOPF with a closed
                                     hood system, measured according to
                                     the performance test procedures in
                                     Sec.   63.7822(f), did not exceed
                                     0.03 gr/dscf for a new or existing
                                     BOPF shop;
                                    b. The average concentration of
                                     particulate matter from a primary
                                     emission control system applied to
                                     emissions from a BOPF with an open
                                     hood system, measured according to
                                     the performance test procedures in
                                     Sec.   63.7822(g), did not exceed
                                     0.02 gr/dscf for an existing BOPF
                                     shop or 0.01 gr/dscf for a new BOPF
                                     shop;

[[Page 23332]]

 
                                    c. The average concentration of
                                     particulate matter from a control
                                     device applied solely to secondary
                                     emissions from a BOPF, measured
                                     according to the performance test
                                     procedures in Sec.   63.7822(g),
                                     did not exceed 0.01 gr/dscf for an
                                     existing BOPF shop or 0.0052 gr/
                                     dscf for a new BOPF shop;
                                    d. The process-weighted mass rate of
                                     hydrogen chloride from a windbox
                                     exhaust stream, measured according
                                     to the performance test procedures
                                     in Sec.   63.7825, did not exceed
                                     0.058 lb/ton of steel for an
                                     existing BOPF shop or 0.00028 lb/
                                     ton of steel for a new BOPF shop;
                                    e. The process-weighted mass rate of
                                     total hydrocarbons from a windbox
                                     exhaust stream, measured according
                                     to the performance test procedures
                                     in Sec.   63.7825, did not exceed
                                     0.04 lb/ton of steel for an
                                     existing BOPF shop or 0.0017 lb/ton
                                     of steel for a new BOPF shop; and
                                    f. The process-weighted mass rate of
                                     D/F TEQs from a windbox exhaust
                                     stream, measured according to the
                                     performance test procedures in Sec.
                                       63.7825, did not exceed 9.2e-10
                                     lb/ton of steel.
10. Each hot metal transfer         The average concentration of
 skimming, and desulfurization at    particulate matter from a control
 a new or existing BOPF shop.        device applied to emissions from
                                     hot metal transfer, skimming, or
                                     desulfurization, measured according
                                     to the performance test procedures
                                     in Sec.   63.7822(h), did not
                                     exceed 0.01 gr/dscf for an existing
                                     BOPF shop or 0.003 gr/dscf for a
                                     new BOPF shop.
11. Each ladle metallurgy           The average concentration of
 operation at a new or existing      particulate matter from a control
 BOPF shop.                          device applied to emissions from a
                                     ladle metallurgy operation,
                                     measured according to the
                                     performance test procedures in Sec.
                                       63.7822(h), did not exceed 0.01
                                     gr/dscf for an existing BOPF shop
                                     or 0.004 gr/dscf for a new BOPF
                                     shop.
12. Each existing BOPF shop.......  The opacity of secondary emissions
                                     from each BOPF shop, determined
                                     according to the performance test
                                     procedures in Sec.   63.7823(d),
                                     did not exceed 20 percent (3-minute
                                     average).
13. Each new BOPF shop............  a. The opacity of the highest set of
                                     6-minute averages from each BOPF
                                     shop housing a bottom-blown BOPF,
                                     determined according to the
                                     performance test procedures in Sec.
                                       63.7823(d), did not exceed 20
                                     percent and the second highest set
                                     of 6-minute averages did not exceed
                                     10 percent; or
                                    b. The opacity of the highest set of
                                     3-minute averages from each BOPF
                                     shop housing a top-blown BOPF,
                                     determined according to the
                                     performance test procedures in Sec.
                                       63.7823(d), did not exceed 20
                                     percent and the second highest set
                                     of 3-minute averages did not exceed
                                     10 percent.
14. Each BOPF Group at an existing  If demonstrating compliance through
 BOPF shop.                          performance testing, the average
                                     emissions of mercury from the
                                     collection of BOPF Group control
                                     devices applied to the emissions
                                     from the BOPF Group, measured
                                     according to the performance test
                                     procedures in Sec.   63.7825, did
                                     not exceed 0.00026 lb/ton steel
                                     scrap input to the BOPF.
15. Each BOPF Group at a new BOPF   If demonstrating compliance through
 shop.                               performance testing, the average
                                     emissions of mercury from the
                                     collection of BOPF Group control
                                     devices applied to the emissions
                                     from the BOPF Group, measured
                                     according to the performance test
                                     procedures in Sec.   63.7825, did
                                     not exceed 0.000081 lb/ton steel
                                     scrap input to the BOPF.
16. Each planned bleeder valve      The opacity of emissions, determined
 opening at a new or existing        according to the performance test
 blast furnace.                      procedures in Sec.   63.7823(f),
                                     did not exceed 8 percent (6-minute
                                     average).
17. Each slag processing, handling  The opacity of emissions, determined
 and storage operation for a new     according to the performance test
 or existing blast furnace or BOPF.  procedures in Sec.   63.7823(g),
                                     did not exceed 10 percent (6-minute
                                     average).
18. Each existing blast furnace     a. The process-weighted mass rate of
 stove.                              HCl from a windbox exhaust stream,
                                     measured according to the
                                     performance test procedures in Sec.
                                       63.7825, did not exceed 0.0012 lb/
                                     MMBtu; and
                                    b. The process-weighted mass rate of
                                     THC from a windbox exhaust stream,
                                     measured according to the
                                     performance test procedures in Sec.
                                       63.7825, did not exceed 0.12 lb/
                                     MMBtu.
19. Each new blast furnace stove..  a. The process-weighted mass rate of
                                     HCl from a windbox exhaust stream,
                                     measured according to the
                                     performance test procedures in Sec.
                                       63.7825, did not exceed 4.2e-4 lb/
                                     MMBtu; and
                                    b. The process-weighted mass rate of
                                     THC from a windbox exhaust stream,
                                     measured according to the
                                     performance test procedures in Sec.
                                       63.7825, did not exceed 0.0054 lb/
                                     MMBtu.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 3 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63--Continuous Compliance With 
Emission and Opacity Limits

    As required in Sec.  63.7833(a), you must demonstrate continuous 
compliance with the emission and opacity limits according to the 
following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       You must demonstrate continuous
             For . . .                       compliance by . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each windbox exhaust stream at   a. Maintaining emissions of
 an existing sinter plant.           particulate matter at or below 0.4
                                     lb/ton of product sinter;
                                    b. Conducting subsequent performance
                                     tests at the frequencies specified
                                     in Sec.   63.7821;
                                    c. Maintaining emissions of mercury
                                     at or below 0.000018 lb/ton of
                                     product sinter;
                                    d. Maintaining emissions of hydrogen
                                     chloride at or below 0.025 lb/ton
                                     of product sinter;
                                    e. Maintaining emissions of carbonyl
                                     sulfide at or below 0.064 lb/ton of
                                     product sinter;
                                    f. Maintaining emissions of D/F TEQs
                                     at or below 1.1E-08 lb/ton of
                                     product sinter; and
                                    g. Maintaining emissions of
                                     polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons at
                                     or below 0.0018 lb/ton of product
                                     sinter.
2. Each windbox exhaust stream at   a. Maintaining emissions of
 a new sinter plant.                 particulate matter at or below 0.3
                                     lb/ton of product sinter;
                                    b. Conducting subsequent performance
                                     tests at the frequencies specified
                                     in Sec.   63.7821;
                                    c. Maintaining emissions of mercury
                                     at or below 0.000012 lb/ton of
                                     product sinter;
                                    d. Maintaining emissions of hydrogen
                                     chloride at or below 0.0012 lb/ton
                                     of product sinter;
                                    e. Maintaining emissions of carbonyl
                                     sulfide at or below 0.030 lb/ton of
                                     product sinter;
                                    f. Maintaining emissions of D/F TEQs
                                     at or below 1.1E-08 lb/ton of
                                     product sinter; and
                                    g. Maintaining emissions of
                                     polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons at
                                     or below 0.0015 lb/ton of product
                                     sinter.
3. Each discharge end at an         a. Maintaining emissions of
 existing sinter plant.              particulate matter from one or more
                                     control devices at or below 0.02 gr/
                                     dscf; and
                                    b. Maintaining the opacity of
                                     secondary emissions that exit any
                                     opening in the building or
                                     structure housing the discharge end
                                     at or below 20 percent (6-minute
                                     average); and
                                    c. Conducting subsequent performance
                                     tests at the frequencies specified
                                     in Sec.   63.7821.
4. Each discharge end at a new      a. Maintaining emissions of
 sinter plant.                       particulate matter from one or more
                                     control devices at or below 0.01 gr/
                                     dscf; and
                                    b. Maintaining the opacity of
                                     secondary emissions that exit any
                                     opening in the building or
                                     structure housing the discharge end
                                     at or below 10 percent (6-minute
                                     average); and
                                    c. Conducting subsequent performance
                                     tests at the frequencies specified
                                     in Sec.   63.7821.
5. Each sinter cooler at an         a. Maintaining the opacity of
 existing sinter plant.              emissions that exit any sinter
                                     cooler at or below 10 percent (6-
                                     minute average); and
                                    b. Conducting subsequent performance
                                     tests at the frequencies specified
                                     in Sec.   63.7821.
6. Each sinter cooler at a new      a. Maintaining emissions of
 sinter plant.                       particulate matter at or below 0.1
                                     gr/dscf; and

[[Page 23333]]

 
                                    b. Conducting subsequent performance
                                     tests at the frequencies specified
                                     in Sec.   63.7821.
7. Each casthouse at an existing    a. Maintaining emissions of
 blast furnace.                      particulate matter from a control
                                     device at or below 0.01 gr/dscf;
                                    b. Maintaining the opacity of
                                     secondary emissions that exit all
                                     openings in the casthouse or
                                     structure housing the casthouse at
                                     or below 20 percent (6-minute
                                     average);
                                    c. Conducting subsequent performance
                                     tests at the frequencies specified
                                     in Sec.   63.7821;
                                    d. Maintaining emissions of hydrogen
                                     chloride at or below 0.0056 lb/ton
                                     of iron;
                                    e. Maintaining emissions of total
                                     hydrocarbons at or below 0.48 lb/
                                     ton of iron; and
                                    f. Maintaining unplanned bleeder
                                     valve openings at or below 4 events
                                     per year for large blast furnaces
                                     or 15 events per year for small
                                     blast furnaces.
8. Each casthouse at a new blast    a. Maintaining emissions of
 furnace.                            particulate matter from a control
                                     device at or below 0.003 gr/dscf;
                                    b. Maintaining the opacity of
                                     secondary emissions that exit all
                                     openings in the casthouse or
                                     structure housing the casthouse at
                                     or below 15 percent (6-minute
                                     average);
                                    c. Conducting subsequent performance
                                     tests at the frequencies specified
                                     in Sec.   63.7821;
                                    d. Maintaining emissions of hydrogen
                                     chloride at or below 0.00059 lb/ton
                                     of iron;
                                    e. Maintaining emissions of total
                                     hydrocarbons at or below 0.035 lb/
                                     ton of iron; and
                                    f. Maintaining unplanned bleeder
                                     valve openings at zero events per
                                     year.
9. Each BOPF at a new or existing   a. Maintaining emissions of
 BOPF shop.                          particulate matter from the primary
                                     control system for a BOPF with a
                                     closed hood system at or below 0.03
                                     gr/dscf;
                                    b. Maintaining emissions of
                                     particulate matter from the primary
                                     control system for a BOPF with an
                                     open hood system at or below 0.02
                                     gr/dscf for an existing BOPF shop
                                     or 0.01 gr/dscf for a new BOPF
                                     shop;
                                    c. Maintaining emissions of
                                     particulate matter from a control
                                     device applied solely to secondary
                                     emissions from a BOPF at or below
                                     0.01 gr/dscf for an existing BOPF
                                     shop or 0.0052 gr/dscf for a new
                                     BOPF shop;
                                    d. Conducting subsequent performance
                                     tests at the frequencies specified
                                     in Sec.   63.7821;
                                    e. Maintaining emissions of hydrogen
                                     chloride from a primary emission
                                     control system for a BOPF at or
                                     below 0.058 lb/ton of steel for
                                     existing sources and 2.8E-04 lb/ton
                                     steel for new sources;
                                    f. Maintaining emissions of THC from
                                     a primary emission control system
                                     for a BOPF at or below 0.04 lb/ton
                                     of steel for existing sources and
                                     0.0017 lb/ton of steel for new
                                     sources; and
                                    g. Maintaining emissions of D/F TEQs
                                     from a primary emission control
                                     system for a BOPF at or below 9.2E-
                                     10 lb/ton of steel.
10. Each hot metal transfer,        a. Maintaining emissions of
 skimming, and desulfurization       particulate matter from a control
 operation at a new or existing      device at or below 0.01 gr/dscf at
 BOPF shop.                          an existing BOPF or 0.003 gr/dscf
                                     for a new BOPF; and
                                    b. Conducting subsequent performance
                                     tests at the frequencies specified
                                     in Sec.   63.7821.
11. Each ladle metallurgy           a. Maintaining emissions of
 operation at a new or existing      particulate matter from a control
 BOPF shop.                          device at or below 0.01 gr/dscf at
                                     an existing BOPF shop or 0.004 gr/
                                     dscf for a new BOPF shop; and
                                    b. Conducting subsequent performance
                                     tests at the frequencies specified
                                     in Sec.   63.7821.
12. Each existing BOPF shop.......  a. Maintaining the opacity of
                                     secondary emissions that exit any
                                     opening in the BOPF shop or other
                                     building housing the BOPF shop or
                                     shop operation at or below 20
                                     percent (3-minute average); and
                                    b. Conducting subsequent performance
                                     tests at the frequencies specified
                                     in Sec.   63.7821.
13. Each new BOPF shop............  a. Maintaining the opacity (for any
                                     set of 6-minute averages) of
                                     secondary emissions that exit any
                                     opening in the BOPF shop or other
                                     building housing a bottom-blown
                                     BOPF or shop operation at or below
                                     10 percent, except that one 6-
                                     minute period greater than 10
                                     percent but no more than 20 percent
                                     may occur once per steel production
                                     cycle;
                                    b. Maintaining the opacity (for any
                                     set of 3-minute averages) of
                                     secondary emissions that exit any
                                     opening in the BOPF shop or other
                                     building housing a top-blown BOPF
                                     or shop operation at or below 10
                                     percent, except that one 3-minute
                                     period greater than 10 percent but
                                     less than 20 percent may occur once
                                     per steel production cycle; and
                                    c. Conducting subsequent performance
                                     tests at the frequencies specified
                                     in Sec.   63.7821.
14. Each BOPF Group at an existing  a. Maintaining emissions of mercury
 BOPF shop.                          from the collection of BOPF Group
                                     control devices at or below 0.00026
                                     lb/ton steel scrap input to the
                                     BOPF; and
                                    b. If demonstrating compliance
                                     through performance testing,
                                     conducting subsequent performance
                                     tests at the frequencies specified
                                     in Sec.   63.7821; and
                                    c. If demonstrating compliance
                                     through Sec.   63.7791(c), (d), or
                                     (e), maintaining records pursuant
                                     to Sec.   63.7842(e).
15. Each BOPF Group at a new BOPF   a. Maintaining emissions of mercury
 shop.                               from the collection of BOPF Group
                                     control devices at or below
                                     0.000081 lb/ton steel scrap input
                                     to the BOPF; and
                                    b. If demonstrating compliance
                                     through performance testing,
                                     conducting subsequent performance
                                     tests at the frequencies specified
                                     in Sec.   63.7821; and
                                    c. If demonstrating compliance
                                     through Sec.   63.7791(c), (d), or
                                     (e), maintaining records pursuant
                                     to Sec.   63.7842(e).
16. Each planned bleeder valve      a. Maintaining the opacity of
 opening at a new or existing        emissions that exit any bleeder
 blast furnace.                      valve as a result of a planned
                                     opening at or below 8 percent (6-
                                     minute average); and
                                    b. Conducting subsequent performance
                                     tests at the frequencies specified
                                     in Sec.   63.7821.
17. Each slag processing, handling  a. Maintaining the opacity of
 and storage operation for a new     emissions that exit any slag
 or existing blast furnace or BOPF.  processing, handling, or storage
                                     operation at or below 10 percent (6-
                                     minute average); and
                                    b. Conducting subsequent performance
                                     tests at the frequencies specified
                                     in Sec.   63.7821.
18. Each existing blast furnace     a. Maintaining emissions of HCl at
 stove.                              or below 0.0012 lb/MMBtu;
                                    b. Maintaining emissions of THC at
                                     or below 0.12 lb/MMBtu; and
                                    c. Conducting subsequent performance
                                     tests at the frequencies specified
                                     in Sec.   63.7821.
19. Each new blast furnace stove..  a. Maintaining emissions of HCl at
                                     or below 4.2e-4 lb/MMBtu;
                                    b. Maintaining emissions of THC at
                                     or below 0.0054 lb/MMBtu; and
                                    c. Conducting subsequent performance
                                     tests at the frequencies specified
                                     in Sec.   63.7821.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 4 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63--Applicability of General 
Provisions to Subpart FFFFF

    As required in Sec.  63.7850, you must comply with the requirements 
of the NESHAP General Provisions (subpart A of this part) shown in the 
following table:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Applies to subpart
               Citation                        Subject                   FFFFF                 Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.1..........................  Applicability..........  Yes....................
Sec.   63.2..........................  Definitions............  Yes....................
Sec.   63.3..........................  Units and Abbreviations  Yes....................

[[Page 23334]]

 
Sec.   63.4..........................  Prohibited Activities..  Yes....................
Sec.   63.5..........................  Construction/            Yes....................
                                        Reconstruction.
Sec.   63.6(a), (b), (c), (d),         Compliance with          Yes....................
 (e)(1)(iii), (f)(2)-(3), (g),          Standards and
 (h)(2)(ii)-(h)(9).                     Maintenance
                                        Requirements.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(i).................  General Duty to          No, for new or           See Sec.   63.7810(d)
                                        Minimize Emissions.      reconstructed sources    for general duty
                                                                 which commenced          requirement.
                                                                 construction or
                                                                 reconstruction after
                                                                 August 16, 2019. For
                                                                 all other affected
                                                                 sources, Yes on or
                                                                 before January 11,
                                                                 2021, and No
                                                                 thereafter.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(ii)................  Requirement to Correct   No, for new or
                                        Malfunctions ASAP.       reconstructed sources
                                                                 which commenced
                                                                 construction or
                                                                 reconstruction after
                                                                 August 16, 2019. For
                                                                 all other affected
                                                                 sources, Yes, on or
                                                                 before January 11,
                                                                 2021, and No
                                                                 thereafter.
Sec.   63.6(e)(3)....................  SSM Plan Requirements..  No, for new or           See Sec.   63.7810(c).
                                                                 reconstructed sources
                                                                 which commenced
                                                                 construction or
                                                                 reconstruction after
                                                                 August 16, 2019. For
                                                                 all other affected
                                                                 sources, Yes on or
                                                                 before January 11,
                                                                 2021, and No
                                                                 thereafter.
Sec.   63.6(f)(1)....................  Compliance except        No.....................  See Sec.   63.7810(a).
                                        during SSM.
Sec.   63.6(h)(1)....................  Compliance except        No.....................  See Sec.   63.7810(a).
                                        during SSM.
Sec.   63.6(h)(2)(i).................  Determining Compliance   No.....................  Subpart FFFFF specifies
                                        with Opacity and VE                               methods and procedures
                                        Standards.                                        for determining
                                                                                          compliance with
                                                                                          opacity emission and
                                                                                          operating limits.
Sec.   63.6(i).......................  Extension of Compliance  Yes....................
                                        with Emission
                                        Standards.
Sec.   63.6(j).......................  Exemption from           Yes....................
                                        Compliance with
                                        Emission Standards.
Sec.   63.7(a)(1)-(2)................  Applicability and        No.....................  Subpart FFFFF and
                                        Performance Test Dates.                           specifies performance
                                                                                          test applicability and
                                                                                          dates.
Sec.   63.7(a)(3), (b)-(d), (e)(2)-    Performance Testing      Yes....................
 (4), (f)-(h).                          Requirements.
Sec.   63.7(e)(1)....................  Performance Testing....  No, for new or           See Sec.  Sec.
                                                                 reconstructed sources    63.7822(a),
                                                                 which commenced          63.7823(a), and
                                                                 construction or          63.7825(a).
                                                                 reconstruction after
                                                                 August 16, 2019. For
                                                                 all other affected
                                                                 sources, Yes on or
                                                                 before January 11,
                                                                 2021, and No
                                                                 thereafter.
Sec.   63.8(a)(1)-(3), (b),            Monitoring Requirements  Yes....................  CMS requirements in
 (c)(1)(ii), (c)(2)-(3), (c)(4)(i)-                                                       Sec.   63.8(c)(4)(i)-
 (ii), (c)(5)-(6), (c)(7)-(8), (d)(1)-                                                    (ii), (c)(5)-(6),
 (2), (e), (f)(1)-(5), (g)(1)-(4).                                                        (d)(1)-(2), and (e)
                                                                                          apply only to COMS.
Sec.   63.8(a)(4)....................  Additional Monitoring    No.....................  Subpart FFFFF does not
                                        Requirements for                                  require flares.
                                        Control Devices in
                                        Sec.   63.11.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(i).................  General Duty to          No, for new or           .......................
                                        Minimize Emissions and   reconstructed sources
                                        CMS Operation.           which commenced
                                                                 construction or
                                                                 reconstruction after
                                                                 August 16, 2019. For
                                                                 all other affected
                                                                 sources, Yes on or
                                                                 before January 11,
                                                                 2021, and No
                                                                 thereafter.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(iii)...............  Requirement to Develop   No, for new or           .......................
                                        SSM Plan for CMS.        reconstructed sources
                                                                 which commenced
                                                                 construction or
                                                                 reconstruction after
                                                                 August 16, 2019. For
                                                                 all other affected
                                                                 sources, Yes on or
                                                                 before January 11,
                                                                 2021, and No
                                                                 thereafter.
Sec.   63.8(c)(4)....................  Continuous Monitoring    No.....................  Subpart FFFFF specifies
                                        System Requirements.                              requirements for
                                                                                          operation of CMS.
Sec.   63.8(d)(3)....................  Written procedures for   No, for new or           See Sec.
                                        CMS.                     reconstructed sources    63.7842(b)(3).
                                                                 which commenced
                                                                 construction or
                                                                 reconstruction after
                                                                 August 16, 2019. For
                                                                 all other affected
                                                                 sources, Yes on or
                                                                 before January 11,
                                                                 2021, and No
                                                                 thereafter.
Sec.   63.8(f)(6)....................  RATA Alternative.......  No.....................
Sec.   63.8(g)(5)....................  Data Reduction.........  No.....................  Subpart FFFFF specifies
                                                                                          data reduction
                                                                                          requirements.
Sec.   63.9..........................  Notification             Yes....................  Additional
                                        Requirements.                                     notifications for CMS
                                                                                          in Sec.   63.9(g)
                                                                                          apply only to COMS.
Sec.   63.10(a), (b)(1), (b)(2)(x),    Recordkeeping and        Yes....................  Additional records for
 (b)(2)(xiv), (b)(3), (c)(1)-(6),       Reporting Requirements.                           CMS in Sec.
 (c)(9)-(14), (d)(1)-(4), (e)(1)-(2),                                                     63.10(c)(1)-(6), (9)-
 (e)(4), (f).                                                                             (14), and reports in
                                                                                          Sec.   63.10(d)(1)-(2)
                                                                                          apply only to COMS.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(i)................  Recordkeeping of         No, for new or           .......................
                                        Occurrence and           reconstructed sources
                                        Duration of Startups     which commenced
                                        and Shutdowns.           construction or
                                                                 reconstruction after
                                                                 August 16, 2019. For
                                                                 all other affected
                                                                 sources, Yes on or
                                                                 before January 11,
                                                                 2021, and No
                                                                 thereafter.

[[Page 23335]]

 
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(ii)...............  Recordkeeping of         No, for new or           See Sec.
                                        Failures to Meet a       reconstructed sources    63.7842(a)(2)-(4) for
                                        Standard.                which commenced          recordkeeping of (1)
                                                                 construction or          date, time, and
                                                                 reconstruction after     duration of failure to
                                                                 August 16, 2019. For     meet the standard; (2)
                                                                 all other affected       listing of affected
                                                                 sources, Yes on or       source or equipment,
                                                                 before January 11,       and an estimate of the
                                                                 2021, and No             quantity of each
                                                                 thereafter.              regulated pollutant
                                                                                          emitted over the
                                                                                          standard; and (3)
                                                                                          actions to minimize
                                                                                          emissions and correct
                                                                                          the failure.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iii)..............  Maintenance Records....  Yes....................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iv)...............  Actions Taken to         No, for new or           See Sec.
                                        Minimize Emissions       reconstructed sources    63.7842(a)(4) for
                                        During SSM.              which commenced          records of actions
                                                                 construction or          taken to minimize
                                                                 reconstruction after     emissions.
                                                                 August 16, 2019. For
                                                                 all other affected
                                                                 sources, Yes on or
                                                                 before January 11,
                                                                 2021, and No
                                                                 thereafter.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(v)................  Actions Taken to         No, for new or           See Sec.
                                        Minimize Emissions       reconstructed sources    63.7842(a)(4) for
                                        During SSM.              which commenced          records of actions
                                                                 construction or          taken to minimize
                                                                 reconstruction after     emissions.
                                                                 August 16, 2019. For
                                                                 all other affected
                                                                 sources, Yes on or
                                                                 before January 11,
                                                                 2021, and No
                                                                 thereafter.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vi)...............  Recordkeeping for CMS    Yes....................
                                        Malfunctions.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vii)-(ix).........  Other CMS Requirements.  Yes....................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiii).............  CMS Records for RATA     No.....................
                                        Alternative.
Sec.   63.10(c)(7)-(8)...............  Records of Excess        No.....................  Subpart FFFFF specifies
                                        Emissions and                                     record requirements;
                                        Parameter Monitoring                              see Sec.   63.7842.
                                        Exceedances for CMS.
Sec.   63.10(c)(15)..................  Use of SSM Plan........  No, for new or           .......................
                                                                 reconstructed sources
                                                                 which commenced
                                                                 construction or
                                                                 reconstruction after
                                                                 August 16, 2019. For
                                                                 all other affected
                                                                 sources, Yes on or
                                                                 before January 11,
                                                                 2021, and No
                                                                 thereafter.
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)(i)................  Periodic SSM Reports...  No, for new or           See Sec.
                                                                 reconstructed sources    63.7841(b)(4) for
                                                                 which commenced          malfunction reporting
                                                                 construction or          requirements.
                                                                 reconstruction after
                                                                 August 16, 2019. For
                                                                 all other affected
                                                                 sources, Yes on or
                                                                 before January 11,
                                                                 2021, and No
                                                                 thereafter.
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)(ii)...............  Immediate SSM Reports..  No, for new or           .......................
                                                                 reconstructed sources
                                                                 which commenced
                                                                 construction or
                                                                 reconstruction after
                                                                 August 16, 2019. For
                                                                 all other affected
                                                                 sources, Yes on or
                                                                 before January 11,
                                                                 2021, and No
                                                                 thereafter.
Sec.   63.10(e)(3)...................  Excess Emission Reports  No.....................  Subpart FFFFF specifies
                                                                                          reporting
                                                                                          requirements; see Sec.
                                                                                            63.7841.
Sec.   63.11.........................  Control Device           No.....................  Subpart FFFFF does not
                                        Requirements.                                     require flares.
Sec.   63.12.........................  State Authority and      Yes....................
                                        Delegations.
Sec.   63.13-Sec.   63.16............  Addresses,               Yes....................
                                        Incorporations by
                                        Reference,
                                        Availability of
                                        Information and
                                        Confidentiality,
                                        Performance Track
                                        Provisions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
20. Add tables 5 and 6 to subpart FFFFF to read as follows:

Table 5 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63--Toxic Equivalency Factors

    As stated in Sec.  63.7825(u), you must demonstrate compliance with 
each dioxin/furan emission limit that applies to you by calculating the 
sum of the 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQs using the 2005 World Health Organization 
(WHO) toxicity equivalence factors (TEF) presented in the following 
table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       You must calculate its  2,3,7,8-
For each dioxin/furan congener . . .  TCDD TEQ using the following TEF .
                                                      . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin.                                   1
1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorodibenzo-p-                                        1
 dioxin.............................
1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorodibenzo-p-                                     0.1
 dioxin.............................
1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorodibenzo-p-                                     0.1
 dioxin.............................
1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorodibenzo-p-                                     0.1
 dioxin.............................
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorodibenzo-p-                                 0.01
 dioxin.............................
Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin..........                              0.0003
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran.....                                 0.1
1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran...                                0.03
2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran...                                 0.3
1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorodibenzofuran..                                 0.1
1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorodibenzofuran..                                 0.1

[[Page 23336]]

 
1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorodibenzofuran..                                 0.1
2,3,4,6,7,8-hexachlorodibenzofuran..                                 0.1
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-                                                      0.01
 heptachlorodibenzofuran............
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-                                                      0.01
 heptachlorodibenzofuran............
Octachlorodibenzofuran..............                              0.0003
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 6 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63--List of Polycyclic Aromatic 
Hydrocarbons

    As stated in Sec.  63.7825(x), you must demonstrate compliance with 
each polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon emission limit that applies to you 
by calculating the sum of the emissions of each polycyclic aromatic 
hydrocarbon in the following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Pollutant name                           CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acenaphthene............................................         83-32-9
Acenaphthylene..........................................        208-96-8
Anthracene..............................................        120-12-7
Benz[a]anthracene.......................................         56-55-3
Benzo[a]pyrene..........................................         50-32-8
Benzo[b]fluoranthene....................................        205-99-2
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene....................................        191-24-2
Benzo[k]fluoranthene....................................        207-08-9
Chrysene................................................        218-01-9
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene...................................         53-70-3
Fluoranthene............................................        206-44-0
Fluorene................................................         86-73-7
Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene................................        193-39-5
Naphthalene.............................................         91-20-3
Phenanthrene............................................         85-01-8
Perylene................................................        198-55-0
Pyrene..................................................        129-00-0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2024-05850 Filed 4-2-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P