Rule2025-21787
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities Technology Review
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
December 3, 2025
Effective
December 3, 2025
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) is taking final action to respond to comments on an interim final rule (IFR) related to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities ("II&S NESHAP"). Specifically, the EPA is responding to comments on the IFR published in the Federal Register on July 3, 2025, that revised compliance deadlines for certain provisions related to planned bleeder valve openings, unplanned bleeder valve openings, blast furnace (BF) casthouses, basic oxygen process furnace (BOPF) shops, slag processing and handling, beaching, and fenceline monitoring. After carefully considering the comments, the EPA concludes that the amendments made in the IFR are warranted and is not making any further changes to the compliance deadlines revised in the IFR.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 230 (Wednesday, December 3, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 230 (Wednesday, December 3, 2025)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55681-55687]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-21787]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083; FRL-5919.4-04-OAR]
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 Agency) is
taking final action to respond to comments on an interim final rule
(IFR) related to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing
Facilities (``II&S NESHAP''). Specifically, the EPA is responding to
comments on the IFR published in the Federal Register on July 3, 2025,
that revised compliance deadlines for certain provisions related to
planned bleeder valve openings, unplanned bleeder valve openings, blast
furnace (BF) casthouses, basic oxygen process furnace (BOPF) shops,
slag processing and handling, beaching, and fenceline monitoring. After
carefully considering the comments, the EPA concludes that the
amendments made in the IFR are warranted and is not making any further
changes to the compliance deadlines revised in the IFR.
DATES: This final rule is effective on December 3, 2025.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083. All documents in the docket are
available on the <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> website. Although listed,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. The EPA does not place certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, on the internet; this material is publicly
available only as pdf versions and accessible only on EPA computers in
the docket office reading room. The public cannot download certain data
bases and physical items from the docket but may request these items by
contacting the docket office at (202) 566-1744. The docket office has
10 business days to respond to such requests. Except for such material,
publicly available docket materials are available electronically in
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> or on the EPA computers in the docket
office reading room at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room
Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The Public
Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time
(ET), Monday through Friday. 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 information about this action,
contact U.S. EPA, Attn: Katie Boaggio, Mail Drop: D243-02, 109 T.W.
Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12055, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-2223; email address:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#15777a7472727c7a3b7e74617c70557065743b727a63"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e3818c8284848a8ccd8882978a86a3869382cd848c95">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. Throughout this document the
use of ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' refers to the EPA. We use multiple
acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may not be
[[Page 55682]]
exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference
purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here:
BF blast furnace
BOPF basic oxygen process furnace
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI Confidential Business Information
CRA Congressional Review Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FR Federal Register
II&S Integrated Iron and Steel
IFR interim final rule
NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
OMB Office of Management and Budget
UFIP unmeasured fugitive and intermittent particulate
U.S.C. United States Code
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Table of Contents
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
C. What is the statutory authority for this final action?
D. Judicial Review and Administrative Review
II. Background
III. What amendments did we make in the IFR, and what are our final
conclusions?
A. Planned Bleeder Valve Openings
B. Bell Leaks
C. Monitoring Frequency for BOPF/BF
D. Unplanned Bleeder Valve Openings
E. Slag Processing, Handling, and Storage
F. Beaching
G. Fenceline Monitoring
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Executive Order 14192: Unleashing Prosperity Through
Deregulation
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
The source category that is the subject of this action is
Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities regulated under 40
CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF.
Table 1 summarizes the 2022 North American Industry Classification
System (NAICS) codes for the source category.
Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Final
Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS
NESHAP and source category code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF, Integrated Iron and Steel 331110
Manufacturing Facilities.....................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA does not intend table 1 of this preamble to be exhaustive.
The NAICS code outlines the type of entities this final action likely
will affect. To determine whether this NESHAP affects your facility,
you should examine the applicability criteria in the NESHAP. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this
NESHAP, please contact the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this action is available on the internet at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/integrated-iron-and-steel-manufacturing-national-emission">https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/integrated-iron-and-steel-manufacturing-national-emission</a>. Following publication in the Federal
Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version of this action
at this same website. In accordance with 5 U.S. Code (U.S.C.)
553(b)(4), a summary of this action may be found at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083. Following
publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal
Register version of this action at this same website.
C. What is the statutory authority for this final action?
The same Clean Air Act (CAA) provision that provided authority to
issue the regulations that are the subject of this final rule and the
July 3, 2025, IFR--CAA section 112--provides the statutory authority to
issue this final action.
D. Judicial Review and Administrative Review
Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final action
is available only by filing a petition for review in the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by February 2,
2026. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), a party cannot challenge the
requirements established by this final action separately in any civil
or criminal proceedings to enforce the requirements.
CAA section 307(d) applies to this final rule.\1\ CAA section
307(d)(7)(B) provides a mechanism for the EPA to convene a proceeding
for reconsideration ``[i]f the person raising an objection can
demonstrate to the EPA that it was impracticable to raise such
objection within [the period for public comment] or if the grounds for
such objection arose after the period for public comment (but within
the time specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of
central relevance to the outcome of the rule.'' Any person seeking to
make such a demonstration should submit a Petition for Reconsideration
to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Room 3000, WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section and the Associate
General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(1)(C). The EPA issued the July 3, 2025
IFR pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(1), which authorizes the issuance
of a rule without prior notice and comment ``in the case of any rule
or circumstance referred to in subparagraphs (A) or (B) of [APA
section 553(b)].'' Id. 7607(d)(1); see 90 FR 29489 n.6 We solicited
post-promulgation comment on the revised compliance deadlines in the
IFR. Id. We also granted a request for a public hearing and held
that virtual public hearing on September 3, 2025, which provided an
opportunity to offer oral comments on the revisions in the IFR and
extended the deadline for public comments until October 3, 2025. 90
FR 39333 (Aug. 15, 2025); 90 FR 40975 (Aug. 22, 2025). This final
action falls under the actions specified in CAA section 307(d)(1)(C)
and is therefore subject to CAA section 307(d). For a full
explanation of how the EPA effectively met all requirements of CAA
section 307(d), see Summary of Public Comments and Responses for the
Integrated Iron and Steel Interim Final Rule in the docket for this
final action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Background
In this section, the EPA summarizes relevant history to provide
context for this final action. For further discussion of regulatory
history for this source category and issues arising after promulgation
of the most recent substantive amendments to the NESHAP, please see
section II.A. and II.B. of the preamble for the July 3, 2025 IFR.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 90 FR at 29487-88.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 55683]]
The EPA initially set maximum achievable control technology (MACT)
standards for the II&S Manufacturing Facilities source category in May
2003.\3\ In July 2020, pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(6) and
112(f)(2),\4\ the EPA issued a residual risk and technology review of
the II&S NESHAP, codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF, that
finalized amendments to the NESHAP.\5\ In the risk review, the EPA
determined that risks due to emissions of hazardous air pollutants,
also known as toxic air pollutants or air toxics, from this source
category were acceptable and concluded that the finalized standards
provided ``an ample margin of safety to protect public health.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 68 FR 27646 (May 20, 2003).
\4\ 42 U.S.C. 7412(d)(6), (f)(2).
\5\ 85 FR 42074 (July 13, 2020).
\6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2024, the EPA completed a second technology review for this
source category under a court-ordered deadline (``2024 rule'').\7\ The
2024 rule revised existing emission standards for certain air toxics,
set standards for previously unregulated sources of air toxics pursuant
to our interpretation of the D.C. Circuit's decision in Louisiana
Environmental Action Network v. EPA, 955 F.3d 1088 (D.C. Cir. 2020),
and required fenceline monitoring for the II&S source category.\8\ The
EPA set compliance deadlines for each standard for one, two, or three
years after the 2024 rule's promulgation date based on information then
available to the Agency regarding the regulated entities' ability to
expeditiously comply with the standards.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 89 FR 23294 (Apr. 3, 2024).
\8\ Id. at 23295, 23307.
\9\ Id. at 23314 & table 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the issuance of the 2024 rule, the EPA was notified by
industry parties that there were several errors in the final regulatory
text and certain items that the EPA had not properly raised for comment
during the proposal. The EPA also received a number of administrative
petitions for reconsideration, including from regulated entities and
public interest groups.\10\ The regulated entities' petitions raised
compliance challenges with several standards in the 2024 rule and
emphasized the importance of feasible standards for reliable iron and
steel production to support national infrastructure and national
security needs, particularly for applications in the defense industry,
homeland security, and critical infrastructure.\11\ The regulated
entities also identified safety concerns with attempting to comply with
the 2024 rule.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083-1988, EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-
0083-1989, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083-1990.
\11\ See, e.g., Cleveland Cliffs Petition for Reconsideration
and Stay of the Integrated Iron and Steel NESHAP, Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2002-0083-1989, pages 3, 18-40.
\12\ Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083-1989, pages 3, 18-40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In August 2024, the EPA granted discretionary reconsideration of
three standards: work practice standards for unmeasured fugitive and
intermittent particulate (UFIP) from unplanned bleeder valve openings,
work practice standards for UFIP from beaching, and a Maximum
Achievable Control Technology (MACT) emission limit for hydrochloric
acid point-source emissions from BF casthouses. The letter also stated
the EPA's intent to issue a correction notice to do the following:
1. Clarify that the definition of an ``unplanned bleeder valve
opening'' includes only those openings that are not located downstream
from a control device (i.e., ``dirty bleeder valve openings'');
2. Clarify the timing of planned openings and how they may affect
opacity readings;
3. Clarify the definition of a ``single bleeder valve opening
event;''
4. Delete from 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF, table 2 the emission
standard for ``windbox exhaust stream'' for BF casthouses, BF stoves,
and BOPF shops because these sources do not have a windbox exhaust
stream; and
5. Clarify the method that must be used to measure opacity for bell
leaks.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Response Letter to Petitions Granting Reconsideration of
Integrated Iron and Steel NESHAP, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-
0083-1991.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, ``[g]iven the large amount of complex data
involved,'' the EPA committed to continue reviewing the petitions to
determine whether the Agency should reconsider other issues.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In conducting this review, and pursuant to further conversations
between EPA staff and regulated entities, the EPA determined in March
2025 that four standards--work practice standards for UFIP from
unplanned bleeder valve openings, opacity limits for planned bleeder
valve openings, work practice standards for bell leaks, and opacity
limit for slag processing and handling--warranted mandatory
reconsideration under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B).\15\ Considering the
need for additional time for mandatory reconsideration, the EPA
administratively stayed the rule's April 3, 2025 compliance deadlines
until July 1, 2025.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Letter Identifying Additional Items for Reconsideration in
Integrated Iron and Steel NESHAP, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-
0083-1992.
\16\ 90 FR 14207, 14208 (Mar. 31, 2025); see 42 U.S.C.
7607(d)(7)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upon further evaluation of the reconsideration issues, the parties'
petitions for reconsideration, and discussions with stakeholders, the
EPA determined that affected sources could not timely implement the
standards in the 2024 rule with April 3, 2025 and April 3, 2026
compliance deadlines and that a correction notice could not
sufficiently address these challenges. For further discussion of these
compliance challenges, see section II.C. of the preamble to the July 3,
2025 IFR.\17\ Recognizing that the EPA would be unable to remedy those
problems through standard rulemaking procedures before the compliance
deadlines and that the infeasible standards raised safety and national
security concerns,\18\ the EPA promulgated the IFR in July 2025, which
revised the compliance deadlines for these standards to April 3, 2027
and set a corresponding compliance deadline for fenceline monitoring.
For further discussion of the deadline revisions, see section II.D. and
III. of the preamble to the July 3, 2025 IFR.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 90 FR at 29488.
\18\ Regulated entities have emphasized the strategic importance
of iron and steel on ``national security, particularly for
applications in the defense industry, homeland security, and
critical infrastructure'' and the need for revised standards to
operate in a way that ``protect[s] the safety of employees, the
community and property.'' See Cleveland Cliffs Petition for
Reconsideration and Stay of the Integrated Iron and Steel NESHAP,
Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083-1989, pages 3, 18-43.
\19\ 90 FR at 29489.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each conclusion and confirmation of the relative changes in the IFR
included in this final action is severable from the others. As noted in
the rule that established the standards at issue here and in the IFR,
each set of standards rests on stand-alone scientific determinations
that do not rely on judgments regarding other portions of the rule, and
each set of standards can be implemented independently.\20\ The same
logic applies to the corresponding compliance deadlines. First, the
reasoning for each regulatory revision is distinct and independent from
the others. As noted in the IFR, the compliance deadlines were revised
for each standard based on the unique compliance challenges presented
in practice by each standard.\21\ Second,
[[Page 55684]]
each of the deadlines revised in the IFR is functionally independent
from the others, i.e., may operate in practice independently of the
other requirements being revised, such that the revision of a deadline
in one set of requirements does not turn on the revision of a deadline
in any other set of requirements, aside from fenceline monitoring.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ 89 FR at 23314.
\21\ 90 FR at 29488.
\22\ The EPA promulgated fenceline monitoring to promote
compliance with the other requirements of the NESHAP. See 90 FR at
29487; see also 89 FR at 23307. The EPA also has yet to promulgate a
method to conduct fenceline monitoring, and the standard requires
regulated parties to use the EPA's approved method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA issued the IFR addressing the II&S NESHAP compliance dates
on July 3, 2025. We received comments from industry, environmental
groups, public health groups, community groups, and others during the
comment period. The EPA also granted a request for a public hearing and
held that virtual public hearing on September 3, 2025, which provided
an opportunity to offer oral comments on the revisions in the IFR and
extended the deadline for public comments until October 3, 2025.\23\ A
summary of all public comments on the IFR and the EPA's responses to
those comments is in the rulemaking docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See 90 FR 39333; 90 FR 40975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. What amendments did we make in the IFR, and what are our final
conclusions?
The 2024 rule included several provisions that subsequent
developments have shown to be untenable from a compliance perspective
on the timeframes set out in the 2024 rule. The EPA did not anticipate
or intend these timing issues to result from the 2024 rule, and it is
in the public interest and consistent with the purposes of the CAA to
provide regulated entities sufficient time to comply with the
requirements in the 2024 rule. Based on information received in
petitions for reconsideration, other information discussed in the IFR,
and after considering public comments on the IFR, the EPA reaffirms in
this final action that the targeted revisions to compliance deadlines
set forth in the IFR and summarized below are necessary, appropriate,
and consistent with the purposes of the 2024 rule and the CAA.
After reviewing the comments received, the EPA is reaffirming in
this final rule its decision to revise the compliance deadlines for
standards established in the 2024 rule for opacity limits for planned
bleeder valve openings; work practice standards for bell leaks; opacity
monitoring frequency for BFs; work practice standards and operational
limits for unplanned bleeder valve openings; work practices for
beaching; opacity limits for slag processing activities; and fenceline
monitoring to April 3, 2027.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 90 FR at 29488-89.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because there are no changes between the IFR and final rule, the
incremental impacts between the two rules is zero. Given the comments
provided on the IFR, the EPA provided a memorandum titled ``A Note on
the Impact Analysis for the Interim Final Rule'' that is available in
the docket for this action.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA received 28 sets of written comments and held a public
hearing during the comment period. In the Summary of Public Comments
and Responses for the Integrated Iron and Steel Interim Final Rule
document, the comments were organized into three categories: compliance
as expeditiously as practicable; cost, health, and community impacts
from extending the compliance deadlines; and rulemaking procedures.
Commenters who supported the justification for the revision of the
compliance deadlines provided additional rationale for why the EPA
correctly determined that the revised deadlines provide for compliance
as expeditiously as possible. Other commenters opposed the revision of
the original compliance deadlines in the 2024 rule, asserting that the
EPA failed to establish deadlines that provide for compliance as
expeditiously as possible and had not identified anything in the
reconsideration petitions or the accompanying post-comment period data
that undermines its prior conclusions. The EPA disagrees with these
commenters and explains our evolved understanding of the standards in
this preamble and in the accompany response to comments. Comments on
the justification for the revision of the compliance deadlines and
rationale for it being as expeditiously as possible are summarized for
each individual standard in the following sections. Commenters opposing
the deadline revisions did not provide data or information justifying
their assertions to undermine the EPA's findings in this action that
the revised compliance deadlines are appropriate for each standard.
Instead, those commentors relied on the EPA's prior findings in
reaching prior conclusions. Therefore, the EPA's responses also serve
to address those assertions by explaining the EPA's evolved
understanding of the compliance challenges presented by the standards
as originally written. For more comments and responses on compliance as
expeditiously as possible, please see the Summary of Public Comments
and Responses for the Integrated Iron and Steel Interim Final Rule in
the docket for this action.
Additionally, these commenters also expressed concerns about
potential health impacts from exposure to the 120 tons per year of HAP
emissions that the 2024 rule estimated would be reduced by implementing
the standards for which the IFR revised compliance deadlines. The EPA
recognizes that air pollutants emitted at II&S facilities can
potentially carry health risks but refers commenters to the residual
risk review the EPA finalized in 2020, which concluded that existing
NESHAP for this source category provided an ample margin of safety to
protect human health or an adverse environmental impact.\26\ For more
comments and responses regarding the potential health impacts, please
see the Summary of Public Comments and Responses for the Integrated
Iron and Steel Interim Final Rule in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ 85 FR 42074 (July 13, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, some commenters asserted that the EPA did not follow the
procedural requirements in CAA section 307(d) in promulgating the IFR.
The EPA disagrees with commenters' claims that the IFR violated CAA
section 307(d). The IFR qualified for the Administrative Procedure
Act's (APA's) good cause exception for the reasons explained in the
IFR.\27\ For more comments and responses regarding the procedural
requirements, please see the Summary of Public Comments and Responses
for the Integrated Iron and Steel Interim Final Rule in the docket for
this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ 90 FR 29489 (July 3, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this section, we summarize comments specific to particular
deadlines and conclusions that the deadline revisions in the IFR were
appropriate, necessary, and consistent with the text and objectives of
the CAA. For a full discussion of comments and responses, please see
Summary of Public Comments and Responses for the Integrated Iron and
Steel Interim Final Rule in the docket for this action.
A. Planned Bleeder Valve Openings
In the July 3, 2025 IFR, the EPA revised the compliance deadline
for planned bleeder valve openings from April 3, 2025, to April 3,
2027. When promulgating the opacity standard for planned bleeder valve
openings, we originally concluded based on
[[Page 55685]]
information available at the time that affected sources could meet this
standard without the need for installation of new control equipment,
monitors, or measurement equipment. Therefore, we provided only one
year to comply.\28\ However, after the promulgation of the 2024 rule,
regulated entities provided information, including monitoring data, in
petitions for administrative reconsideration to the EPA indicating that
facilities would likely be unable to comply with the standards as
written by the April 3, 2025 deadline without clarifications,
corrections, or revisions. These data demonstrated that it likely will
be infeasible for most sources to comply with the 2024 rule's opacity
limits for planned bleeder valve openings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ 89 FR at 23314; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083-1976,
pages 194-200.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We received comments supporting the revised compliance deadlines
for planned bleeder valve openings stating that the EPA incorrectly
assumed in the 2024 rule that ``standards could be met without the need
for installation of new control equipment, monitor, or measurement
equipment.'' \29\ Commenters further stated that the EPA did not fully
understand the planned bleeder valve openings subject to the opacity
limit in the 2024 rule, the blast furnace operations that impact the
timing and duration of planned bleeder valve openings, and the effect
of certain work practices on planned bleeder valve opening opacity. For
the reasons discussed in the IFR, and after considering the public
comments on those compliance deadline revisions, we reaffirm that the
changes to compliance deadlines for planned openings in the IFR are
warranted, and we conclude that these provisions need no additional
changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ 90 FR at 29488.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Bell Leaks
In the July 3, 2025 IFR, the EPA revised the compliance deadline
for work practice standards for bell leaks from April 3, 2025, to April
3, 2027. When promulgating the work practice standards for bell leaks,
we originally concluded that affected sources could meet those
standards without the need for installation of new control equipment,
monitors, or measurement equipment. Therefore, we provided only one
year to comply.\30\ However, after promulgation of the 2024 rule,
regulated entities provided information in petitions for administrative
reconsideration to the EPA indicating that facilities would likely be
unable to comply with the standards as written by the April 3, 2025
deadline without clarifications, corrections, or revisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ 89 FR at 23314; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083-1976,
pages 194-200.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We received comments supporting the revised compliance deadlines
for bell leaks stating that the EPA incorrectly assumed in the 2024
rule that ``standards could be met without the need for installation of
new control equipment, monitor, or measurement equipment.'' \31\
Commenters further stated that EPA's assumption was based on
misunderstandings of the intermittency of emissions generated from bell
leaks, how emissions from the blast furnace top are read, the causes of
visible emissions, and the impact that certain work practices have on
visible emissions. For the reasons discussed in the IFR, and after
considering the public comments on those compliance deadline revisions,
we reaffirm that the changes to compliance deadlines for work practice
standards for bell leaks in the IFR are warranted, and we conclude that
these provisions need no additional changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ 90 FR at 29488.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Monitoring Frequency for BOPF/BF
In the July 3, 2025 IFR, the EPA revised the compliance deadline
for monitoring frequency for BOPF/BF from April 3, 2025, to April 3,
2027. After promulgation of the 2024 rule, regulated entities provided
information in petitions for administrative reconsideration to the EPA
indicating that facilities likely would be unable to comply with this
standard as written by the April 3, 2025, deadline without
clarifications, corrections, or revisions.
We received comments supporting the revised compliance deadlines
for monitoring frequency for BOPF/BF stating that the EPA incorrectly
assumed ``standards could be met without the need for installation of
new control equipment, monitor, or measurement equipment.'' \32\ The
commenters stated that the monitoring requirements in the 2024 rule
present several difficulties in performing safe and accurate readings
and pose substantial costs. For the reasons discussed in the IFR, and
after considering the public comments on those compliance deadline
revisions, we reaffirm that the changes to compliance deadlines for
monitoring frequency for BOPF/BF in the IFR are warranted, and we
conclude that these provisions need no additional changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ 90 FR at 29488.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Unplanned Bleeder Valve Openings
In the July 3, 2025 IFR, the EPA revised the compliance deadline
for unplanned bleeder valve openings from April 3, 2026, to April 3,
2027. When promulgating the operational limit for unplanned bleeder
valve openings, we originally concluded that facilities could comply
with this limit in two years, i.e., by April 3, 2026, based on the
Agency's understanding that facilities only had to make relatively
moderate changes in equipment or operations to comply with this
standard. Those expected changes included installing stockline monitors
to measure material flows in the BFs and/or material sizing equipment
or screens to ensure that input material was properly sized, to help
prevent unplanned openings.
However, based on additional information provided by regulated
entities after the promulgation of the rule and after further
discussions and analyses, the EPA now understands that, in certain
cases, the equipment and work practices are insufficient or infeasible
to meet the standards as currently written. Therefore, affected sources
likely will need more than two years to comply with the standards as
finalized.
Additionally, the EPA intended that the finalized standard would
only apply to bleeder valve openings not routed to a control device.
However, the EPA inadvertently finalized the standard such that it also
applies to emissions from bleeder valve openings routed to a control
device. This inadvertent error increases the number of unplanned
bleeder valve openings that count towards the yearly operational limit,
which makes the limit unachievable until a revision is made.
We received comments supporting the revised compliance deadlines
for unplanned bleeder valve openings. Commenters stated that the limits
on unplanned bleeder valve openings are based on a misunderstanding of
which bleeder valves would be subject to the standards, the causes of
unplanned bleeder valve openings, and the impacts of EPA's work
practices on the number of bleeder valve openings and other furnace
operations. For the reasons discussed in the IFR, and after considering
the public comments on those compliance deadline revisions, we reaffirm
that the changes to compliance deadlines for unplanned bleeder valve
openings in the IFR are warranted, and we conclude that these
provisions need no additional changes.
E. Slag Processing, Handling, and Storage
In the July 3, 2025 IFR, the EPA revised the compliance deadline
for the opacity limit for slag processing, handling, and storage from
April 3,
[[Page 55686]]
2026, to April 3, 2027. When promulgating the opacity limit for slag
processing, handling, and storage, we originally concluded that
facilities could comply with this limit in two years, i.e., by April 3,
2026, based on the Agency's understanding that facilities only had to
make relatively moderate changes in equipment or operations to comply
with those standards. Those expected changes included installing
fogging and/or water spray equipment to minimize opacity for slag
processing, handling, and storage operations.
However, based on additional information provided by regulated
entities after promulgation of the 2024 rule and further discussions
and analyses, the EPA now understands that, in certain cases, the
equipment and work practices are insufficient or infeasible to meet the
standards. Therefore, some affected sources likely will need more than
two years to comply with the standards as finalized. For slag
processing, handling, and storage, the petitions provided new data that
show higher opacity concentrations than previously known by the EPA for
certain specific slag processing, handling, and storage activities.
We received comments supporting the revised compliance deadlines
for the opacity limit for slag processing, handling, and storage
because the EPA improperly concluded that ``facilities only had to make
relatively moderate changes in equipment or operations to comply with
those [slag processing] standards.'' \33\ Commenters stated that EPA
incorrectly assumed that fogging and/or water spray equipment to
minimize opacity for slag processing operations would be effective and
could be implemented in two years. For the reasons discussed in the
IFR, and after considering the public comments on those compliance
deadline revisions, we reaffirm that the changes to compliance
deadlines for the opacity limit for slag processing, handling, and
storage in the IFR are warranted, and we conclude that these provisions
need no additional changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ 90 FR at 29488.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Beaching
In the July 3, 2025 IFR, the EPA revised the compliance deadline
for the work practice standards for beaching from April 3, 2026, to
April 3, 2027. When promulgating the work practice standards for
beaching, we originally concluded that facilities could comply with
this limit in two years, i.e., by April 3, 2026, based on the Agency's
understanding that facilities only had to make relatively moderate
changes in equipment or operations to comply with those standards.
Those expected changes included installing partial enclosures or carbon
dioxide (CO<INF>2</INF>) suppression to minimize fugitive emissions
from beaching.
However, based on additional information provided after the
promulgation of the rule and after further discussions and analyses,
the EPA now understands that, in some cases, the equipment and work
practices are insufficient or infeasible to meet the standards as
currently written. Therefore, affected sources likely will need more
than two years to comply with the standards as finalized.
We received comments supporting the revised compliance deadlines
for beaching and stating that the EPA improperly concluded that
``facilities only had to make relatively moderate changes in equipment
or operations to comply with those [beaching] standards.'' Commenters
stated the conclusion was based on EPA's incorrect belief that partial
enclosures or CO<INF>2</INF> suppression minimize fugitives from
beaching would be effective and could be implemented in two years. For
the reasons discussed in the IFR, and after considering the public
comments on those compliance deadline revisions, we reaffirm that the
changes to compliance deadlines for the work practice standards for
beaching in the IFR are warranted, and we conclude that these
provisions need no additional changes.
G. Fenceline Monitoring
In the July 3, 2025 IFR, for consistency, even though no
operational deadline applies to fenceline monitoring until an EPA-
approved method is promulgated, we revised the deadline for fenceline
monitoring to one year after promulgation of the test method or April
3, 2027, whichever is later. Fenceline monitoring measures emissions at
the perimeter of a facility to ``ensur[e] that . . . standards . . .
are achieving the anticipated reductions.'' \34\ As described above,
the EPA found compelling reasons to revise compliance deadlines for
certain provisions in the II&S NESHAP. It is unreasonable to monitor a
facility's compliance with standards covered by the IFR that a source
has not yet implemented. Thus, the EPA revised the compliance deadline
for fenceline monitoring for ``consistency'' with the other revised
standards and concludes that no additional changes are warranted. For
additional comments and our responses, please see the Summary of Public
Comments and Responses for the Integrated Iron and Steel Interim Final
Rule in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ 90 FR at 29487; see also 89 FR at 23307.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and executive orders
can be found at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders">https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders</a>.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866
that was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review. Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been
documented in the docket. This final action reaffirms the conclusions
reached in the IFR. Because there are no changes between the IFR and
this final action, the EPA notes the incremental impacts between the
two actions is zero. See A Note on the Impact Analysis for the Interim
Final Rule in the docket.
B. Executive Order 14192: Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation
This is not an Executive Order 14192 regulatory or deregulatory
action because this action does not alter any regulatory requirements.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose any new information collection burden
under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection
activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB
control number 2060-0517. This action does not change the information
collection requirements.
D. 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. Moreover,
there are only eight integrated iron and steel manufacturing facilities
currently operating in the United States and 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.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million
(adjusted annually for inflation) or more (in 1995 dollars) as
described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
[[Page 55687]]
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes
no enforceable duty on any state, local or Tribal governments or the
private sector.
F. 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.
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have Tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. This action responds to comments on the IFR and
does not make any additional changes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does
not apply to this action.
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 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 or
safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk
to children.
I. 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.
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
This action does not involve technical standards.
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
Lee Zeldin,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2025-21787 Filed 12-2-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on December 3, 2025.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.