
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 25 (Wednesday, February 6, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8705-8744]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01473]



[[Page 8705]]

Vol. 78

Wednesday,

No. 25

February 6, 2013

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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





40 CFR Part 52





 Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; States 
of Minnesota and Michigan; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan; 
Federal Implementation Plan for Regional Haze; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 78 , No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2013 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 8706]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0954; EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0037; FRL-9773-1]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
States of Minnesota and Michigan; Regional Haze State Implementation 
Plan; Federal Implementation Plan for Regional Haze

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to 
implement emission limits that represent Best Available Retrofit 
Technology (BART) for certain taconite ore processing facilities in 
Minnesota and Michigan. The Clean Air Act (CAA or the ``Act'') and the 
regional haze rule require implementation plans to contain BART 
emission limits for sources subject to BART in order to meet the 
national goal of preventing any future and remedying any existing 
impairment of visibility in mandatory class I Federal areas arising 
from manmade air pollution.

DATES: This final rule is effective on March 8, 2013.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
Nos. EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0954 and EPA-RO5-OAR-2010-0037. All documents are 
listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the 
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted 
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available 
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are 
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard 
copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and 
Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 
This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone 
Steven Rosenthal, Environmental Engineer, at (312) 886-6052 before 
visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Rosenthal, Environmental 
Engineer, Attainment Planning & Maintenance Section, Air Programs 
Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6052, 
rosenthal.steven@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our,'' is used, we mean the United States Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA).

Table of Contents

I. Background Information
    A. EPA's Regional Haze Rule and Best Available Retrofit 
Technology
    B. EPA's Legal Authority To Promulgate a FIP
    C. Minnesota and Michigan's Regional Haze SIP Submittals
    D. EPA's Regional Haze FIP and Related Actions
II. Comments and Responses
III. What action is EPA taking?
    A. NOX Limits
    B. SO2 Limits
    C. CEMS
    D. Visibility Benefits and Cost Effectiveness
    E. Proposed Disapproval of the States' BART Determinations for 
Taconite Facilities
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background Information

A. EPA's Regional Haze Rule and Best Available Retrofit Technology

    The regional haze rule required states to submit State 
Implementation Plans (SIPs) to implement the rule's requirements by no 
later than December 17, 2007. Neither Minnesota nor Michigan submitted 
regional haze SIPs by the required date. The Act requires EPA to 
promulgate a FIP within two years after EPA finds that a state has 
failed to make a required SIP submission unless the state corrects the 
deficiency and EPA subsequently approves the SIP. On January 15, 2009, 
EPA formally found that both Minnesota and Michigan had failed to 
timely submit SIPs addressing the regional haze requirements. This 
finding triggered EPA's duty to either promulgate a regional haze FIP 
for Minnesota and Michigan or approve subsequently submitted regional 
haze SIPs.
    Minnesota subsequently submitted to EPA a regional haze SIP on 
December 30, 2009, a draft supplement to the SIP on January 5, 2012, 
and a final supplement to the SIP on May 8, 2012. Michigan submitted to 
EPA a regional haze SIP on November 5, 2010. In previous rulemakings, 
EPA approved in part the states' regional haze SIPs for addressing most 
regional haze requirements. However, EPA deferred action on the states' 
BART determinations for taconite facilities in order to further 
evaluate the sufficiency of those determinations. On August 15, 2012, 
EPA proposed to disapprove in part the states' regional haze SIPs with 
regards to their BART determinations for taconite facilities, while 
simultaneously proposing to promulgate a FIP. In response to comments 
received related to the sufficiency of EPA's reasoning for proposing 
disapproval of the Michigan and Minnesota BART determinations, EPA is 
issuing a separate supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking to 
solicit additional comments on that issue. Nonetheless, despite the 
fact that EPA has not finalized its disapproval of the states' BART 
determinations, EPA has the continuing authority and obligation to 
promulgate a FIP based on its earlier finding that Minnesota and 
Michigan had failed to timely submit regional haze SIPs. EPA's duty to 
promulgate a FIP ends only when it has fully approved a state 
submission. EPA has determined that the FIP satisfies the requirements 
of the Act and the regional haze rule.
    As described in greater detail in the proposal to this rulemaking 
(77 FR 49308, August 15, 2012), section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to 
the CAA created a program for protecting visibility in the nation's 
national parks and wilderness areas. On December 2, 1980, EPA 
promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I 
areas that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small 
group of sources (45 FR 80084, December 2, 1980). In 1990, Congress 
added section 169B to the Act to address regional haze issues. 
Accordingly, EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1, 
1999 (64 FR 35714), which is codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart P 
(``the regional haze rule''). On July 6, 2005, EPA published guidelines 
to assist states, or EPA when implementing a FIP, in determining which 
of their sources should be subject to the BART requirements and in 
determining appropriate emission limits for each applicable source (70 
FR 39104), codified at 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y (``BART 
Guidelines'').
    Among other things, section 169A of the Act and 40 CFR 51.308 of 
the regional haze rule require that states, or EPA when implementing a 
FIP, assure reasonable progress toward the national goal of achieving 
natural visibility conditions in Class I areas by submitting an 
implementation plan that contains emission limits representing BART for 
certain BART-eligible sources. 40 CFR 51.308(d) and (e). Pursuant to 40 
CFR 51.308(e), BART must be determined based upon an analysis of the 
best

[[Page 8707]]

system of continuous emission control technology available and 
associated emission reductions achievable for each BART-eligible source 
that is subject to BART. In this analysis, the state, or EPA when 
implementing a FIP, must take into consideration the technology 
available, the costs of compliance, the energy and air quality 
environmental impacts of compliance, any pollution control equipment in 
use at the source, the remaining useful life of the source, and the 
degree of visibility improvement reasonably anticipated to result from 
the use of such technology. CAA section 169A(g)(2); 40 CFR 
51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A).
    The process of establishing BART emission limits consists of three 
steps. First, states or EPA identify those sources that meet the 
definition of ``BART-eligible source'' set forth at 40 CFR 51.301. 
Second, states or EPA determine whether such sources ``emit any air 
pollutant which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to 
any impairment of visibility in any such area,'' and is therefore 
``subject to BART.'' Third, for each source subject to BART, states or 
EPA then identify the appropriate type and level of control for 
reducing emissions by conducting a five-step analysis: step 1: identify 
all available retrofit control technologies; step 2: eliminate 
technically infeasible options; step 3: evaluate control effectiveness 
of remaining control technologies; step 4: evaluate impacts and 
document the results; step 5: evaluate visibility impacts. See BART 
Guidelines.
    The regional haze rule required all states to submit an 
implementation plan for regional haze meeting the requirements of 40 
CFR 51.308(d) and (e) by no later than December 17, 2007. 40 CFR 
51.308(b). Neither Minnesota nor Michigan submitted regional haze SIPs 
to EPA by the required date.

B. EPA's Legal Authority To Promulgate a FIP

    Section 110 of the Act requires states to develop implementation 
plans with enforceable emission limitations and other control measures 
to meet the applicable requirements of the Act. A state submits its 
SIPs and SIP revisions to EPA for approval. Congress crafted the Act to 
provide for states to take the lead in developing SIPs, but balanced 
that decision by requiring EPA to review the plans to determine whether 
a SIP meets the requirements of the Act. EPA is required to determine 
whether the state's submittal meets the requirements of the Act based 
on information and data available at the time of EPA's review. See 
Sierra Club v. EPA, 671 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2012).
    Pursuant to section 110(c)(1)(A) of the Act, if EPA finds that a 
state has failed to make a required SIP submittal or if EPA finds that 
a state's required submittal is incomplete, then EPA is required to 
promulgate a FIP to fill this regulatory gap. Section 110(c)(1)(A) of 
the Act requires EPA to promulgate a FIP within two years of its 
finding that a state failed to make a required SIP submission. Further, 
EPA has a continuing duty to promulgate a FIP even where EPA fails to 
promulgate a FIP within the required two-year period. EPA's duty to 
promulgate a FIP continues unless the state corrects the deficiency, 
and EPA approves the plan or revision before EPA promulgates the 
FIP.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ It should be noted that in addition to the requirements of 
section 110(c)(1)(A) of the Act, section 110(c)(1)(B) of the Act 
requires EPA to promulgate a FIP where EPA has specifically 
disapproved a state's SIP submittal. Correspondingly, EPA has a 
continuing duty to promulgate the FIP unless a state corrects the 
deficiency and EPA approves the plan or revision before EPA 
promulgates the FIP. Many of the commenters to the proposed FIP 
assumed that the statutory basis for EPA's authority in promulgating 
this FIP is section 110(c)(1)(B) of the Act. We acknowledge that the 
proposed FIP, in identifying potential inadequacies in the Minnesota 
and Michigan regional haze SIPs, may have given the impression that 
the authority for promulgating the FIP was a specific determination 
by EPA that the States' SIPs failed to meet the requirements of the 
Act and the regional haze rule. However, as clarified in this 
section, the authority for the promulgation of the FIP arises from 
section 110(c)(1)(A) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this rulemaking action, EPA has the authority to promulgate a 
FIP addressing the BART determinations of certain taconite facilities 
in Minnesota and Michigan based upon the failure of both Minnesota and 
Michigan to timely submit regional haze SIPs. As discussed above, the 
regional haze rule required all states to submit a regional haze 
implementation plan by December 17, 2007. 40 CFR 51.308(b). Neither 
Minnesota nor Michigan submitted regional haze SIPs to EPA by the 
required date. Therefore, on January 15, 2009, EPA found that Michigan 
and Minnesota, as well as certain other states, had failed to submit 
SIPs addressing the regional haze requirements (74 FR 2392). Based upon 
that finding, pursuant to section 110(c)(1)(A) of the Act, EPA was 
under a continuing duty to promulgate FIPs for Minnesota and Michigan 
to address the regional haze requirements of the Act and the regional 
haze rule. This FIP is promulgated pursuant to the requirements of 
section 110(c)(1)(A) of the Act.

C. Minnesota and Michigan's Regional Haze SIP Submittals

    Minnesota subsequently submitted to EPA a regional haze SIP on 
December 30, 2009, a draft supplement to the SIP on January 5, 2012, 
and a final supplement to the SIP on May 8, 2012. Michigan submitted to 
EPA a regional haze SIP on November 5, 2010. In general, with regard to 
the subject-to-BART taconite facilities identified in the respective 
plans, each State identified Good Combustion Practices (GCP) as the 
primary control method representing BART for NOX.
    On January 25, 2012, EPA proposed approval of the Minnesota 
regional haze plan in which EPA, among other things, proposed to 
approve BART for the subject-to-BART taconite facilities (77 FR 3681). 
However, prior to EPA's final action on Minnesota's regional haze plan 
on June 12, 2012, EPA learned through public comment that Minnesota and 
Michigan had each failed to thoroughly analyze all feasible BART 
control technologies for the taconite facilities, and that the 
SO2 and NOX emission limits set forth in each 
State's SIP might not reflect BART. Therefore, in light of the 
uncertainty pertaining to the States' BART determinations for taconite 
facilities, EPA deferred action on emission limits that Minnesota 
intended to represent BART for taconite facilities in the final rule 
approving the Minnesota regional haze SIP (77 FR 34801, June 12, 2012). 
Correspondingly, EPA proposed approval of certain provisions of the 
Michigan regional haze SIP, while deferring any action on those 
provisions of the SIP that addressed the requirement for BART for the 
one taconite plant in Michigan to which BART applies (77 FR 46912, 
August 6, 2012). Pursuant to section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA may 
approve a SIP revision in part when only a portion of a SIP revision 
meets all applicable requirements of the Act.

D. EPA's Regional Haze FIP and Related Actions

    EPA proposed a FIP on August 15, 2012 (77 FR 49308) pursuant to 
section 110(c)(1)(A) of the Act, based on EPA's finding that Minnesota 
and Michigan failed to timely submit a regional haze SIP, and EPA's 
continuing duty to promulgate a FIP to address such failure. At the 
same time, EPA proposed disapproval of the BART determinations for the 
subject-to-BART taconite facilities made by Minnesota and Michigan for 
failing to meet the requirements of the Act and the regional haze rule. 
However, in regards to the proposed disapproval, several

[[Page 8708]]

commenters raised concerns that EPA did not provide adequate notice of 
its rationale for disapproving the States' BART determinations.
    Therefore, EPA is taking two separate but related actions. In this 
rulemaking action, EPA is finalizing the FIP for BART for the subject 
taconite plants in Michigan and Minnesota. Secondly, in a separate 
action, EPA is issuing and seeks comment on a supplemental notice of 
proposed rulemaking elaborating upon the Agency's rationale for 
proposing partial disapproval of the Minnesota and Michigan SIPs as 
they pertain to the requirement for BART for taconite plants. The full 
basis for the partial disapproval is set forth in the separate action.

II. Comments and Responses

    On August 15, 2012, EPA published a Federal Register Notice 
entitled ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; States of 
Minnesota and Michigan; Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan'' (77 
FR 49308). In this notice, the EPA requested comment on EPA's proposed 
BART determinations and FIP for taconite ore processing facilities 
located in Minnesota and Michigan. Public comments were accepted at 
both a public hearing held in St. Paul, Minnesota, on August 29, 2012, 
and in writing until September 28, 2012.
    EPA received comments from Cliffs Natural Resources Inc., 
ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine Inc., the United States National Park 
Service (NPS), the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), 
the United States Forest Service, the National Parks Conservation 
Association (NPCA), the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, the 
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe, the National Tribal Air Association, the Red 
Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewas, U.S. Steel Corporation, and more 
than 1,000 private citizens.

A. General Comments in Support of the Proposed Rule

    Commenter: National Parks Conservation Association.
    Comment: NPCA supports finalization and implementation of the 
proposed controls, which will significantly benefit the air quality in 
the parks, wilderness areas, and communities surrounding these plants.
    Commenter: 1,244 private citizens provided similar comments.
    Comment: As a resident of the upper Midwest and a national parks 
supporter, I want to see natural air quality restored to Voyageurs and 
Isle Royale National Parks and Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness 
just as Congress intended. That's why I support EPA's proposal to 
reduce haze-causing pollution from taconite plants. These large 
industrial polluters should clean up their air pollution under the 
Regional Haze Rule.
    Reducing haze pollution in our parks will bring healthier air to 
surrounding communities as well as more visitors who support our local 
economies. That's why I want EPA to require the most effective methods 
for reducing air pollution from taconite plants in Michigan and 
Minnesota. In addition to the emission reductions outlined in EPA's 
proposed plan, I encourage EPA to evaluate pollution controls that 
would lead to cleaner air.
    Commenter: Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa.
    Comment: The Band strongly supports the FIP proposed by Region 5, 
particularly with regard to Region 5's determination that low 
NOX burners are BART for taconite facilities. This option is 
technically feasible as these burners have already been installed on 
Minntac's grate-kiln furnaces and are being installed on Essar's 
straight-grate kiln furnaces. Low NOX burners have been 
shown to be affordable with control costs at roughly $500 per ton, 
which is well within the range of costs deemed affordable for BART by 
states and EPA. Low NOX burners are a wise choice because 
they prevent NOX from ever being formed. This is a key 
concept in pollution prevention. Collection and disposal of pollutants 
can lead to secondary environmental problems, as well as increased 
energy consumption. The Band contends that installation of these 
burners is an equity issue. It would be unfair to allow other 
facilities to operate indefinitely without having to install low 
NOX burners.
    Commenter: Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa.
    Comment: Red Cliff supports EPA's proposed requirement for low 
NOX burners for all subject taconite furnaces in Michigan 
and Minnesota.
    Commenter: Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe.
    Comment: Low NOX burners have been installed 
voluntarily, previous to this action, by two taconite facilities with 
different furnace systems commonly utilized in the taconite industry. 
These system installs have shown substantial reductions, up to 60 to 70 
percent, can be achieved with a minimal cost of $500 per ton or less. 
The Band also agrees that taking a preemptive approach by preventing 
the formation of NOX makes sense versus an after-production 
control technology that is less effective and more costly, both 
economically and environmentally.
    Commenter: National Tribal Air Association.
    Comment: The Association agrees that using low NOX 
burners as BART for both straight and grate-kilns is a good approach. 
Not only is the cost to remove NOX inexpensive, but these 
burners can reduce NOX by up to 70 percent. Therefore, 
placing a limit on NOX of 1.20 pounds per million British 
Thermal Units on a 30-day rolling average for facility lines is very 
reasonable.
    Commenter: National Park Service.
    Comment: NPS agrees with EPA's conclusions that control of 
emissions from taconite plants in Minnesota and Michigan can be 
expected to yield significant benefits in reducing visibility 
impairment in the Class I area in the two states; and that technically 
feasible controls are available at a reasonable cost for taconite 
plants that can be expected to provide a visibility benefit that makes 
those controls warranted.
    Commenter: U.S. Forest Service.
    Comment: The Forest Service supports the proposed FIP to require 
BART for the taconite plants in Minnesota and Michigan. According to 
technical analyses by the State of Minnesota and others, the highest 
contributors to haze in the Boundary Waters from all sources in the 
U.S. are the taconite industry and power plants. We support the 
emission controls that the taconite plants would be required to install 
under the proposed FIP. The FIP demonstrates that these controls are 
technically feasible and available for the taconite industry to reduce 
emissions and are already being used by some within the industry. The 
implementation of the Minnesota regional haze plan is nearly five years 
past due. Considerable effort and resources have been spent over the 
past ten years developing the technical information necessary to 
complete implementation. Much of the technical work was done by states, 
Tribes, and FLMs working together through multi-state regional planning 
organizations. The Forest Service has monitored visibility in the 
Boundary Waters since 1985. The results of this technical work and 
monitoring support the requirement for BART to reduce impacts to the 
Boundary Waters.
    Response: EPA acknowledges these commenters' support of the 
Agency's efforts in developing a FIP for the taconite industry and 
agrees.

B. Comments Concerning the Adequacy of the Public Comment Period

    Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine.
    Comment: Cliffs stated that EPA provided inadequate opportunity to

[[Page 8709]]

comment on the proposed FIP. Cliffs alleged that 45 days was not a 
reasonable time period to complete the task of preparing an appropriate 
response to the proposed FIP given the highly technical concerns 
surrounding EPA's BART determinations for the taconite industry.
    Response: EPA disagrees that the Agency did not provide an adequate 
opportunity for public comment. Section 307(h) of the CAA requires EPA 
to provide ``a reasonable period for public participation of at least 
30 days'' when promulgating a FIP. Here, EPA chose to provide a 
significantly longer 45-day public comment period in light of the many 
technical issues surrounding EPA's proposed BART determinations for the 
taconite industry. EPA believes that 45 days was a reasonable amount of 
time for Cliffs and others to comment on EPA's proposed FIP.\2\ Cliffs' 
assertion that it should have been granted an extension to conduct a 
new BART analysis is without merit. Cliffs had several years to conduct 
a thorough BART analysis, and its failure to timely do so does not bear 
upon the reasonableness of the length of EPA's comment period. Indeed, 
the fact that Cliffs was able to prepare an extensive 61-page comment 
document within the allotted time supports EPA's contention that 45 
days was a reasonable period for third parties to comment on the 
proposed FIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In fact, Cliffs received a signed copy of the proposed FIP 
on July 17, 2012, nearly a full month before the formal start of the 
comment period. Thus, Cliffs had effectively 75 days to prepare its 
comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Comments Questioning EPA's Authority To Issue a Federal 
Implementation Plan

    Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine.
    Comment: Cliffs stated that EPA has not met the threshold 
requirements for issuing a FIP. EPA's proposed FIP did not provide a 
critique of Minnesota and Michigan's BART determinations for the 
taconite industry or explain why those determinations were inadequate. 
As a result, Cliffs argued that EPA does not have the legal authority 
to issue a FIP.
    Response: EPA believes that it has a strong basis for proposing 
disapproval of Minnesota and Michigan's BART determinations for the 
taconite industry. Nonetheless, EPA agrees that the proposed rule did 
not provide a sufficiently detailed critique of the state 
determinations' inadequacies. As a result, EPA has chosen to issue a 
supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking providing additional 
rationale for the Agency's proposed disapproval. Contrary to Cliffs' 
assertion, however, EPA was not required to make a finding that 
Minnesota and Michigan's BART determinations were deficient before 
issuing a FIP. Section 110(c)(1)(A) of the CAA provides that EPA 
``shall promulgate a [FIP] within 2 years after the Administrator finds 
that a State has failed to make a required submission * * * unless the 
State corrects the deficiency, and the Administrator approves the plan 
or plan revision, before the Administrator promulgates such Federal 
Implementation plan.''
    Pursuant to the regional haze rule, states were required to submit 
regional haze SIPs no later than December 17, 2007 (64 FR 35714, July 
1, 1999). Neither Minnesota nor Michigan made the required submission 
by this date. Consequently, EPA issued a finding on January 15, 2009 
that Minnesota and Michigan, as well as certain other states, had 
failed to submit SIPs addressing the regional haze requirement (74 FR 
2392). This finding triggered EPA's statutory duty to either approve a 
subsequent state SIP submission or issue a FIP. While it is true that 
Minnesota and Michigan subsequently submitted regional haze SIPs to 
EPA, the Agency has not approved either of these plans with respect to 
the states' BART determinations for the taconite industry. On the 
contrary, EPA has proposed to disapprove the states' BART 
determinations for failure to meet the minimum requirements of the CAA. 
Thus, EPA had both the authority and the continuing obligation to issue 
a FIP for the taconite industry in Minnesota and Michigan based on the 
Agency's January 15, 2009 finding of the states' failure to submit.
    Commenter: Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ).
    Comment: MDEQ commented that Section 110(c)(1) of the Act 
authorizes EPA to promulgate a FIP within two years after making a 
finding that a state's SIP submittal does not satisfy the CAA. However, 
the CAA does not allow EPA to propose a FIP and simultaneously propose 
disapproval of the state's SIP.
    Response: MDEQ's interpretation of section 110(c)(1) is incorrect. 
Once EPA has made a finding of a state's failure to submit, EPA's 
authority and continuing obligation to issue a FIP does not end until 
the state has corrected the deficiency and EPA has approved a 
subsequently submitted SIP. Nowhere in the CAA is there language that 
limits EPA's authority to simultaneously propose a FIP and propose 
disapproval of a state's SIP where there has been a prior finding of a 
failure to submit.
    Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources, ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine, 
and Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ).
    Comment: Cliffs and MDEQ stated that EPA failed to afford the 
Minnesota and Michigan SIP proposals the requisite deference. Under the 
visibility program, states have the primary responsibility for 
establishing standards, including BART. Thus, Cliffs and MDEQ argued 
that EPA can disapprove a SIP only where it fails to meet minimum CAA 
requirements.
    Response: While Congress intended states to take the lead in 
developing regional haze SIPs, it balanced that decision by requiring 
EPA to review state plans to determine whether they meet the 
requirements of the CAA. EPA's review is not limited to a ministerial 
type of automatic approval of a state's decisions. Rather, EPA must 
consider not only whether the state considered the appropriate factors, 
but whether the state acted reasonably in doing so. In undertaking such 
a review, EPA does not ``usurp'' the state's authority, but ensures 
that such authority is reasonably exercised.
    Here, EPA firmly maintains that neither state's regional haze SIP 
met the minimum requirements of the CAA. Among other things, EPA takes 
issue with the states' assertions that low NOX burners are 
not technically feasible control options for indurating furnaces and 
that good combustion practices represent BART. Nonetheless, EPA 
acknowledges that its August 15, 2012 proposed action (77 FR 49308) did 
not provide a sufficiently detailed analysis of the deficiencies of the 
states' BART determinations for the taconite industry. Therefore, EPA 
is publishing a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking that further 
addresses the Agency's rational for proposing disapproval of the 
states' choices regarding taconite BART.
    Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine.
    Comment: Cliffs commented that Minnesota and Michigan engaged in 
extensive and proper rulemaking efforts. Cliffs then proceeded to 
provide a detailed history of each state's SIP-development process.
    Response: EPA agrees that Minnesota and Michigan spent considerable 
time and effort preparing their regional haze SIPs. As stated 
previously, EPA intends to publish a supplemental notice of proposed 
rulemaking that further addresses the Agency's rationale for proposing 
disapproval of Minnesota and Michigan's BART determinations for 
taconite facilities. EPA reiterates, however, that the Agency had the

[[Page 8710]]

authority and continuing obligation to promulgate a FIP for the 
taconite industry based on the Agency's earlier finding that Minnesota 
and Michigan had failed to submit regional haze SIPs in a timely manner 
(74 FR 2392, January 15, 2009).

D. Comments Supporting EPA's Authority To Issue a Federal 
Implementation Plan

    Commenter: National Parks Conservation Association.
    Comment: At a public hearing on the proposed FIP, representatives 
for one taconite owner asserted that EPA lacked authority to issue the 
proposed FIP. The company's assertion has no merit. In fact, EPA has an 
obligation to develop a FIP under the CAA. The CAA provides states with 
initial responsibility for identifying sources and determining BART for 
purposes of regional haze. It is equally clear, however, that EPA 
retains authority to approve or disapprove the states' determinations 
and issue a FIP if necessary to correct state plan deficiencies.
    EPA is not only well within its authority to promulgate the 
proposed FIP; it is required to do so because the state plans do not 
meet the requirements of the CAA. While commenters disagree with some 
of EPA's proposed BART determinations in the taconite FIP, the record 
plainly supports EPA's finding that neither the Minnesota nor the 
Michigan proposal met minimum CAA requirements. The National Park 
Service, the National Forest Service, and other commenters all 
submitted detailed technical reviews establishing the many deficiencies 
in the BART analysis and conclusions of Minnesota and Michigan's plans.
    Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that EPA has the authority 
and obligation to issue a FIP.

E. Comments Concerning the Use of New Information To Evaluate Minnesota 
and Michigan's BART Determinations

    Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine.
    Comment: Cliffs commented that EPA cannot use new information 
regarding the technical feasibility of low NOX burners as a 
control option for indurating furnaces to undermine the states' BART 
determinations. Cliffs argued that EPA is seeking to reject Minnesota 
and Michigan's BART determinations based on information that was not 
available to either state at the time of their SIP submissions to EPA 
for approval. To support its position, Cliffs pointed to EPA's BART 
Guidelines, which state that new technologies need only be considered 
by a state if they become available before the close of a state's 
public comment period. Cliffs alleged that low NOX burners 
were not an ``available'' technology because testing at Minntac and 
Essar had either not yet commenced or was still ongoing at the time 
Minnesota and Michigan's periods for public comment had ended.
    Commenter: Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ).
    Comment: MDEQ commented that there was not enough information 
available prior to the close of Michigan's public comment period on 
June 23, 2010 to indicate that low NOX burners had been 
successfully utilized on indurating furnaces. MDEQ also argued that 
EPA's proposal to find that low NOX burners represent BART 
for NOX at Tilden was impermissibly based on information 
generated after the close of Michigan's public comment period.
    Response: EPA disagrees with Cliffs and MDEQ's comments for several 
reasons. First, EPA again reiterates that the Agency had the authority 
and responsibility to promulgate a FIP for the taconite industry based 
on the Agency's earlier finding that Minnesota and Michigan had failed 
to submit regional haze SIPs in a timely manner (74 FR 2392, January 
15, 2009). Thus, EPA was entitled to rely on whatever information was 
available regarding the technical feasibility of low NOX 
burners at the time the Agency performed its BART analysis, including 
results from the testing at Minntac and Essar.
    Nonetheless, even if EPA's authority to promulgate a FIP had been 
based solely on final disapproval of the states' BART determinations, 
the information regarding the technical feasibility of low 
NOX burners was not ``new'' as Cliffs suggests. As the BART 
Guidelines make clear, technical feasibility encompasses two distinct 
concepts, ``availability'' and ``applicability.'' 40 CFR part 51, 
appendix Y. A technology is considered ``available'' if the source 
owner may obtain it through commercial channels, while it is considered 
``applicable'' if it can reasonably be installed and operated on the 
source type under consideration. As Cliffs pointed out, only 
technologies that are ``available'' at the close of a state's public 
comment period need be considered as control options by the state.
    However, Cliffs' argument that low NOX burners were not 
an ``available'' technology at the time Minnesota and Michigan's 
periods for public comment had ended is incorrect. Testing at Minntac 
and Essar had nothing to do with the ``availability'' of low 
NOX burners. Rather, the testing at those facilities 
concerned the ``applicability'' of low NOX burners to the 
source type in question--indurating furnaces. There can be no dispute 
that low NOX burners were ``available'' at the time that 
Minnesota and Michigan developed their regional haze SIPs because this 
technology has been obtainable through commercial channels as an option 
for the control of nitrogen oxide emissions for many years. Therefore, 
Minnesota and Michigan were required to consider low NOX 
burners in their BART analyses, which both states did, albeit 
dismissively.
    Consequently, the sole question presented to the states was one of 
``applicability''--whether low NOX burners could be 
successfully installed on indurating furnaces. In regards to this 
question, the BART Guidelines make clear that ``a commercially 
available control option will be presumed applicable if it has been 
used on the same or a similar source type.'' 40 CFR part 51, appendix 
Y. However, in contrast to the question of ``availability,'' the 
Guidelines make no mention of a cut-off date after which states may 
reject information regarding a technology's ``applicability.'' Even so, 
contrary to Cliffs' assertions, both states were aware that low 
NOX burners had been successfully installed on two lines at 
U.S. Steel's Minntac facility prior to the end of their respective 
periods for public comment.\3\ In a June 23, 2010 letter to the 
Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment regarding the 
state's draft regional haze SIP, EPA commented that ``a low-
NOX main burner firing solid fuels'' had been installed at 
Minntac and that ``work done by other companies had demonstrated that 
burner designs that lower flame temperature can reduce NOX 
formation in taconite furnaces.'' \4\ Similarly, in a February 10, 2012 
letter to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency responding to the 
state's draft regional haze SIP supplement for taconite facilities, EPA 
explained in detail that ``U.S. Steel has demonstrated the development 
and use of low NOX main burners that achieve 70 percent 
NOX reduction on its indurating

[[Page 8711]]

lines.'' \5\ In addition to these comments, both states received 
comments regarding the technical feasibility of low NOX 
burners from the Forest Service as well. Therefore, both Michigan and 
Minnesota were aware that low NOX burners had been 
successfully applied to indurating furnaces, and Cliffs' arguments that 
the results of these studies somehow constitute ``new'' information are 
without merit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The comment period for Michigan's regional haze SIP closed 
on June 23, 2010. The comment period for the Minnesota's regional 
haze SIP supplement regarding BART at taconite facilities closed on 
February 3, 2010, but EPA was granted an extension to submit 
comments. EPA's comments were submitted on February 10, 2010, and 
were received and considered by MPCA.
    \4\ See Michigan Regional Haze plan: EPA Letter to Michigan 
Department of Environmental Quality Regarding BART, May 24, 2012 
(Docket  EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0954-0008).
    \5\ See MI Haze FIP, EPA 6-23-10 comments to MDEQ on MI Haze 
submittal (Docket  EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0954-0037).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, even if information regarding the technical feasibility of 
installing low NOX burners to indurating furnaces was not 
available to Minnesota or Michigan, EPA nonetheless had a duty to 
consider any new information that subsequently arose when reviewing the 
states' SIPs. The Ninth Circuit recently held that ``if new information 
indicates to EPA that an existing SIP or SIP awaiting approval is 
inaccurate or not current, then, viewing air quality and scope of 
emissions with public interest in mind, EPA should properly evaluate 
the new information and may not simply ignore it without reasoned 
explanation of its choice.'' Sierra Club v. EPA, 671 F.3d 955, 967 (9th 
Cir. 2012). Thus, EPA is required, at a minimum, to take new 
information into account during the SIP approval process and, if 
necessary, alter its final decision accordingly.
    Commenter: Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa.
    Comment: At the public hearing held in Saint Paul, Minnesota, on 
August 29, 2012, some commenters voiced the opinion that low 
NOX burners should not be considered as BART because the 
technology was brought forward after the comment period on the 
Minnesota regional haze SIP supplement had closed. This is incorrect. 
Low NOX burners were in use and under consideration both 
before and during the comment period of December 19, 2011 to February 
3, 2012. Discussions concerning the installation of low NOX 
burners at Minntac began in 2008, and the burners themselves were 
installed in 2010, several months before the regional haze SIP 
supplement was proposed. U.S. Steel's report to MPCA on the performance 
to-date of their low NOX burners at Minntac was submitted in 
December of 2011, around the time that Minnesota's SIP supplement went 
on public notice. Additionally, Essar Steel committed to the use of low 
NOX burners in its new plant near Nashwauk in 2010. The 
record indicates that discussions took place between MPCA and the 
taconite facilities around the time that the SIP supplement public 
comment period was open. Because of the timing of U.S. Steel's reports 
and the fact that no other economically-feasible technology offered 
more than 15 percent control of NOX, those discussions 
almost certainly included the possibility of requiring low 
NOX burners on taconite furnaces.
    In light of the emerging use of low NOX burners, the 
U.S. Steel report, and the discussions indicated in the record, there 
is no basis for the claim that low NOX burners were only 
brought forward after the comment period. Low NOX burner 
technology was not a surprise and there is no procedural unfairness in 
the EPA considering it. Furthermore, to the extent that low 
NOX burners can somehow be construed as new information, 
there is precedent for considering new information while promulgating 
regulations. For example, on July 20, 2012, EPA informed petitioners 
that it would reconsider its Mercury and Toxics Standards based on the 
availability of new technical information.
    Commenter: National Parks Conservation Association.
    Comment: During the public hearing on this matter, a taconite 
company asserted that EPA's FIP was based on ``new information'' that 
is ``outside the record'' and that the company's ``due process'' rights 
were somehow jeopardized by EPA's proposal. As a legal matter, the 
company's argument has no merit. Likewise, as a practical matter, the 
company's complaints are unavailing.
    Response: EPA agrees with these commenters that it was appropriate 
for EPA to rely on whatever information was available regarding the 
technical feasibility of low NOX burners at the time the 
Agency performed its BART analysis. For a more detailed discussion of 
this issue, see EPA's previous response to comments from Cliffs, 
ArcelorMittal, and MDEQ.

F. Comments Concerning EPA's Best Available Retrofit Technology 
Analysis

    Commenter: National Parks Service.
    Comment: NPS agrees with EPA and with Michigan and Minnesota on the 
BART-eligibility determinations with respect to the taconite facilities 
and the states' determination that BART for direct PM is satisfied by 
the taconite MACT rule.
    Response: EPA acknowledges NPS's support.
    Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine.
    Comment: Cliffs objected to EPA's reference to conversations with 
industry competitors and their vendors in determining the feasibility 
of controls for Cliffs' indurating furnaces. Cliffs asserted that EPA 
ignored information provided by Cliffs and its process engineering 
firms.
    Response: EPA spent significant time with all affected sources and 
thoroughly considered all information. EPA acknowledges that it relied 
heavily upon documented information from Cliffs' competitors in the 
taconite industry because these companies have experience with low 
NOX burner technology and provided data from actual 
experience with such technology. It would have been inappropriate for 
EPA to have ignored substantive information based upon actual 
experience.
1. Comments Asserting That EPA's BART Analysis Did Not Assess all 
Available Technologies
    Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine.
    Comment: Cliffs claimed that EPA's BART determinations were 
arbitrary because they ignored good combustion practices (GCP) as a 
BART alternative. Cliffs stated at the MPCA March Citizens Board 
meeting that ``GCP is already required under other federal regulations, 
including the taconite MACT rule.''
    Response: Cliffs' support of GCP as BART lacks merit because GCP is 
neither defined by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, nor is it 
typically considered a NOX reduction technique. For example, 
the January 30, 2009 ``NOX Reduction Analysis'' done by 
Hatch for U.S. Steel's Minntac Iron Ore Pelletizing Operation did not 
list GCP as a potential NOX reduction technology for an 
indurating furnace.\6\ Similarly, the 2008 BACT analysis for JEA--
Greenland Energy Center Units 1 and 2 did not list GCP as a potential 
NOX control.\7\ In fact, these analyses state that GCP tends 
to increase NOX emissions. This is because measures taken to 
minimize the formation of NOX during combustion inhibit 
complete combustion, which increases emissions of carbon monoxide. 
Conversely, GCP aims to reduce carbon monoxide emissions. According to 
the September 2010 ``We Energies Biomass Energy Project Revised Control 
Technology Review for Carbon Monoxide Emissions for the Biomass-Fired 
Boiler,'' there is an inverse relationship between NOX 
emissions and carbon monoxide emissions, which means that improving

[[Page 8712]]

combustion efficiency can increase NOX emissions.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Docket  EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0037-0039.
    \7\ Docket  EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0037-0070.
    \8\ Docket  EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0037-0069.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Concerning the GCP requirement in the taconite MACT rule, GCP for 
the MACT is not the same as GCP for NOX. GCP for MACT is 
aimed at reducing emissions of products of incomplete combustion (PIC). 
To minimize PICs, the operating conditions targeted are generally the 
opposite from those targeted for reducing NOX. As explained 
in the taconite MACT rule (68 FR 61883, October 30, 2003), ``The basic 
method used in reducing NOX emissions is a reduction in 
combustion temperature, which is the opposite strategy needed for 
minimizing PIC (i.e., increasing combustion temperature).'' In 
conclusion, GCP would be expected to increase NOX emissions, 
not decrease them.
    Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine.
    Comment: Cliffs commented that EPA is required to consider ``any 
existing pollution control technology at the source.'' Cliffs argued 
that EPA failed to adequately consider or consistently apply this 
threshold factor to the BART determinations in its proposed rule.
    Response: To the extent that Cliffs is referring to its use of GCP 
as an existing pollution control technology, neither the operational 
practices that comprise GCP nor their impact on reducing emissions has 
been documented by Cliffs. As described in detail in the response to 
the previous comment, EPA does not consider Cliffs' use of GCP to 
constitute ``existing control technology'' on these furnaces.
    Commenter: National Parks Conservation Association.
    Comment: NPCA commented that EPA failed to consider fuel-blend 
alternatives, including greater or exclusive use of natural gas at 
grate-kiln furnaces, as part of the Agency's BART analysis for 
SO2 and NOX. Fuel-blend alternatives are a 
technically feasible control option because indurating furnaces can 
successfully be operated on alternative fuels, namely fuel blends that 
consist primarily of natural gas. Contrary to the taconite plant 
owners' assertions, consideration of alternative fuels is required for 
BART where changing to cleaner fuel would not necessitate significant 
changes at any existing facility. There is no legal rationale for 
excluding this viable pollution control. Additionally, the assertion 
that alternative fuel costs are uncertain has no merit. There is simply 
no factual support for price uncertainty being a basis to reject 
consideration of natural gas as an alternative to coal. Even if 
significant uncertainty existed, it can be dealt with appropriately in 
the BART analysis. Finally, the assertion that moving towards a more 
natural gas-based fuel blend would mean higher NOX emissions 
in exchange for lower SO2 emissions is a red herring. The 
existence of such potential secondary impacts is not a reason to 
discard a BART option prior to analysis. It is a reason to perform the 
analysis itself.
    Response: Alternative fuels were not considered for the following 
reasons. The straight-grate furnaces at ArcelorMittal, Hibbing 
Taconite, and Northshore Mining already burn natural gas. Similarly, 
U.S. Steel's Keetac and Minntac facilities already burn a fuel mix of 
natural gas and low-sulfur coal. While fuel-blend alternatives could 
have been considered for the grate-kiln furnaces at United Taconite and 
Tilden, EPA proposed to require the most stringent control technology, 
flue-gas desulfurization (FGD), at these facilities. As the BART 
Guidelines make clear, where EPA or the states choose the most 
stringent control option as BART, other control options need not be 
considered. Therefore, EPA was not required to consider fuel-blend 
alternatives as part of the Agency's BART analysis. However, EPA notes 
that subsequent to the proposal, Tilden agreed to convert to natural 
gas, while United Taconite will be substantially reducing its emissions 
through the use of natural gas and low-sulfur coal.
    Commenter: National Parks Conservation Association.
    Comment: EPA's NOX BART determinations conclude that 
significant reductions could be achieved cost-effectively by the 
installation of low NOX burners at all taconite kilns. While 
NPCA concurred with this conclusion, it commented that EPA failed to 
fully consider the use of regenerative selective catalytic reduction 
(RSCR). For instance, although RSCR was noted as an available 
technology in Keetac's BART analysis, EPA's FIP made no note of it. For 
Tilden, on the other hand, EPA noted this option, but only to point out 
that the company found it to be infeasible. In fact, this technology 
appears to be feasible for indurating furnaces. At a minimum, a more 
thorough evaluation by EPA is necessary. In this case, EPA has not 
shown that circumstances preclude the application of RSCR to the units 
in question via evaluation of gas characteristics or demonstration of 
technical challenges. It has offered no evidence that RSCR is 
technically infeasible. A fuller evaluation of this technology is 
warranted as part of a BART determination.
    Response: EPA did evaluate post-combustion NOX-control 
options when it reviewed Minnesota's regional haze plan and agreed with 
the state's determination that post-combustion control of 
NOX emissions from taconite facilities are not BART. For the 
proposed and now final rule, EPA evaluated new data on the use of low 
NOX burners at taconite facilities and, after a five-factor 
BART analysis, determined that low NOX burners are BART for 
these facilities. The BART analyses are fully described in section V of 
the proposed rule (77 FR 49308). EPA also considered RSCR and related 
selective catalytic reduction technologies at some of the subject 
taconite units. EPA concluded in its BART analyses that RSCR and other 
post-combustion controls do not represent BART for the subject taconite 
units because, after the installation of low NOX burners, 
the incremental costs of installing further post-combustion controls 
are unreasonably high. Therefore, this final rule requires that 
taconite indurating furnaces meet NOX emission limits 
consistent with low NOX burner technology.
    Commenter: National Parks Conservation Association.
    Comment: EPA's analysis for SO2 provides evidence that 
dry FGD is feasible for taconite facilities, and the Agency requires 
the use of this technology at the three highest emitting lines (at 
United Taconite and Tilden). We support these determinations. However, 
EPA fails to fully analyze the use of dry FGD on the lower-emitting 
units, instead concluding, without support, that it would not be 
``economically reasonable.'' NPCA asks that EPA analyze whether dry 
FGD, clearly a feasible technology, could provide cost effective 
reductions at additional units.
    Response: EPA's BART analysis demonstrated that dry FGD is feasible 
for the highest emitting lines when those lines are uncontrolled, but 
determined that the same technology has unreasonably high incremental 
costs for units with lower uncontrolled emissions. EPA notes, however, 
that while FGD was originally proposed as BART for the units at United 
Taconite and Tilden, those facilities have since agreed to operational 
limits on the types of fuels that may be burned As a result, FGD is no 
longer being required as BART. Additional discussion of this issue can 
be found in section III of the preamble.
    Commenter: National Parks Service.
    Comment: It appears that low temperature oxidation is technically 
and economically feasible for the entire

[[Page 8713]]

industry. In addition, tail-end SCR with natural gas reheat has been 
found technically feasible and borderline economically feasible based 
on a BACT analysis from several years ago when natural gas prices were 
much higher. Another form of SCR, RSCR looks promising, but as a new 
technology, would require trials.
    While we would normally prefer to see all of the technically 
feasible control options evaluated, given the time constraints and the 
success of the low NOX burner technology, it is likely that 
low NOX burners will reduce NOX so much that 
addition of the other technologies would become too expensive for this 
phase of the regional haze program. We therefore agree that low 
NOX burners at 1.2 lbs NOX/MMBTU represent BART 
for the taconite industry. By setting such a uniform limit, EPA is 
establishing a ``level playing field'' that is achievable by all of the 
taconite plants and will provide substantial (almost 16,000 TPY) 
NOX reductions.
    Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that post-combustion 
control technologies would likely be expensive for additional pollution 
reduction. EPA maintains that low NOX burners are the 
appropriate control technology for the indurating furnaces at the 
taconite facilities. Thus, EPA is finalizing its determination that low 
NOX burners represent BART.
    Commenter: National Parks Service.
    Comment: EPA proposes to determine that BART for SO2 for 
straight-grate kilns is existing controls because these furnaces do not 
burn coal. While true, they burn fuel oil, which can have a high 
potential for emitting SO2 depending on the fuel's sulfur 
content. Although the BART Guidelines do not mandate fuel switching, 
they encourage evaluation of lower sulfur content fuels. For example, 
limiting fuel sulfur was an option considered by EPA for oil-fired EGUs 
in a separate BART rule. We suggest that Minnesota consider use of 
lower sulfur fuels in future reasonable progress analyses.
    Response: EPA's data indicate that the taconite facilities with 
straight-grate furnaces use natural gas as the primary fuel with fuel 
oil as a back-up fuel only. Given the limited use of fuel oil, emission 
reductions from using lower sulfur fuel would be limited. Nonetheless, 
EPA agrees with the commenter that the state should consider the 
impacts of using a lower sulfur fuel in its future reasonable progress 
analyses and is requiring that the taconite facilities keep records of 
any future use of fuel oil.
    Commenter: National Parks Service.
    Comment: NPS concurred with EPA's statement that ``[the Agency 
does] not agree that the MPCA and Minntac have adequately documented 
the infeasibility of all SO2 controls described.'' This 
observation is especially pertinent with respect to the technical 
feasibility of spray drying absorption (SDA). According to the taconite 
industry consultant, SDA is not technically feasible because ``the high 
moisture content of the exhaust would lead to saturation of the 
baghouse filter cake and plugging of the filters and dust collection 
system.'' On the contrary, SDA requires moisture because a slurry of 
lime and water is injected into the spray dryer where the slurry reacts 
with SO2 to form a dry sulfate power that is then collected 
in the baghouse. As long as the moisture content of the gas stream is 
not excessive and the temperature is not too low, SDA becomes a 
preferred and highly effective SO2 control option. It is 
expected that retrofitting the facilities with SDA would eliminate the 
need for the existing Venturi rod scrubbers used to control PM on most 
of the taconite furnaces, thus reducing water consumption, gas stream 
moisture content, and PM emissions due to the higher efficiency of the 
baghouse.
    Response: In the proposed rule, EPA stated that while the state's 
documentation for determining the technical feasibility of all 
SO2 controls was inadequate, EPA did agree with Michigan's 
conclusion that additional SO2 controls, including SDA, were 
not cost effective and therefore not BART. EPA has not changed its 
position on this issue in the final rule.
2. Comments Asserting That EPA's Baseline NOX Emissions Are 
Arbitrary
    Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine.
    Comment: Cliffs commented that EPA's baseline NOX 
assumptions are arbitrary. EPA failed to even consider the actual 
emissions from each taconite furnace, let alone use them as the 
starting point for calculating furnace-specific baseline emissions.
    Response: EPA disagrees. In the case-by-case BART analysis for each 
subject taconite facility, EPA clearly listed the baseline actual 
annual emissions for each taconite furnace (see, e.g., Table V-B.24 for 
Hibbing Taconite (77 FR 49321)). In the initial stages of the BART 
development process, there was a significant lack of emissions data for 
the taconite facilities, as acknowledged by MPCA. However, additional 
monitoring and emission reporting from the taconite facilities enabled 
EPA to determine baseline NOX emissions for each facility.

G. Comments Concerning EPA's Analysis of Low NOX Burner 
Technology as NOX BART

1. Comments Supporting EPA's Determination That Low NOX 
Burners Are Technically Feasible
    Commenter: National Parks Conservation Association.
    Comment: NPCA commented that EPA's documentation of low 
NOX burners demonstrated that significant, cost-effective 
emission reductions are afforded by their use on both straight-grate 
and grate-kiln furnaces. Despite this record, a taconite company raised 
several concerns about EPA's determination during the public hearing. 
The concerns were that a given control technology will not transfer 
between indurating furnaces of the same type, low NOX 
burners will impact processing (product quality, fuel use, etc.), and 
there has been insufficient time to study various aspects or impacts of 
this technology.
    These concerns are either misplaced or incorrect. As to the first 
point, low NOX burners have been successfully applied to a 
wide variety of units, including power plants, refineries, chemical 
companies, and other industrial settings, which burn a wide variety of 
fuels, including gas and coal. There may be individual differences 
between the burners at different taconite units. As is always the case, 
customization to the particular unit will be required. However, the 
differences among taconite furnaces of the same type are not 
significant enough to conclude that this clearly robust technology 
could not be applied to one as well as the others. Indeed, technology 
transfer would be impossible without such basic assumptions.
    As to the impact of low NOX burners on operational 
parameters, EPA's FIP includes information addressing the points of 
product quality and fuel use. Minntac's experience demonstrates no 
impact to pellet quality, and after some adjustment, no increase in 
fuel use.
    Finally, far from having had insufficient time to analyze these 
controls, the taconite facilities have had years in which to contact 
vendors, do engineering studies and modeling, and perform testing. The 
regional haze process has been delayed by many years at this point.
    Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that low NOX 
burners can be used to control NOX emissions from both 
straight-grate and grate-kiln indurating furnaces used in the taconite 
processing industry. EPA also agrees with the commenter that based on 
data from taconite facilities where low NOX

[[Page 8714]]

burners are either in use or planned product, quality should not be 
compromised.
    Commenter: National Park Service.
    Comment: NPS commented that it agreed with EPA's proposal that BART 
for NOX for the taconite industry is low NOX 
burners achieving a 70 percent reduction from both straight-grate and 
grate-kiln furnaces. The proposal for grate-kiln lines is supported by 
research sponsored by U.S. Steel. The proposal for straight-grate kilns 
is supported by Essar's testing, which demonstrated a 95 percent 
reduction in NOX emissions for its new kiln.
    Response: As the commenter points out, EPA has determined that low 
NOX burners represent BART. However, EPA is setting an 
emission limit for each indurating furnace, not a 70 percent control 
requirement.
2. Comments Asserting That Low NOX Burners Are Not 
Technically Feasibility on Straight-Grate Kilns
    Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine.
    Comment: Cliffs commented that EPA made an unsupported presumption 
that the low NOX burner technology tested in a \1/4\-scale 
pilot test by Essar for a new source could be translated to all 
straight-grate furnaces.
    Response: As indicated in test reports, NOX emissions 
from taconite facilities are generated primarily by the burner. As 
burner design is the main factor contributing to NOX 
emissions, EPA carefully reviewed results of emission tests of low 
NOX burners for the different taconite furnace types and 
concluded that low NOX burners are technically feasible for 
straight-grate and grate-kiln furnaces.
    Supporting the feasibility of low NOX burners on 
straight-grate kilns is a September 19, 2011 summary of findings 
presented to the Minnesota Pollution Control Board entitled ``Results 
of Testing at \1/4\-Scale of LE Low NOX Burner Prototype for 
Straight-Grate Pelletizing Furnaces'' by Fives North American 
Combustion, Inc. (Fives) for Essar.\9\ After successful bench-scale 
testing of Fives' low NOX LE burners that achieved 
NOX reductions greater than 70 percent in a straight-grate 
pelletizing furnace, Essar and Fives proceeded with a joint $2 million 
investment in a test rig to simulate a straight-grate pelletizing 
furnace. In the \1/4\-scale test rig, the cross-sectional area scaling 
was very representative of actual furnace geometry, as were the energy 
inputs and flows. This testing demonstrated an emission rate of 0.25 
lbs NOX/MMBTU, which is well below the proposed limit of 1.2 
lbs NOX/MMBTU. Fives concluded that NOX emissions 
in the actual straight-grate furnace should be consistent with those 
measured in the \1/4\-scale test conditions. The feasibility of low 
NOX burners on straight-grate kilns was also confirmed 
during a June 20, 2012 call between EPA and a national low 
NOX burner manufacturer, Fives North America. 
Representatives from the manufacturing company were highly confident of 
the technical feasibility and application of their technology in 
straight-grate taconite furnaces. EPA agrees with this assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Docket  EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0037-0039.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine.
    Comment: Cliffs commented that EPA failed to conduct an 
independent, case-by-case feasibility analysis as required by the Step 
2 of the BART Guidelines. Minnesota and Michigan previously conducted 
an extensive case-by-case BART analysis, eliminating low NOX 
burners as technically infeasible for every taconite indurating 
furnace. Cliffs asserted that EPA has adopted a ``one-size-fits-all'' 
approach that is arbitrary and capricious. According to Cliffs, a 
proper feasibility analysis demonstrates that the technologies selected 
by EPA are infeasible for Cliffs' indurating furnaces because low 
NOX burners are not technically feasible for straight-grate 
furnaces and grate-kiln furnaces. Cliffs asserted that the Fives burner 
designed for Essar cannot be used without source-specific engineering 
and retrofit design. Cliffs claimed that U.S. Steel spent two years 
modifying the prototype low NOX burners installed on Lines 6 
and 7 at its Minntac facility in an attempt to reach desired emission 
rates while combusting solid fuel, such as coal and biomass, but were 
ultimately unsuccessful. ArcelorMittal asserted that a proper 
feasibility analysis demonstrated that the technologies selected by EPA 
are infeasible for Minorca's indurating furnace. The commenters 
submitted information describing indurating furnaces, including the 
different types of furnaces, and explained what they believe are the 
differences between furnace types.
    Response: EPA believes that its finding that low NOX 
burners are technically feasible for both straight-grate and grate-kiln 
furnaces is supported by test results on various kiln configurations. 
Taconite furnaces are all based on one of two technologies. Straight-
grate kilns are based on a Dravo-Lurgi design system, while grate-kiln 
furnaces are based on an Allis-Chalmers design system. EPA understands 
that each specific taconite furnace has unique operating requirements 
and specialized equipment. However, all furnaces share the same 
fundamental design style, either grate-kiln or straight-grate.
    In assessing control technologies for a source category, EPA's BART 
Guidelines state that ``control alternatives can include not only 
existing controls for the source category in question but also take 
into account technology transfer of controls that have been applied to 
similar source categories and gas streams.'' 40 CFR part 51, appendix 
Y. The Guidelines go on to explain that ``[c]ontrol technologies are 
technically feasible if either (1) they have been installed and 
operated successfully for the type of source under review under similar 
conditions, or (2) the technology could be applied to the source under 
review.'' Id.
    EPA has concluded that there is a clear case for technology 
transfer of low NOX burner technology from grate-kiln 
furnaces to straight-grate furnaces. First, low NOX burner 
technology has been clearly and successfully demonstrated and applied 
across various industries for decades. Second, EPA does not consider 
taconite furnaces to be particularly unique given their similar 
fundamental designs. In the case of taconite applications, the Fives' 
testing of a low NOX burner prototype on a straight-grate 
furnace test rig provides reasonable assurance that full-scale 
applications, given the appropriate time for engineering and shakedown, 
will be both feasible and effective. In addition, U.S. Steel has 
already installed and is successfully operating multi-fuel low 
NOX burners on two unique grate-kiln indurating furnaces at 
their Minntac facility. Prior to the proposed rule, U.S. Steel had 
already submitted permit applications to install low NOX 
burner technologies on two additional furnaces at Minntac as well. U.S 
Steel has not indicated any issues with technical feasibility that will 
prevent the company from applying low NOX burners at either 
its Keetac facility or the remaining furnaces at Minntac. In response 
to questions from EPA concerning the installation at Minntac, U.S. 
Steel described the modifications it made allowing for the successful 
use of low NOX burners when burning either coal or natural 
gas.\10\ In EPA's view, this information obtained directly from U.S. 
Steel rebuts Cliffs' claim that the

[[Page 8715]]

prototype low NOX burner tests were unsuccessful.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Email from U.S. Steel to EPA dated September 19, 2012 
(Docket  EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0037-0071).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nor is EPA persuaded by Cliffs and ArcelorMittal's arguments that 
the taconite furnaces at their facilities are unique to the extent that 
low NOX burner technology cannot be applied. While EPA 
understands that a complete engineering analysis will be required to 
design furnace-specific low NOX burners and that a shakedown 
period will be required to understand and optimize operations, EPA does 
not believe that the uniqueness of each individual taconite furnace 
proves technical infeasibility. The compliance times being finalized 
for each facility in this action account for engineering and shakedown 
time.
    Over the years, the taconite industry has demonstrated that it can 
re-engineer furnaces to adapt to market changes (such as fuel prices), 
process changes (to accommodate variation in the type of ore being 
mined), and new technologies (such as heat recuperation systems).\11\ 
It is clear that depending on the needs and priorities of each company, 
changes to the furnaces have and can be made.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For example, during the Society of Mining Engineers' Annual 
Meeting in New Orleans, Louisiana from March 2-6, 1986, a 
presentation was given titled ``Design and Performance of the 
National Steel Pellet Plant High Temperature Heat Recuperation 
System'' (Docket  EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0037-0077). The 
presentation discussed a high temperature heat recuperation system 
that was installed at the National Steel Pellet Company facility in 
Keewatin, Minnesota. The system was similar to those installed at 
Cliffs' Empire facility and U.S. Steel's Minntac facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to ArcelorMittal's comment that a proper feasibility 
analysis would demonstrate that the technologies selected by EPA are 
infeasible for Minorca's indurating furnace, EPA relies on a September 
27, 2012 report submitted by the commenter and authored by Fives North 
American titled ``Retrofitting Low NOX Burners on the 
ArcelorMittal Minorca Straight-Grate Pelletizing Furnaces.'' \12\ After 
review, EPA concludes that this report supports the Agency's conclusion 
that low NOX burners are feasible at the Minorca facility. 
EPA therefore disagrees with ArcelorMittal's assertion that such 
technology is infeasible. Fives North American was engaged to perform 
an engineering study and recommend best options for retrofitting low 
NOX burners at the pelletizing furnace at the Minorca plant 
in order to achieve NOX emission rates below 1.2 lbs 
NOX/MMBtu under expected operating conditions. Fives 
expressed confidence that the company's experience in manufacturing low 
NOX burners, coupled with the successful results of the \1/
4\-scale test at Essar, provided sufficient assurance that the 
technology could be applied at Minorca while preserving pellet quality 
and energy efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Docket  EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0037-0037.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Comments Concerning EPA's Cost Analysis for Low NOX 
Burners
    Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine.
    Comment: Cliffs commented that EPA presumed that low NOX 
burners will cost $500/ton at every Cliffs facility despite the fact 
that none of these facilities identified low NOX burners as 
technically feasible. EPA's $500/ton across-the-board cost estimate for 
NOX control was neither explained in the proposed rule nor 
supported by the record.
    Response: EPA did not presume that low NOX burners will 
cost $500/ton at every Cliffs facility. EPA's proposed rule stated that 
``[b]ased on the range of cost-effectiveness values provided, a 
conservative value of $500/ton will be used as the cost-effectiveness 
value for low NOX burners'' (77 FR 49308, 49312). Data made 
available by U.S. Steel indicate the cost-effectiveness of low 
NOX burners on Minntac's Line 6 indurating furnace was $441/
ton of NOX reduced with burning a 60 percent coal/40 percent 
natural gas fuel mix and $221/ton of NOX reduced when 
burning 100 percent natural gas. Barr Engineering and Essar Steel 
Minnesota have estimated a cost-effectiveness of $370/ton of 
NOX reduced for low NOX burner technology on a 
planned straight-grate natural gas-fired furnace.\13\ This furnace is 
being designed to meet a much more stringent emission limit of 0.25 lbs 
NOX/MMBtu, compared to EPA's proposed limit of 1.2 lbs 
NOX/MMBtu. Thus, EPA's value of $500/ton represents a high-
end estimate of expected cost-effectiveness of the selected 
NOX BART controls and is based on itemized costs and annual 
NOX emissions reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Essar and Barr Presentation for Society for Mining, 
Metallurgy and Exploration, Duluth, Minnesota, April 2012 (Docket 
 EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0037-0039).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Comments Concerning the Effectiveness of Low NOX Burners
    Commenter: U.S. Steel.
    Comment: U.S. Steel commented that, based upon its experience, the 
appropriate emission factor when burning solid fuels is 1.5 lbs 
NOX/MMBtu, as opposed to the proposed NOX limit 
of 1.2 lbs NOX/MMBtu. U.S. Steel supplemented its comment on 
October 15, 2012 with data that support a limit of 1.2 lbs 
NOX/MMBtu while burning natural gas and 1.5 lbs 
NOX/MMBtu while burning solid fuels. U.S. Steel proposed 
that it be subject to the solid fuel limit, unless it utilizes 100 
percent natural gas as a fuel for 30 consecutive days. The natural gas 
limit would then apply and it would remain subject to that limit until 
such time that solid fuels were utilized.
    Response: Based on a review of the data submitted by U.S. Steel, 
EPA agrees to revise the NOX limits in the final rule to 1.2 
lbs NOX/MMBtu while an indurating furnace is burning 100 
percent natural gas and 1.5 lbs NOX/MMBtu when fuels other 
than natural gas are being used. This revision primarily affects U.S. 
Steel Keetac, U.S. Steel Minntac, and United Taconite.
    Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine.
    Comment: Cliffs commented that EPA made an unsupported presumption 
that an emission limit of 1.2 lbs NOX/MMBtu is equivalent to 
a 70 percent NOX reduction at every Cliffs facility and that 
all taconite furnaces emit NOX at an uncontrolled baseline 
rate of 4.0 lbs NOX/mmBTU in disregard of furnace 
variability.
    Response: The NOX emission limit that EPA proposed was 
1.2 lbs NOX/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling average. This emission 
limit was not based on a percent reduction requirement, but rather was 
based on a demonstration by U.S. Steel that low NOX burners 
installed at the Minntac facility could achieve this emission limit. 
This limit is further supported for straight-grate kilns by successful 
testing of a low NOX burner prototype at a 1/4-scale test 
rig at Essar. It is standard industry practice to perform pilot tests, 
in which the results of a smaller unit are scaled up to a full 
production unit. Furthermore, in this case the company was extremely 
confident that, based upon the results with the 1/4-scale test rig, a 
limit much lower than 1.2 lbs NOX/MMBtu could be achieved on 
the full production unit. However, based on additional test data of 
operational low NOX burners submitted by U.S. Steel for 
Lines 6 and 7 at Minntac, EPA is revising its proposed limit of 1.2 lbs 
NOX/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling average. In the final rule, 
taconite indurating furnaces are subject to a limit of 1.2 lbs 
NOX/MMBtu when only natural gas is burned and 1.5 lbs 
NOX/MMBtu when fuels other than natural gas are used. Both 
of these limits are based on a 30-day rolling average.

H. Comments Concerning Non-Air Quality Impacts of Low NOX 
Burners

1. Effect on Pellet Quality
    Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine.

[[Page 8716]]

    Comment: Cliffs commented that pellet quality cannot be maintained 
after the installation of low NOX burner technology.
    Response: EPA disagrees. Based on data supplied by U.S. Steel, EPA 
has concluded that there will be no pellet quality challenges resulting 
from the installation and operation of low NOX burner 
technology. In an email sent by U.S. Steel to EPA on September 19, 
2012, U.S. Steel indicated that pellet quality specifications have not 
changed since the installation of low NOX burners, with zero 
off-spec shipments to date.\14\ There have been no adverse pellet 
quality issues related to the installation and operation of the low 
NOX burners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Docket  EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0037-0071.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    U.S. Steel is required to maintain four pellet quality parameters, 
after tumble, compressions, reducibility, and low temperature 
disintegration (LTD), to meet customer specifications. U.S. Steel 
supplied EPA with data confirming that pellet quality parameters were 
acceptable after the installation of the Line 6 low NOX 
burner (Table 1). U.S. Steel also included more recent quality 
parameter data to show that quality continues to remain acceptable. 
U.S. Steel noted that while compressions have decreased, this has been 
observed on all process lines, including those without low 
NOX burners, thus indicating an issue with the feed material 
and not the burners. As also shown, U.S. Steel saw an improvement in 
reducibility for their pellets after the installation, which U.S. Steel 
attributes to improved heat distribution in the kiln from the low 
NOX burner.

                 Table 1--Line 6 Pellet Quality Before and After the Low NOX Burner Installation
                                    (Higher values represent better quality)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   After tumble     Compression    Reducibility         LTD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before (11/1/10-4/3/11).........................            96.0             416            1.15           87.30
After (4/20/11-10/31/11)........................            96.0             417            1.22           85.58
1/1/12-9/1/12...................................            96.2             410            1.22           86.11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Fuel Penalty and Energy Penalty
    Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine.
    Comment: Cliffs commented that a fuel penalty and an energy penalty 
will result from the operation of low NOX burner technology 
at its facilities. Additional fans will be required to increase primary 
air flow through the furnaces because the cooler air that is injected 
into the burner to control peak flame temperature must be heated. EPA 
made an unsupported presumption that low NOX burners will 
cause no fuel or energy penalties or other emissions increases at any 
of the facilities.
    Response: EPA disagrees. The installation and use of low 
NOX burners is not generally considered to result in an 
energy penalty because one burner is merely being replaced by another. 
EPA recognizes that there is an increase in electricity needed for the 
operation of low NOX burner fans to assist in movement of 
air through the system or to heat cooler air that is injected into the 
burner. These costs can in most cases simply be factored into the cost 
impacts analysis as they were in this case for both NOX and 
SO2 controls.
    EPA believes that a low NOX burner installation that is 
properly engineered and optimized for a given process will not result 
in a fuel or energy penalty. EPA's conclusion is based on the U.S. 
Steel Minntac Line 6 Low NOX Main Burner & Facility 
NOX Management Final Report (December 1, 2011),\15\ which 
documented that low NOX burners did not cause fuel penalties 
or other emission impacts. In addition, EPA consulted with a burner 
manufacturer and reviewed information provided by U.S. Steel regarding 
potential fuel impacts potentially associated with the operation of low 
NOX burners at a taconite facility.\16\ In this 
correspondence, U.S. Steel Minntac stated that there was a temporary 
10.5 percent fuel increase after initial installation of the low 
NOX burner on Line 7. However, during the shakedown period, 
the fuel increase was alleviated by process optimization (there was a 
learning curve due to the fact that this was the first low 
NOX burner installed on an iron ore processing line) and 
balancing the process airflow. The waste gas fan on Line 7 was running 
at maximum before the burner installation and with the addition of 
combustion air, the process efficiency decreased and safety issues were 
created. To alleviate this condition, the waste gas fan airflow 
capacity was increased in February 2011 on Line 7 to balance the 
airflow out of the process. In April 2011, the Line 6 low 
NOX burner was installed at U.S. Steel's Minntac facility. 
After applying what was learned during the shakedown period on Line 7, 
no increase in process fuel occurred after the installation. U.S. Steel 
clearly states in its September 19, 2012 email to EPA, ``The end result 
is there is no increase in process fuel due to the installation of the 
Line 7 low NOX burner.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Docket  EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0037-0039.
    \16\ U.S. Steel email to EPA dated September 19, 2012 (Docket 
 EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0037-0071).
    \17\ Docket  EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0037-0071.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, based on available data, EPA believes that with process 
optimization, proper balancing of process air flows, and proper 
engineering, Cliffs and ArcelorMittal will be able to achieve similar 
fuel usage to U.S. Steel and will not incur either a fuel or energy 
penalty. EPA understands that each company will require a shakedown 
period similar to that experienced at U.S. Steel and has set the 
compliance schedules each facility accordingly.
3. Increases in the Emission of Other Pollutants
    Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine.
    Comment: Cliffs commented that emissions of other pollutants will 
increase due to the installation of low NOX burner 
technology.
    Response: EPA has determined that there will be no increases in 
collateral pollutants due to the installation of low NOX 
burner technology. In making this determination, EPA relied on the 
information supplied by MPCA, U.S. Steel, Coen Company, Inc., and 
Hatch, as described below.
    In a letter dated November 3, 2009 from Coen Company, Inc., Coen 
stated:

    As we have indicated, the kiln burner that we proposed to supply 
for the above referenced project will not produce more CO as 
compared with what is being produced by the existing burner. The 
reason is: carbon monoxide (CO) is formed from lack of fast mixing 
of NO and oxidant (O2) and chemical kinetics of the 
reaction that is highly dependent on temperature and O2 
concentration. The Coen multi-fuel burner is being designed for 
higher stoichiometric air (1.00) as compared with the existing 
burner which has a stoichiometric air of about 0.3 only. Hence, the 
Coen burner design

[[Page 8717]]

promotes a higher amount of premixing of O2 (oxidant) 
with fuel to reduce CO production. The flame temperature in both 
cases is high enough so the oxidation of CO is not kinetically 
limited. So the new burner design is not kinetically-limited for CO 
oxidation and the increased premixing in the primary zone will 
reduce CO emissions.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Docket  EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0037-0071.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, in a letter dated November 6, 2009 from Hatch to U.S. 
Steel, Hatch stated: ``Since USS Minntac plans to continue using their 
current fuels, fuel mixes, and fuel firing rates in conjunction with 
the low NOX burners, with the exception of NOX, 
Hatch does not anticipate any change in the emissions of applicable 
pollutants. Substantial reduction of NOX emissions is also 
anticipated.''\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Docket  EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0037-0071.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, in a letter to U.S. Steel dated November 20, 2009, Owen 
Seltz, Engineer, Metallic Mining Section, Industrial Division, MPCA, 
stated:

    Generally, when a reduction in NOX emissions from 
fuel combustion is proposed, the pollutant of concern for potential 
increase is carbon monoxide (CO). However, due to the design of the 
proposed low NOX main burner, CO emissions are not 
anticipated to increase. Furthermore, as explained in the 
manufacturers' letters dated November 3, 2009, and November 6, 2009 
and submitted to the MPCA in Minntac's November 12, 2009 letter, due 
to the design and operation of the proposed burner, CO emissions are 
expected to decrease.\20\

    \20\ Docket  EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0037-0071.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on these assurances, EPA is confident that there will be no 
increases in other pollutants as a result of the installation of low 
NOX burner technology as Cliffs claims.

I. Comments Concerning Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) BART Emission 
Limits

    Commenter: National Parks Conservation Association.
    Comment: NPCA commented that the proposed limits for six of the 
units (at Northshore, ArcelorMittal, and Hibbing) specifically do not 
apply when burning fuel oil. This loophole undermines the purpose of a 
BART analysis and contradicts the CAA requirement for BART to be met on 
a continuous basis. The final determination must include a limit that 
encompasses the burning of fuel oil at these facilities.
    Response: Northshore, ArcelorMittal, and Hibbing are straight-grate 
indurating furnaces and do not burn coal. The primary fuel at these 
facilities is natural gas. As a result, these facilities have 
inherently low SO2 emissions. Fuel oil is used only as a 
backup fuel. Due to its limited use, there was insufficient test data 
to set a corresponding SO2 emission limit for periods when 
fuel oil is being burned. EPA set the SO2 emission limits 
based on available data. For the straight-grate facilities, data was 
only available for periods in which the furnaces were combusting 
natural gas. In order to address this issue, EPA has added a regulatory 
requirement for affected sources to track their use of fuel oil and the 
resulting SO2 emissions. This information will be used as 
the basis for any restrictions that will need to be added, e.g. sulfur 
content, on the use of fuel oil. These requirements are contained in 
Sec. Sec.  52.1183(k)(4) and 52.1235(b)(2)(7).
    Commenter: Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ).
    Comment: MDEQ commented that it had based its acceptance of 
Tilden's BART submittal for SO2 on the lack of visibility 
impairment due to SO2 emissions.
    Response: In the final rule, EPA is no longer requiring add-on 
controls at the Tilden facility because Tilden has agreed to switch 
fuels to natural gas within one year of the effective date of this 
rule.
    Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine.
    Comment: Cliffs commented that EPA should use the methods proposed 
by Minnesota to set emission limits, citing the limits the state set 
for the Hibbing Taconite and ArcelorMittal facilities. Cliffs contended 
that EPA's proposed SO2 emission limits are unsupported and 
arbitrary. Cliffs objected to the limits set by EPA because they appear 
to be based on results from a single stack test, which represents a 
snapshot in time. Further, the limits ignore a significant amount of 
available data and bypass the statistical analysis conducted by MPCA.
    Response: In the Agency's review of Minnesota's regional haze SIP 
supplement, EPA concluded that the limits for taconite facilities 
proposed by Minnesota do not accurately represent the current level of 
controls at the facilities. For ArcelorMittal and Hibbing Taconite, 
Minnesota appears to have set the limit in pounds of SO2 per 
long ton (LT) of pellets produced based on a 30-day rolling average, 
using the Upper Predictive Limit (UPL) approach for normally 
distributed data. Minnesota did not demonstrate an accurate method to 
track or record LT of pellets produced. Therefore, the limits proposed 
by Minnesota are unenforceable. EPA also concluded that the annual 
testing requirement proposed by the state is insufficient to determine 
compliance with a limit based on a 30-day rolling average. In this 
action, EPA is finalizing SO2 limits for taconite facilities 
in terms of lbs SO2/hr based on a 30-day rolling average, 
which can be easily and accurately measured using the continuous 
emissions monitoring system (CEMS) required by this rule.
    EPA does agree that the UPL approach is an appropriate method for 
setting the SO2 limits. However, the available 
SO2 emissions data for the taconite sources generally do not 
follow a normal, logarithmic, or gamma distribution. For this reason, 
the UPL should be determined using a nonparametric method, as set forth 
below. EPA used available stack test and CEMS data from 1990 to the 
present to recalculate the SO2 limits for ArcelorMittal and 
Hibbing, based on the appropriate UPL equation for nonparametric data, 
in terms of lbs SO2/hr on a 30-day rolling average as 
follows:

UPL = xm and m = (n + 1)*(1 - a)

Where:

xm = value of the mth data point, when the data is sorted smallest 
to largest
m = the rank of the ordered data point, when data is sorted smallest 
to largest
n = number of data points
a = 95th percentile or 0.95

    If m is not a whole number, a linear interpolation is calculated 
from the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06FE13.001


Where:
mi = the integer portion of m, i.e., m truncated at zero decimal 
places, and
md = the decimal portion of m

    In this final rule, EPA is setting a limit of 38.16 lbs 
SO2/hr for indurating furnace EU026 at ArcelorMittal. This 
limit must be measured on a 30-day rolling average and does not apply 
when the subject unit is burning fuel oil. For Hibbing, EPA is 
finalizing an aggregate limit of 247.8 lbs SO2/hr based on a 
limit of 82.60 lbs SO2/hr for each of the three affected 
lines: EU020, EU021, and

[[Page 8718]]

EU022. This limit is also measured on a 30-day rolling average and does 
not apply when the subject unit is burning fuel oil.
    Because of limited stack test data for Hibbing and ArcelorMittal, 
these sources may, within 20 months of the effective date of this rule, 
calculate a revised SO2 limit based on one year of hourly 
CEMS data, reported in lbs SO2/hr, and submit such limit, 
calculations, and CEMS data to EPA. This limit shall be set in terms of 
lbs SO2/hr, based on the non-parametric UPL equations set 
forth above, with compliance to be determined on a 30-day rolling 
average.
    Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources.
    Comment: Cliffs submitted alternate SO2 limits for 
Hibbing based on the UPL equation for normally distributed data.
    Response: While EPA agrees that the UPL approach is the appropriate 
method for setting the SO2 limits, EPA disagrees with the 
alternate SO2 limits submitted by the Cliffs for the Hibbing 
facility. Cliffs did not specify whether its suggested limit was daily, 
instantaneous, or on a 30-day rolling average. But in any case, the 
limit submitted by Cliffs for Hibbing appears to be calculated using 
the UPL equation for normally distributed data, a p-value of 0.01 
(which would represent a 99.5 percent confidence interval) and m = 1. 
This is incorrect. According to the UPL method, m represents the number 
of future runs (i.e., the number of future data points). As the data 
sets being used in the analyses are one-hour CEMS averages, the value 
of m should be 720 (30 days times 24 hours) if the limit being set is a 
30-day rolling average. Even if compliance is based on the average 
value of an annual performance test rather than a 30-day rolling 
average, Minnesota's annual performance testing requires 30 hourly data 
points, which would result in a value of 30 for m. Cliffs also appears 
to have combined all stacks for each line and averaged all test runs 
for each set of test data to arrive at one data point for each set of 
test data, resulting in only 10 data points rather than 720 to 
calculate the UPL.
    In addition, although the raw test data provided SO2 
emissions levels in terms of lbs SO2/hr, Cliffs calculated 
the UPL in terms of lbs SO2/LT pellets and then converted 
the SO2 limit back into lbs SO2/hr by using the 
maximum design capacity of each line rather than the actual production 
data collected during testing.
    Thus, EPA disagrees with this methodology. The alternate emission 
limit proposed by Cliffs is significantly higher than the limit that 
would result from the correct application of the UPL equation for 
normally distributed data. Further, some of the available data for the 
Hibbing facility are normally distributed, while other data are not. As 
noted previously, the available SO2 emissions data for the 
taconite industry in general do not follow a normal, logarithmic, or 
gamma distribution. For this reason, EPA is using the nonparametric UPL 
equation to calculate the SO2 emission limits.
    Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources.
    Comment: Cliffs objected to the proposed 80 percent SO2 
reduction requirement for Northshore, noting that an SO2 
emission limit was also set for the facility. Cliffs contended that EPA 
failed to cite any justification for the requirement and failed to 
explain why an 80 percent reduction in SO2 emissions should 
be required for Northshore when a similar reduction was not required 
for any other facility. Cliffs asserted that Northshore's 
SO2 emissions have a de minimis impact on visibility, so 
imposing multiple layers of control requirements would be arbitrary and 
unnecessary.
    Response: Northshore is subject to BART based on the visibility 
impacts that were described in the proposal rule. The document entitled 
``Northshore Mining Company Analysis of Best Available Retrofit 
Technology (BART)'' submitted to MPCA on behalf of Northshore Mining 
states that ``WWESPs are currently in place on the furnace exhausts and 
are believed to remove 80 to 95 percent of the SO2 in the 
exhaust.'' \21\ Thus, 80 percent is on the low end of the removal 
efficiency range estimated by Northshore, not an arbitrary number 
selected by EPA. Further, in a CAA section 114 request to Cliffs and 
Northshore Mining, EPA requested copies of all stack tests conducted on 
any emissions unit for any reason, including all test runs, even if a 
full test series was not completed. In its response to EPA, Cliffs did 
not provide any SO2 test data for the subject-to-BART 
furnaces at Northshore. Without this emissions data, EPA believes using 
Northshore Mining's prior estimate of 80 to 95 percent control 
efficiency on its furnace exhausts EPA to impose an 80 percent 
emissions reduction requirement on stacks SV101, SV102, SV103, SV104, 
SV105, SV111, SV112, SV113, SV114, and SV115 was appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Docket  EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0037-0034 (p. 24).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsequent to the public comment period, Cliffs provided EPA with 
limited SO2 emissions data for Northshore and proposed an 
aggregate limit of 39.0 lbs SO2/hr based on a limit of 19.5 
lbs SO2/hr per line. Cliffs' proposed limit is slightly 
higher than the limit EPA calculated using the new data and the UPL 
equation for nonparametric data. However, EPA believes it is reasonable 
to set an aggregate limit of 39.0 lbs SO2/hr, measured on a 
30-day rolling average, and to require the source to recalculate this 
limit when CEMS data are available.
    As stated previously, this limit does not apply when the facility 
is burning fuel oil. In order to address this issue, EPA has added a 
regulatory requirement for affected sources to track their use of fuel 
oil and the resulting SO2 emissions. This information will 
be used as the basis for any restrictions that will need to be added, 
e.g. sulfur content, on the use of fuel oil. These requirements are 
contained in sections 52.1183(k)(4) and 52.1235(b)(2)(7).
    In summary, this final rule establishes an aggregate SO2 
emission limit of 39.0 lbs SO2/hour, measured on a 30-day 
rolling average, for Furnace 11 and Furnace 12 at Northshore. Within 20 
months of the effective date of this rule, the owner or operator must 
calculate a revised SO2 limit based on one year of hourly 
CEMS emissions data reported in lbs SO2/hr and submit such 
limit, calculations, and data to EPA. This limit shall be set in terms 
of lbs SO2/hr, based on the non-parametric UPL equations 
previously set forth by EPA, with compliance to be determined on a 30-
day rolling average. EPA agrees with the commenter that an 80 percent 
reduction requirement is no longer needed because it is redundant in 
light of the final lbs SO2/hr emission limit. Consequently, 
this final rule does not require an additional 80 percent emissions 
reduction requirement at Northshore.
    Commenter: National Park Service and Cliffs Natural Resources.
    Comment: NPS supported EPA's proposal to require FGD as BART for 
SO2 at the United Taconite and Tilden facilities, agreeing 
with EPA's cost-effectiveness calculations.
    Cliffs, on the other hand, disagreed with EPA's cost-effectiveness 
calculations for the United Taconite and Tilden facilities. Subsequent 
to the public comment period, Cliffs proposed switching fuels as an 
alternative to installing FGD scrubbers. Cliffs proposed a combined 
limit of 529 lbs SO2/hr for Lines 1 and 2 at the United 
Taconite facility, with compliance to be determined on a 30-day rolling 
average, beginning in 54 months. To meet this limit, the United 
Taconite furnaces will burn low-sulfur fuels, including increased use 
of natural gas. For Tilden, Cliffs proposed switching operation to

[[Page 8719]]

100 percent natural gas within 12 months with an emissions limit to be 
set after a year of CEMS data become available.
    Response: Subsequent to the proposed rule, Cliffs has agreed to a 
federally enforceable aggregate emission limit of 529 lbs 
SO2/hr, based on a 30-day rolling average, at United 
Taconite, based on the use of low-sulfur fuels. Cliffs has also agreed 
to convert to the use of 100 percent natural gas at Tilden. Because 
Tilden will now be restricted to the use of 100 percent natural gas, 
requiring the installation of SO2 controls is no longer 
economically feasible or necessary. Similarly, in light of the 
reduction in SO2 emissions that will result from the use of 
low-sulfur fuels at United Taconite, the cost effectiveness of 
additional controls has increased to $12,021 per ton for Line 1 and 
$7,680 per ton for Line 2. Thus, EPA believes that the installation of 
such controls is no longer economically feasible. In addition to the 
emission limit proposed by Cliffs, to ensure the use of low-sulfur 
fuels and SO2 reductions resulting from the use of low-
sulfur fuels at United Taconite, EPA is also requiring that the 
facility burn either natural gas or a blend of natural gas and coal. 
EPA is also establishing a limitation on the coal to be used by 
requiring the coal have a sulfur content no greater than 0.60 percent 
sulfur by weight based on a monthly block average. The requirement for 
a sampling and calculation methodology for determining this value is 
contained within the monitoring plan as required in section 
52.1235(e)(8)(x). In summary, EPA is no longer requiring FGD at United 
Taconite and Tilden as BART for SO2 in this final rule.
    Commenter: U.S. Steel.
    Comment: U.S. Steel proposed several alternate lbs SO2/
hr limits for its Minntac facility. These limits were calculated by 
applying a 99 percent confidence interval utilizing three years of CEMS 
data. U.S. Steel also proposed alternate limits for producing flux 
versus acid pellets due to scrubber inefficiencies during acid pellet 
production.
    U.S. Steel proposed, as its first choice, an aggregate limit of 498 
lbs SO2/hr, on a 30-day rolling average, when all five lines 
are producing flux pellets; an aggregate limit of 630 lbs 
SO2/hr, on a 30-day rolling average, when Lines 3-5 are 
producing acid pellets and Lines 6 and 7 are producing flux pellets; 
and an aggregate limit of 800 lbs SO2/hr, on a 30-day 
rolling average, when all five lines are producing acid pellets. U.S. 
steel also proposed partially aggregated limits and line-by-line limits 
for acid pellets and flux pellets. Finally, U.S. Steel proposed that 
the limit for acid pellets be in effect during acid production and for 
30 days thereafter due to the 30-day rolling average.
    Response: EPA compared the limits proposed by U.S. Steel to the 
limit EPA calculated with the non-parametric UPL method and found them 
to be comparable. EPA also agrees with the need for a higher limit for 
acid pellet production.
    Therefore, in this final rule, the SO2 emission limits 
for U.S. Steel's Minntac facility are 498 lbs SO2/hr on 
Lines 3-7 when all lines are producing flux pellets; 630 lbs 
SO2/hr when Lines 3-5 are producing acid pellets and Lines 6 
and 7 are producing flux pellets; and 800 lbs SO2/hr on 
Lines 3-7 when all lines are producing acid pellets. All limits are 
calculated on a 30-day rolling average.
    However, EPA does not agree that the limit for acid pellets should 
apply during acid production and for 30 days thereafter and thus has 
not made this change in the final rule. The emission limit for a given 
30-day rolling average period will be calculated using a weighted 
average as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06FE13.002

Where:
L30 = the limit for a given 30-day averaging period
nf = the number of days in the 30-day period that the facility is 
producing flux pellets on Lines 3-7
naf = the number of days in the 30-day period that the facility is 
producing acid pellets on Lines 3-5 and flux pellets on Lines 6 and 
7
na = the number of days in the 30-day period that the facility is 
producing acid pellets on Lines 3-7

    Commenter: U.S. Steel and Cliffs Natural Resources.
    Comment: Cliffs and U.S. Steel commented that it is inappropriate 
to use a seven percent oxygen correction for emission limits that are 
not concentration based.
    Response: EPA agrees with the commenters that the use of a seven 
percent oxygen correction is not necessary when the subject-to-BART 
facilities elect to comply with an emission limit measured in pounds of 
pollutant per million British thermal units or pounds of pollutant per 
hour.
    Commenter: U.S. Steel.
    Comment: U.S. Steel requested that the pH and SO2 
removal efficiency limits for its Keetac facility be deleted because 
they are redundant with the lbs SO2/hr limit.
    Response: EPA agrees with U.S. Steel and has deleted the pH and 
SO2 removal efficiency limits from the final rule.
    Commenter: Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe.
    Comment: At United Taconite and Tilden, limiting SO2 to 
5 parts per million by volume or requiring the facilities to meet a 95 
percent reduction requirement, on a 30-day rolling average, using dry 
FGD is achievable and cost-effective.
    Commenter: Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewas.
    Comment: The Red Cliff Band supported EPA's proposed requirement 
for additional SO2 controls in select facilities.
    Commenter: National Tribal Air Association.
    Comment: The Association agreed with using existing SO2 
controls for those taconite facilities where it would be cost 
prohibitive to convert to a different technology that would only 
achieve nominal SO2 reductions. However, in the case of the 
United Taconite and Tilden facilities, the Association found it 
relatively inexpensive to use dry FGD to limit SO2 to 5 
parts per million by volume or to meet a 95 percent reduction 
requirement on a 30-day rolling average.
    Commenter: National Park Service.
    Comment: NPS supported EPA's proposal to require FGD as BART for 
SO2 at the United Taconite and Tilden facilities, agreeing 
with EPA's cost effectiveness calculations and compliance schedule.
    Response: EPA agrees with the commenters that under current 
operating conditions, FGD is a cost-effective control option for the 
grate-kiln furnaces at United Taconite and Tilden and represents BART. 
However, subsequent to the public comment period, Cliffs proposed 
switching fuels as an alternative to installing FGD scrubbers. Cliffs 
has since agreed to federally enforceable limits on the types of fuels 
that may be burned at these facilities. In this final rule, the United 
Taconite furnaces must burn a combination of natural gas and low-sulfur 
coal and Tilden will now burn 100 percent natural gas. Given these 
changes, EPA has determined that requiring the installation of 
SO2 controls is no longer economically feasible or 
necessary.

J. Comments Concerning the Visibility Analysis and Visibility Impacts

    Commenter: Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa.
    Comment: Tables V-C.l0 to V-C.l5 of the FIP demonstrate the changes 
in visibility that could be expected from the use of low NOX 
burners. While these are only predictions, the expected improvements in 
visibility in the

[[Page 8720]]

Boundary Waters Canoe and Wilderness Area, Voyageurs National Park, and 
Isle Royale National Park strongly support the use of this technology 
at the subject-to-BART taconite plants.
    Response: EPA agrees that the BART emission limits have the 
potential to result in significant improvement in visibility at the 
affected Class I areas.
    Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine.
    Comment: Cliffs commented that EPA did not conduct a proper 
analysis of visibility impacts.
    Response: EPA disagrees. EPA's visibility estimates provide ample 
evidence that the visibility impacts of each subject-to-BART taconite 
facility are substantial enough to warrant the selected BART controls. 
EPA's responses to the individual criticisms raised by the commenters 
on our visibility analysis are discussed in further detail below.
    Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine.
    Comment: Cliffs commented that the proposed rule directly 
contravened the instructions given to EPA in American Corn Growers v. 
EPA. In particular, Cliffs asserted that EPA's method is a 
``bifurcated'' approach to visibility that was rejected in that 
decision. In Cliffs' view, the American Corn Growers court rejected a 
bifurcated approach in which visibility impacts are treated differently 
than the other four BART factors. Cliffs noted that for each taconite 
source, EPA separated its analysis into two distinct sections. Section 
V.B. of the proposed rule analyzed the first four factors, while EPA 
separately analyzed visibility improvement in Section V.C. for 
whichever technology emerged from the four-factor analysis in Section 
V.B. Thus, in Cliffs' view, the real-world visibility impacts were, at 
most, a secondary consideration that could not have influenced the 
evaluation of BART alternatives.
    Response: EPA disagrees. The ``bifurcation'' referred to in the 
American Corn Growers decision related to EPA's use of a regional, 
multi-source, group approach to determining the degree of visibility 
improvement, while analyzing the other four statutory factors on a 
source-specific basis. The American Corn Growers court held that the 
visibility analysis must not be treated differently and must be a 
source-specific analysis. Since that decision, EPA and states have 
consistently conducted the visibility prong of the five-factor analysis 
on a source-specific basis. In this instance, although EPA presented 
its visibility analysis in a separate section of the proposed rule, the 
Agency conducted the analysis on a source-specific basis consistent 
with the holding in American Corn Growers.
    EPA also disagrees that visibility was a secondary consideration in 
its analysis. EPA's analysis shows that based on the all of the BART 
factors, including visibility, the selected controls are warranted. If 
highly reasonable and cost-effective controls had been available but 
visibility benefits were slight, EPA would have rejected those 
controls. Section V.B. of the proposed rule demonstrated that 
reasonable and cost-effective controls were available. Section V.C. 
then showed that the visibility benefits to be obtained by requiring 
controls at each source were significant. Site-specific visibility 
improvement estimates for each source, derived from regional modeling 
conducted by the state of Minnesota on a variety of sources in the 
area, demonstrated that the significant reductions EPA proposed will 
produce significant visibility improvement in affected Class I areas.
    Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine.
    Comment: Cliffs commented that the approach EPA used in the 
proposed rule to estimate visibility impacts was arbitrary because it 
was not site-specific. Rather than extrapolating results from other 
facilities, EPA should have conducted modeling for the specific sources 
being regulated. The BART Guidelines instruct EPA to conduct modeling 
using CALPUFF or other appropriate dispersion models for each source 
and highlight the importance of source-specific features, such as stack 
flow rate and release height. EPA's use of ``visibility impact ratios'' 
derived from other sources is not consistent with EPA's own guidelines 
and provides results that are too unreliable for the purpose of a BART 
visibility analysis. In using the visibility impact ratio approach, EPA 
is holding itself to a lower standard than it would expect from a state 
air quality agency conducting a similar BART review.
    Response: EPA's proposed rule acknowledged that there is greater 
uncertainty associated with the visibility impact ratio approach. 
Nonetheless, EPA finds this approach to be consistent the BART 
Guidelines allowance for ``appropriate'' models and believes the 
approach provides adequate indication of the visibility benefits of the 
evaluated controls.
    Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine.
    Comment: Cliffs commented that EPA's visibility analysis was 
inconsistent with the statutory obligation to consider the degree of 
visibility improvement that is ``reasonably anticipated.'' In Cliffs' 
view, the use of ``possible'' impacts from an approach extrapolated 
from other facilities does not satisfy this statutory requirement to 
consider ``reasonably anticipated'' visibility impacts. In support of 
this view, Cliffs noted that EPA extrapolated visibility results from 
facilities other than taconite plants, such as an electric generating 
unit. Moreover, Cliffs found EPA's use of sources in the ``general 
area'' as unacceptable for the visibility analysis given that wind 
conditions would affect the taconite facilities differently than the 
facilities EPA relied upon. Additionally, the commenter noted 
differences in stack conditions between the taconite facilities being 
regulated and the sources that EPA relied upon.
    Response: EPA's proposed rule acknowledged the uncertainty 
associated with the visibility impact ratio approach, but noted that 
despite the uncertainties, the Agency was confident that the 
information was adequate to assess potential visibility improvements 
due to emissions reductions at the specific facilities. While the 
results obtained from this approach are not expected to be as precise 
as source-specific CALPUFF modeling, they are based on visibility 
improvements derived from existing regional scale modeling that was 
conducted on sources in and around the northern Minnesota area. Given 
the geographic proximity of the taconite facilities to those that were 
modeled, EPA believes that the ratio approach provided adequate 
assurance of the visibility improvements that can be expected from the 
proposed emission reductions.
    The results EPA obtained from its analysis are presented in terms 
of deciview (DV) change and change in the number of days above the 0.5 
DV threshold. In the proposed rule's summary of the impacts at Boundary 
Waters, Voyageurs, and Isle Royale, these values ranged from 1.3 to 7.1 
DVs of improvement with between 17 and 93 fewer days above the 0.5 DV 
threshold. Therefore, even if the ratio approach was over-estimating 
visibility improvements by a factor of two or three, the expected 
benefits would still be significant.
    For example, Cliffs submitted CALPUFF modeling that showed the 
visibility improvements expected from the proposed rule for two of the 
seven facilities--United Taconite and Tilden. This modeling was only 
performed at the most impacted of the four affected Class I areas. EPA 
also notes that these were the only facilities for which new

[[Page 8721]]

scrubbers were proposed as BART for SO2.
    The results of the Cliffs' modeling for United Taconite and Tilden 
are presented below. The first delta DV value is the subtraction of the 
two 98th percentile impacts (base minus FIP).

                Table 2--United Taconite Predicted Visibility Results for the Most Impacted Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Boundary
                                                     Boundary       waters 98th   Voyageurs days  Voyageurs 98th
                  Scenario/year                     Waters days     percentile      over 0.5 DV     percentile
                                                    over 0.5 DV      delta DV                        delta DV
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Difference/2002.................................              36           0.594              17           0.454
Difference/2003.................................              39           0.579              14           0.649
Difference/2004.................................              33           0.545              17           0.439
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                    Table 3--Tilden Predicted Visibility Results for the Most Impacted Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Isle 98th                      Seney 98th
                  Scenario/year                   Isle Days over    percentile      Seney days      percentile
                                                      0.5 DV         delta DV       over 0.5 DV      delta DV
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Difference/2002.................................               2           0.099               3           0.146
Difference/2003.................................               8           0.160               3           0.099
Difference/2004.................................               2           0.112               2           0.125
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The baseline emissions associated with the runs above totaled 
approximately 3,344 tons per year of SO2 and 3,129 tons per 
year of NOX for United Taconite, and approximately 1,563 
tons per year of SO2 and 2928 tons per year of 
NOX for Tilden. The post-control emissions totaled 
approximately 233 tons per year of SO2 and 2,435 tons per 
year of NOX for United Taconite, and approximately 174 tons 
per year of SO2 and 2,414 tons per year of NOX 
for Tilden. The United Taconite emissions were based on CEMS data 
collected under a 100-percent coal-firing scenario, while Tilden 
emissions were based on stack test information collected under a 
primarily coal-firing scenario.
    EPA believes that Cliffs' modeled baseline emission rates are low 
based on previous BART modeling and figures from the proposed rule. 
Expected post-control emissions reductions also appear to be 
underestimated. The proposed rule identified baseline emissions of 
approximately 5,330 tons per year for NOX and 4,043 tons per 
year for SO2 for United Taconite, and approximately 1,153 
tons per year of SO2 and 4,613 tons per year of 
NOX for Tilden. The BART Guidelines recommend that sources 
use the highest 24-hour average actual emission rate, for the most 
recent three or five year period of meteorological data, to 
characterize the maximum potential benefit. By using a low baseline 
emission rate, Cliffs' modeling underestimates the emissions reductions 
that will be achieved by the installation of BART controls and the 
resulting visibility improvements. However, even though the overall 
SO2 and NOX reductions modeled by Cliffs were 
over 50 percent lower than the reductions projected in the proposed 
rule,\22\ the results still showed significant visibility improvement 
at the Boundary Waters. Consequently, EPA believes that Cliffs' 
modeling provides further evidence that the visibility improvements 
predicted by the ratio approach are reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ This 50 percent discrepancy applies to United Taconite.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using the CALPUFF model input and meteorological data files 
submitted by Cliffs, EPA, with substantial assistance from the National 
Park Service, re-ran the baseline and control-case scenarios for United 
Taconite and Tilden with data from the proposed rule. For United 
Taconite, the baseline emissions of SO2 and NOX 
reflect the emissions presented in the proposed rule. The United 
Taconite control emissions for NOX were based on a 1.2 lbs 
NOX/MMBtu emission limit and heat inputs of 200 MMBtu/hr for 
line 1 and 260 MMBtu/hr for line 2. The United Taconite control 
emissions for SO2 were based on an approximate 94-percent 
reduction from the base case.\23\ For Tilden, the baseline emissions 
for both visibility pollutants were also based on those contained in 
the proposed rule. The Tilden control emissions for NOX were 
based on a conversion to 100 percent natural gas, with an 80 percent 
reduction from the baseline for SO2 and a 65 percent 
reduction for NOX. The results of this modeling are shown 
below, but only for the most impacted Class I area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ EPA notes that the control emissions for SO2 at 
United Taconite differ between those modeled and those that will be 
achieved based on the final rule because EPA is no longer requiring 
FGD as a result of the switch to low-sulfur fuels at the facility. 
This change will result in higher controlled emissions and would be 
expected to lower the visibility improvements demonstrated in the 
model slightly.

 Table 4--EPA Modeling--United Taconite Predicted Visibility Results for
                         the Most Impacted Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Boundary
                                                  Boundary   Waters 98th
                 Scenario/year                  Waters days   percentile
                                                over 0.5 DV    delta DV
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Difference/2002...............................           80        1.316
Difference/2003...............................           71        1.223
Difference/2004...............................           62        1.358
------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table 5--EPA Modeling--Tilden Predicted Visibility Results for the Most
                              Impacted Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Seney 98th
                 Scenario/year                   Seney days   percentile
                                                over 0.5 DV    delta DV
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Difference/2002...............................            0        0.320
Difference/2003...............................            0        0.206
Difference/2004...............................            1        0.165
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Again, EPA's CALPUFF modeling shows significant visibility 
improvement can be expected due to the installation of BART controls at 
United Taconite and Tilden. EPA believes that these results lend 
additional support to the accuracy of the visibility analysis that was 
performed for all facilities in the proposed rule. EPA stands by the 
results of its ratio approach and believes that it produced reasonable 
results for the sources examined.
    Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine.

[[Page 8722]]

    Comment: Cliffs commented that the proposed rule failed to properly 
integrate the visibility analysis with cost considerations and that EPA 
should have identified the costs of controls relative to the visibility 
improvement using a $/DV metric. In support of this view, Cliffs 
provided data showing that the costs per DV improvement are very high 
at two of its facilities: $65 million per DV at United Taconite and 
$140 million per DV at Tilden. Finally, Cliffs noted that FLMs have 
cited a threshold of $20 million per DV in correspondence with states, 
and that any figure beyond this threshold constitutes excessively high 
costs for the degree of visibility improvement achieved.
    Response: EPA disagrees that a cost per DV analysis was required. 
The BART Guidelines do not require EPA or the states to conduct such an 
analysis when evaluating the visibility improvement factor. While the 
BART Guidelines suggest cost per DV as a possible parameter for 
consideration, its use is entirely discretionary. There are numerous 
examples of BART analyses conducted by states and EPA that have not 
calculated this metric.
    Moreover, EPA believes that Cliffs' comment underestimates the 
visibility impacts from the two facilities that were modeled, leading 
to erroneous cost per DV figures. As was explained in detail in the 
response to the previous comment, Cliffs substantially underestimated 
the baseline emission rates at United Taconite and Tilden, which in 
turn resulted in emissions reduction estimates that are also too low. 
The BART Guidelines recommend that the highest 24-hour average actual 
emission rate, for the most recent three or five-year period of 
meteorological data, be used to calculate the maximum potential 
benefit. Overall, the emissions reductions predicted by Cliffs' 
modeling analysis were less than 50 percent of the emissions reductions 
projected by EPA for United Taconite.
    Finally, Cliffs' reference to the $20 million per DV threshold is 
misleading. The FLMs recommend that cost per DV be calculated 
cumulatively to include improvements at all affected Class I areas. 
Cliffs' analysis, on the other hand, only included visibility 
improvement at a single Class I area, thereby inflating its total cost 
per DV figures.
    Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine.
    Comment: Cliffs commented that NOX-related visibility 
improvements should be discounted because nitrate visibility impacts 
peak in the winter and winter-time visitation at the affected Class I 
areas is significantly less than during other times of the year. Cliffs 
noted that the BART Guidelines allow for consideration as to whether 
impacts occur ``during the tourist season.''
    Response: EPA agrees that nitrate impacts are more dominant in the 
winter. Nonetheless, daily nitrate impacts from April through October 
are not trivial. EPA also agrees that the BART Guidelines allow states 
to consider the timing of impacts in addition to other factors related 
to visibility impairment. However, states are not required to do so, 
and to our knowledge, neither Michigan nor Minnesota did so in their 
visibility analyses. EPA is not required to substitute a source's 
desired exercise of discretion for that of the states. Furthermore, 
when promulgating a FIP, EPA stands in the shoes of the state. In that 
capacity, EPA is not required to consider the seasonality of impacts 
and has chosen not to do so here. Taking into account visitation 
contradicts the goal of the regional haze rule of improving visibility 
on the 20 percent best and worst days. Indeed, EPA believes that the 
experiences of visitors who come to Class I areas during periods other 
than the peak visitation season are important and should not be 
discounted.
    Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine.
    Comment: Cliffs cited a number of other flaws in EPA's overall 
approach to visibility that it believed led to unreliable or overstated 
impacts from the taconite facilities. First, Cliffs asserted that EPA 
used natural visibility conditions that were ``too clear, excluding 
conditions such as fires, which had the effect of overstating the 
impacts of the facilities modeled relative to natural conditions. 
Second, Cliffs asserted that the chemistry in the current EPA-approved 
version of CALPUFF, as well as regional photochemical models such as 
CAMx, overestimates the impact of NOX emissions on 
visibility impairment. Cliffs argued that this is especially true for 
winter nitrate haze due to the models' static predictions of ammonia 
background concentrations that should vary seasonally to be in line 
with monitored observations. As a result, Cliffs concluded that the 
NOX emission reductions that will accompany the installation 
of BART are being improperly credited with visibility improvements that 
will not occur in the Minnesota and Michigan Class I areas. Finally, 
Cliffs cited real-world monitor studies as evidence that large sources 
that curtailed or shut down operations had little effect on visibility 
monitors. The first of these studies evaluated the changes in 
visibility monitoring at the Boundary Waters during periods of low 
operation at the taconite facilities during 2009. The second study 
evaluated changes in visibility monitoring at the Grand Canyon after 
shutdown of the Mohave Power Plant.
    Response: EPA disagrees with these purported flaws in our approach, 
many of which have been raised in the context of other states' BART 
determinations. Regarding the issue of natural background conditions, 
similar issues were addressed in EPA's action on the North Dakota 
regional haze SIP (77 FR 20909, April 6, 2012). EPA recognizes that 
variability in natural sources of visibility impairment cause 
variability in natural haze levels as described in the Agency's 
``Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions under the 
Regional Haze Rule.'' \24\ Progress toward natural visibility in Class 
I areas includes improvement toward natural conditions for the 20 
percent worst days and no degradation of visibility on the 20 percent 
best days. The use of the 20 percent worst days in the calculation of 
the uniform rate of progress takes into consideration visibility 
impairment from wild fires, windblown dust, and other natural sources 
of haze. For the evaluation of visibility impacts for BART sources, 
however, EPA recommends using the natural visibility baseline for the 
20 percent best days for comparison to the ``cause or contribute'' 
applicability thresholds. This estimated baseline is reasonably 
conservative and consistent with the goal of attaining natural 
visibility conditions. While EPA recognizes that there are natural 
sources of haze, the use of the 20 percent worst days is inappropriate 
for the ``cause or contribute'' applicability thresholds. For example, 
if visibility impacts were evaluated in comparison to days with very 
poor natural visibility resulting from nearby wild fires or dust 
storms, the impacts of BART sources would be significantly reduced 
relative to these

[[Page 8723]]

poor natural visibility conditions and would not be protective of 
natural visibility on the 20 percent best days.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under 
the Regional Haze Rule, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
(September 2003), available at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf. ``Natural visibility conditions 
represent the long-term degree of visibility that is estimated to 
exist in a given mandatory Federal Class I area in the absence of 
human-caused impairment. It is recognized that natural visibility 
conditions are not constant, but rather they vary with changing 
natural processes (e.g., windblown dust, fire, volcanic activity, 
biogenic emissions). Specific natural events can lead to high short-
term concentrations of particulate matter and its precursors. 
However, for the purpose of this guidance and implementation of the 
regional haze program, natural visibility conditions represents a 
long-term average condition analogous to the 5-year average best- 
and worst-day conditions that are tracked under the regional haze 
program.'' Guidance at 1-1.
    \25\ As part of the settlement of a case brought by the Utility 
Air Regulatory Group challenging the BART Guidelines, EPA agreed to 
issue guidance clarifying that states may use either the 20 percent 
best days or the annual average in estimating natural visibility in 
the evaluation of a BART source's impacts. This guidance makes clear 
that states have the flexibility to use either approach in 
estimating natural background conditions. Here, the states were not 
required to use the annual average and did not. Similarly, in 
issuing a FIP, EPA is not required to use the annual average either 
and chose not to in this case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In regards to Cliffs' comment on atmospheric chemistry, the 
approach used by EPA in the proposed rule relied on regional-scale 
modeling conducted by MPCA where ammonia values varied temporally and 
spatially. This is in contrast to the approach used in the CALPUFF 
modeling submitted by Cliffs where a constant 1 ppb monthly average 
ammonia value was used. While ammonia data is not available for the 
vicinity of the sources of interest, data is available for sites 
located in the Class I areas (Fernberg, MN) as well as for sites to the 
south more representative of northern Wisconsin and southern 
Minnesota.\26\ The available Fernberg ammonia data includes several 
years of information and has an overall two-week average value of about 
0.5 ppb with several two-week periods over 1 ppb. The Perkinstown site 
located in northern Wisconsin is in an area combining forest, 
grassland, and agricultural uses and has an overall two-week average 
ammonia concentration of about 1.5 ppb with several two-week periods 
over 1.5 ppb. Consequently, the value of 1 ppb used in the modeling 
submitted by Cliffs is most likely representative of the ammonia 
concentration in the vicinity of the sources of interest. However, EPA 
again reiterates that Cliffs' largely baseless criticism of CALPUFF 
does not apply to the Agency's ratio approach, which relied on 
regional-scale modeling conducted by the states that included temporal 
and spatial variations in ammonia concentrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ National Atmospheric Deposition Program, http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/AMoN/sites/data/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, regarding Cliffs' comment concerning the two monitoring 
studies, EPA does not find either of the studies to be persuasive with 
respect to the impacts of taconite sources on visibility. The first 
study asserts that the 2009 decline in taconite production and a 
negligible change in visibility are evidence that further controls are 
not warranted. EPA believes that that it is very difficult to discern 
any effect from a one-year study and points out that the production 
decline (as shown in Table 6 below) occurred during the spring and 
summer, seasons for which Cliffs recognized that nitrate formation is 
less important.

           Table 6--Minnesota 2009 Pellet Production by Month
                               [Tons] \27\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Pellet
                          Month                             production
                                                              (tons)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
January.................................................       2,205,578
February................................................       1,900,003
March...................................................       1,620,343
April...................................................         958,479
May.....................................................         181,739
June....................................................         340,707
July....................................................         849,363
August..................................................       1,158,447
September...............................................       1,723,336
October.................................................       2,008,864
November................................................       2,038,844
December................................................       2,093,403
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second study Cliffs cited, which reviewed visibility monitoring 
before and after the shutdown of the Mohave Power Plant in Nevada, is a 
paper by Terhorst and Berkman (Atmospheric Environment, 2010). This 
paper was subsequently examined and commented on in a paper by White et 
al. (Atmospheric Environment, January 2012). There, White et al. state: 
``[Terhorst and Berkman]'s technical analysis is thoughtfully conceived 
and executed, but is misleadingly presented as discrediting previous 
studies and their interpretation by regulators. In reality the 
Terhorste Berkman analysis validates a consensus on MPP's (Mohave Power 
Project) visibility impact that was established years before its 
closure, in a collaborative assessment undertaken jointly by Federal 
regulators and MPP's owners.'' Additionally, EPA has responded to 
similar comments regarding the Mohave Power Project study and EPA's 
visibility modeling in our action on the North Dakota regional haze SIP 
(77 FR 20894, April 6, 2012).\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Source: Minnesota Department of Revenue, Minerals Tax 
Division, Eveleth, MN.
    \28\ There, EPA stated: ``In addition, the study by Terhorst and 
Berkman does not convince us that use of CALPUFF modeling is 
inappropriate for this action or that the CALPUFF modeling results 
should be ignored. A model such as CALPUFF essentially holds 
constant a number of factors in order to isolate the impacts of a 
single source. As acknowledged by the study's authors, it is 
extremely difficult in observational analyses to sufficiently 
control for all factors, including emissions from other sources, to 
be able to isolate the impacts of closure of a facility, especially 
one located over 100 km from the Class I area at issue. In fact, the 
paper notes that coarse soil mass impacts are an omitted variable in 
the analytical analysis and that changes in those emissions may have 
counteracted the visibility improvements expected from the source 
shutdown'' (77 FR 20894, 20910).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, EPA believes that Cliffs, while identifying purported 
areas where EPA's models exaggerate visibility impacts, overlooks that 
there are aspects of the models that have been suggested by commenters 
on our regional haze actions as under-predicting impacts. Some examples 
include use of 24-hour average emissions impacts. Some examples include 
use of 24-hour average emissions rather than hourly emissions, use of 
monthly average relative humidity rather than daily humidity, and use 
of 98th percentile results to compare to the threshold instead of the 
highest day.
    Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine.
    Comment: Cliffs commented that certain control options should be 
rejected because visibility modeling does not indicate the installation 
of controls will result in a perceptible visibility improvement.
    Response: EPA's disagrees. As explained in the proposed rule, EPA 
believes that the application of BART will result in perceptible 
improvements in visibility. Nonetheless, the perceptibility of 
visibility improvement is not a prerequisite to the selection of a 
control option as BART. The preamble to the BART Guidelines state, 
``Even though the visibility improvement from an individual source may 
not be perceptible, it should still be considered in setting BART 
because the contribution to haze may be significant relative to other 
source contributions in the Class I area. Thus, we disagree that the 
degree of improvement should be contingent upon perceptibility'' (70 FR 
39104, 39129, July 6, 2005).
    Minnesota's regional haze SIP described the importance of the 
contribution of sources in northeastern Minnesota to visibility 
impairment in the Boundary Waters and Voyageurs national parks. 
Accordingly, Minnesota developed a special plan for the northeast 
region of the state. Minnesota explained:

    This area was targeted for controls under the long-term strategy 
for several reasons. First, the MPCA's analysis of 2002 emissions 
from the top 18 emitting point sources within Minnesota show that 
sources from this region make up just \1/3\ of the total emissions 
but provide \2/3\ of the total visibility impact. (See Chapter 8, on 
modeling.) Therefore, they have a much larger impact on the Class I 
areas than emissions from farther away. In addition, the taconite 
facilities may be currently uncontrolled or under-controlled for 
SO2 or NOX, and on the books control 
strategies are projected to cause fewer

[[Page 8724]]

emission decreases in this region than in the remainder of the 
state.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Minnesota's 2009 regional haze SIP submittal at 96 (Docket 
 EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0037-0002).

Thus, Minnesota's assessment supports the determination that taconite 
facilities contribute to regional haze even if individual impacts are 
modeled below thresholds for human perceptibility.

K. Comments Concerning Requirements for Continuous Emissions Monitoring

1. Comments in Support of Continuous Emissions Monitoring Requirements
    Commenter: National Parks Conservation Association.
    Comment: EPA's proposed rule includes the use of CEMS as a part of 
the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting necessary to ensure the 
continuous application of BART. Such monitors provide more accurate 
data about the emissions from taconite facilities than previous 
methods. As such, they are essential for tracking emissions and 
determining their impact on the surrounding communities. Moreover, CEMS 
can be used as pollution control tools by helping to fine-tune 
combustion and process controls in a way that periodic stack tests and 
predictive monitoring cannot. As such, we fully support the required 
application of CEMS on these sources.
    Commenter: National Park Service.
    Comment: NPS is especially pleased that EPA has proposed testing 
and CEMS requirements for the subject taconite plants. Our discussions 
with U.S. Steel, which has led the way in installation and operation of 
CEMS on indurating furnaces, have led to the mutual agreement that CEMS 
data is essential for the proper tuning and operation of combustion 
controls to reduce NOX emissions. Minnesota's regional haze 
SIP discussed the need for requiring CEMS for the taconite industry to 
monitor NOX for a number of reasons. These included setting 
BART limits, allowing facilities to efficiently manage combustion, 
resulting in less fuel use and fewer emissions, and tracking progress 
under the Northeast Minnesota Plan. CEMS data is also essential for 
assessing the effectiveness of SO2 controls and should 
provide an indication of changes in fuel use or sulfur content for use 
in future regional haze planning.
    Commenter: Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe.
    Comment: The Band agreed with the implementation of CEMS. CEMS will 
provide the facility and regulators with real time data to ensure that 
the controls in place are operating at optimum levels, thus saving 
money for the facility and achieving the required control requirements.
    Commenter: National Tribal Air Association.
    Comment: The Association found requiring CEMS to be a good 
complement to the NOX and SO2 controls at 
taconite ore processing facilities. CEMS will provide these facilities 
with an accurate and timely emissions count of NOX and 
SO2 and will immediately alert owners to any deviations from 
such emissions that might require correction.
    Response: EPA acknowledges the comments in support of the proposed 
CEMS requirements. EPA is finalizing the CEMS requirements as proposed.
2. Comments Questioning EPA's Continuous Emissions Monitoring 
Requirements
    Commenter: U.S. Forest Service.
    Comment: In the Minnesota regional haze SIP, a statement is made 
that CEMS ``would apply to NOX emissions at the facilities 
burning natural gas and to SO2 emissions at facilities 
burning high sulfur fuels.'' We do not understand why the 
NOX CEMs are only being required at natural gas-fired 
furnaces. Those furnaces burning fuels other than natural gas will also 
investigate NOX control strategies and therefore will need 
the CEMs.
    Response: EPA is requiring CEMS for all seven subject-to-BART 
taconite facilities. Each taconite facility must monitor its 
NOX and SO2 emissions with CEMS.
    Commenter: U. S. Steel and Cliffs Natural Resources.
    Comment: Cliffs and U.S. Steel stated that it is inappropriate to 
require the use of a diluent monitor as part of the monitoring 
requirements under the proposed rule.
    Response: The need to install a diluent monitor is source-specific 
and depends on a variety of factors, including the choice of monitors 
installed. While some subject-to-BART facilities may not need to 
install a diluent monitor, other facilities may because of their stack 
characteristics, operating conditions, and monitors chosen. Because the 
final rule covers a variety of facilities, EPA feels it is appropriate 
to require a diluent monitor only for those facilities needing such a 
unit. Therefore, the final rule has been revised to provide the 
facilities with an option to demonstrate in their monitoring plans 
whether a diluent monitor is needed or not.
    Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine.
    Comment: Cliffs commented that EPA failed to adequately support its 
CEMS requirements and that EPA should allow flexibility in the 
monitoring requirements. More specifically, EPA should require ``a 
comparable method of emission estimation,'' such as parametric 
emissions monitors, for each subject-to-BART source. Cliffs stated that 
EPA's unsupported generalized statements do not provide adequate 
justification for the Agency's burdensome monitoring determination.
    Response: EPA clearly states in its technical support for the 
proposed rule that CEMS are the best method for demonstrating 
compliance because of the variability in furnace operations and 
variable fuel usage across the furnaces. The variable fuel feeds and 
feed material content can impact overall emissions from the process and 
thereby create the need for continuous monitoring of emissions that 
impact visibility. Parametric emissions monitor systems are an option 
for processes that operate at stable, non-variable conditions, but are 
not appropriate for taconite units. CEMS provide a continuous record of 
data that can also be used by the facility owner or operator to monitor 
emissions on a real-time basis. The installation and operation of CEMS 
and the real-time evaluation of the CEMS data provide several benefits 
to a facility that can directly lead to practices that reduce emissions 
during all periods of operation.
    Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine.
    Comment: Cliffs commented that CEMS do not constitute proven 
monitoring technology with respect to taconite furnaces.
    Response: EPA disagrees. CEMS technology for NOX and 
SO2 is proven in multiple industries, including the taconite 
industry. U.S. Steel is successfully using CEMS at its Minntac and 
Keetac facilities currently, and any problems experienced with the 
initial installation of CEMS have been resolved. EPA expects facilities 
will need some time to learn CEMS operation and how it impacts process 
operations. EPA has incorporated additional time into the final rule 
before certification is required to allow each facility to learn how 
CEMS operates.
    Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine.
    Comment: Cliffs asserted that the requirement to install CEMS 
should be limited to waste stacks. Cliffs proposed to use stack testing 
data to determine the percent distribution of NOX between 
the hood-exhaust header and the waste-gas header to determine 
compliance. Cliffs also stated that the use of a single

[[Page 8725]]

CEMS per furnace is consistent with Minntac, which currently utilizes 
NOX and SO2 CEMS only.
    Response: EPA disagrees with Cliffs that the use of CEMS should be 
limited to waste stacks only. Available information shows that 
emissions from hood-exhaust stacks can equal about 29 percent of total 
furnace emissions. Given that nearly one-third of the furnace emissions 
are from hood exhausts (and can vary), EPA believes that it is 
appropriate to require CEMS on both waste stacks and hood-exhaust 
stacks.
    Cliffs incorrectly assumed that CEMS are required at each stack 
venting to the atmosphere. EPA feels it is important to obtain 
continuous and representative measurements of emissions from subject-
to-BART units. If representative measurements of total emissions from 
subject-to-BART units can be obtained by installing CEMS in a single 
vent just prior to the common header for the waste-gas stacks and hood-
exhaust stacks, then this final rule requires only two CEMS on each 
stack (one NOX CEMS and one SO2 CEMS) for a total 
of four CEMS, not ten. The initial monitoring plans required by this 
final rule will be prepared by the facilities and will provide a means 
through which an effective monitoring program will be put into place. 
These plans should include proposals for CEMS types, CEMS numbers, CEMS 
installation locations, QA/QC procedures, and any other topics and are 
submitted to EPA for review and approval or disapproval. The 
installation locations provided in these plans shall be determined 
based on the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, appendices B and F.
    Commenters: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca 
Mine.
    Comment: Cliffs commented that requiring CEMS on emergency stacks 
is inappropriate.
    Response: The requirement to install CEMS on emergency stacks 
depends on the frequency and duration of the use of the emergency 
stacks during emergency events. If emergency stacks are used on a daily 
or weekly basis, then emissions from those stacks could have an impact 
on annual emissions (and visibility) and should be tracked and 
recorded. If emergency stacks are truly used infrequently for quick 
releases, then a CEMS may not be necessary. This can be addressed by 
each facility on a case-by-case basis in its monitoring plan.
    Commenters: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine
    Comment: Cliffs stated that the subject-to-BART facilities should 
be exempt from the applicable emission limits during startup, shutdown 
and malfunction events.
    Response: EPA disagrees. The CAA requires sources to comply with 
applicable emission limits at all times, including during startup, 
shutdown and malfunction. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019, 
1021 (DC Cir. 2008); US Magnesium, LLC v. EPA, 690 F.3d 1157, 1170 
(10th Cir. 2012).
    Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine 
and U.S. Steel.
    Comment: Cliffs commented that the requirement to develop and 
implement a corrective action program for excess emission events should 
be directed toward the emissions unit and not be part of the CEMS 
requirement.
    Response: EPA agrees that the corrective action plan for excess 
emission events should be directed toward the emissions unit. The 
corrective action plan should establish procedures that operators will 
follow each time an excess emission event occurs (as identified through 
the use of real-time CEMS data). These procedures should outline steps 
to adequately identify causes of excess emissions, actions to be taken 
to minimize or eliminate those emissions, and evaluate and implement 
practices to prevent the causes of such excess emissions from 
reoccurring. The corrective action plan can be an independently 
developed plan or the procedures can be incorporated into an existing 
Quality Control Program Plan, corrective action plan, or other existing 
standard operating plan.
    Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine.
    Comment: Cliffs commented that the dates proposed for installing 
CEMS are infeasible and suggested an alternative compliance period of 
18 months.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the length of time Cliffs asserted is 
needed to design and install CEMS. EPA recognizes that a certain period 
of time will be needed if significant upgrades to stacks are necessary. 
However, the design and installation of a CEMS can be completed far 
more rapidly than the 18-month period suggested by Cliffs. EPA also 
believes it is inappropriate to consider the time needed for CEMS 
installation in a cumulative sequential manner as suggested by Cliffs. 
Design, engineering requirements, and upgrades to data acquisition 
systems can be performed at the same time as other activities required 
by the proposed rule.
    EPA also recognizes that once CEMS are installed and operating, 
there will be a short period of time needed to optimize and become 
familiar with the system in order to certify the units. EPA believes 
that the entire process for CEMS installation can be successfully met 
within the time periods outlined in the proposed rule. However, in 
response to the comments received, the final rule provides an 
additional 30 days to certify the CEMS and perform the initial Relative 
Accuracy Test Audit of the CEMS. The anticipated dates for initial 
certification and the Relative Accuracy Test Audit must be included in 
the monitoring plan required by the rule.
    Commenter: U.S. Steel.
    Comment: U.S. Steel commented that it is overly burdensome to 
require redundant or backup monitoring systems to obtain emissions data 
during periods of primary CEMS breakdown, repair, calibration check, or 
zero span adjustment. U.S. Steel proposed to use data gap-filling 
procedures during those periods when data are not available from the 
CEMS due to these types of events.
    Response: The purpose of including the requirement to use ``other 
monitoring systems approved by EPA'' is to obtain real-time emissions 
data during periods of primary CEMS breakdown, repair, calibration 
check, or zero span adjustment. The secondary data can be used to 
assure data availability and compliance on a continuous basis. However, 
the requirement for ``other monitoring systems'' does not mean that a 
second CEMS system is necessarily needed. Because the duration of these 
CEMS downtime events is typically short, each subject-to-BART facility 
can submit proposals for using parametric monitoring or engineering 
estimates as a surrogate for actual emissions monitoring during these 
CEMS events. EPA expects that CEMS will be operated at all times, 
including periods of process unit startup, shutdown and malfunction, 
except during the events identified above as described at 40 CFR 
60.13(e).
    EPA also disagrees with the suggestion that gap-filling procedures 
(i.e., data substitution) should be used for periods of CEMS downtime. 
Gap-filling procedures are appropriate under 40 CFR part 75 because it 
is a cap-and-trade program. This final rule is more appropriately 
related to regulations at 40 CFR part 60, where compliance with an 
emission limit (rather than annual caps) is required. 40 CFR part 60 
prohibits the use of ``data substitution'' (i.e., gap-filling) because 
it does not provide accurate emission rates during the CEMS downtime.
    Commenter: U.S. Steel.
    Comment: U.S. Steel commented that it is not appropriate to require 
initial performance testing of subject-to-BART

[[Page 8726]]

facilities or units if the facility is operating a certified CEMS 
system on the affected units.
    Response: EPA has re-evaluated the need for initial performance 
testing and agrees with U.S. Steel that it is not necessary to require 
such testing, for purposes of this rule, at facilities that are or will 
be operating CEMS when those CEMS will be used to determine compliance. 
The requirement for initial performance testing has been removed from 
the final rule. It is important to note that while initial performance 
testing is being removed for purposes of demonstrating compliance, 
subject-to-BART units must still be tested as part of the CEMS 
certification process, although this the certification process will 
typically not require a 30-day test.

L. Comments Concerning Compliance Schedules

    Commenter: Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe.
    Comment: The Band supported the installation of low NOX 
burners and felt that the 1.5 years allowed for the initial 
installation, with additional burner installations to follow one year 
later, is a fair and progressive approach to control NOX 
emissions.
    Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that installing low 
NOX burners is the appropriate approach. In response to 
additional information submitted by other commenters, however, EPA 
reviewed the proposed installation schedule has extended it by a number 
of months in the final rule, as discussed in more detail below.
    Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine.
    Comment: Cliffs commented that the BART Guidelines require the 
states, or EPA when promulgating a FIP, to establish deadlines for 
compliance with BART emission limits no later than five years from the 
date of approval or promulgation. EPA's proposed rule, however, 
contains arbitrary compliance deadlines that are unreasonably short. 
Cliffs stated that it would take at least four and a half years for it 
to complete the required engineering, installation, and commissioning 
of low NOX burners for a single furnace. ArcelorMittal 
stated that ``a minimum of 48 months would be necessary to complete 
this onerous process'' for its Minorca Mine facility.
    Response: CAA section 169A(b)(2)(A) requires subject-to-BART 
sources to install BART and comply with any applicable emission limits 
``as expeditiously as practicable.'' The Act defines this term to mean 
``as expeditiously as practicable but in no event later than five years 
after * * * the date of promulgation.'' CAA section 169A(g)(4). This 
language does not indicate that a compliance schedule of five years is 
to be assumed. Rather, BART must be installed ``as expeditiously as 
practicable,'' meaning as soon as the source is capable of installing 
the controls and meeting the applicable emission limits.
    In response to EPA's request for a detailed timeline of the steps 
required to install low NOX burners on a taconite furnace, 
U.S. Steel provided the following information based on its actual 
experience with a previous install:

           Table 7--U.S. Steel's Estimate Compliance Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Task                                 Time
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Detailed low NOX burner engineering.  6 months.
Prepare permit applicability          2 months.
 determination.
Procure and manufacture low NOX       8 months.
 burner.
Install low NOX burner..............  3 weeks.
                                     -----------------------------------
Shakedown of low NOX burner.........  6 months.
    Total time......................  22 months, 3 weeks.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to this information, ArcelorMittal included an 
attachment to its comments of a September 27, 2012 report by Fives 
North American titled ``Retrofitting Low NOX Burners on the 
ArcelorMittal Minorca Straight-Grate Pelletizing Furnace.'' In that 
report, Fives states that to develop an engineering solution that 
complies with environmental requirements, it is important to allow 
sufficient time (approximately four to eight months) for engineering 
analysis and (possibly) testing. The schedule should allow for an 
additional seven months for fabrication and delivery, followed by an 
additional two months for installation and commissioning. This amounts 
to an estimated time of 17 months to achieve compliance.
    Based on the timeline provided by U.S. Steel, the vendor estimate 
from Fives, and concerns from the commenters, EPA is allowing 26 months 
for a company's first indurating furnace to comply with the final rule. 
This will allow each source sufficient time to perform an engineering 
analysis, prepare a permit applicability determination, manufacture and 
install the low NOX burner, and allow for a shakedown period 
to achieve compliance after the low NOX burner has been 
installed. This is eight months longer than the proposed compliance 
schedule, allowing for the additional time needed for a shakedown 
period.
    The compliance schedule for additional indurating furnaces is being 
finalized as proposed. Specifically, a second line has an additional 
year to comply, for a total of 38 months from the effective date of the 
rule. A third line has two additional years to comply, for a total of 
50 months from the effective date of the rule. This staggered 
installation schedule will minimize any potential impacts on 
production. EPA notes that U.S. Steel Minntac is following a shorter 
schedule consistent with the proposed rule. U.S. Steel Keetac will also 
follow a modified schedule. For more detail, see the comment below.
    Commenter: U.S. Steel.
    Comment: Due to the lead time associated with acquiring process 
fans at Keetac, which is estimated to be 52 weeks according to a third-
party engineering firm working on the project, and the timing of the 
major outage schedule, which only occurs once per year, the potential 
exists to miss the timing window where the two sync up to meet the 
proposed schedule. Therefore, U.S. Steel requests an additional 12 
months to the proposed schedule for installation. In addition, because 
this will be the first installation of this technology at Keetac, U.S. 
Steel requests an additional 6 months prior to compliance with the 
proposed emission limit to allow for a shakedown period to optimize the 
burner for NOX reductions.
    Response: EPA agrees with U.S. Steel that additional time is needed 
to procure new pre-heat fans and to achieve compliance after 
installation. In the final rule, Keetac has three years (36 months from 
the effective date of the

[[Page 8727]]

rule) for its single line to comply with the rule.
    Commenter: U.S. Steel.
    Comment: Due to timing of major outage schedules, U.S. Steel 
requests flexibility in the order of installation for Line 4 and Line 5 
at Minntac. U.S. Steel agrees with the overall intent of the proposed 
schedule, but requests the option to select the order of installation 
of low NOX burners at Lines 4 and 5.
    Response: EPA agrees with the U.S. Steel's request to leave to the 
discretion of U.S. Steel the order of installation of low 
NOX burners at Lines 4 and 5 at Minntac.

M. Comments Asserting That EPA Must Conduct Government-to-Government 
Consultation With the Tribes

    Commenter: National Tribal Air Association (NTAA).
    Comment: The Association understands that at the request of the 
Fond du Lac Band, EPA held a June 28, 2012 conference call with the 
region's Tribes to discuss the FIP. We appreciate EPA for doing this 
and highly recommend that the Agency hold similar calls with Tribes for 
other such actions. However, EPA must also honor its commitment to 
conduct formal government-to-government consultation in accordance with 
Executive Order (EO) 13175.
    The Association disagrees with EPA's statement that the FIP ``does 
not have tribal implications, as specified in EO 13175. It will not 
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments. Thus, EO 13175 
does not apply to this rule.'' The application of BART to taconite ore 
processing facilities that either are in close proximity to Tribes and 
their communities or are within Treaty-ceded territory areas 
maintaining Tribes' usufructary functions is a regulatory action that 
has Tribal implications. As such, EPA must conduct formal government-
to-government consultation with Tribes.
    There are also clear purposes for EPA to conduct formal government-
to-government consultation with Tribes. First, it provides for more 
candid conversations between individual Tribes and EPA than would occur 
otherwise in a group meeting involving other Tribes. Second, each 
Tribe's circumstances are unique and must be treated as such by EPA. 
Group meetings would only give short shrift to these circumstances. 
Third, most cultural resources information is protected from release 
under statutory exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act. 
Discussion of such information as part of a group meeting risks its 
release to the general public and potentially endangers Tribal cultural 
sites and practices. Finally, the subject matter may be so unique, such 
as a dispute between an individual Tribe about whose cultural resources 
might be located within or near a taconite ore processing facility, 
that government-to-government consultation between the Tribe and EPA 
could provide the best opportunity for a resolution to the situation 
versus a group meeting where any number of issues might be discussed in 
a finite period of time.
    Response: EPA acknowledges that this action may have tribal 
implications. EPA recognizes that Tribes may have significant interests 
in regulatory programs even if the potential Tribal impacts are not the 
types specifically identified in the Executive Order. In this case, EPA 
initiated consultation with Tribal officials early in the process of 
developing this regulation to permit them to have meaningful and timely 
input into its development. While the Tribes ultimately chose not to 
engage in individual consultation, EPA did communicate with Tribal 
representatives to ensure that information was made available and that 
there was sufficient opportunity for questions and discussion. This 
effort is described in further detail in Section IV of this final rule. 
EPA appreciates the comments provided by the Tribes and NTAA on this 
rule, which will benefit Tribes through reduced pollution and improved 
visibility.

N. Comments Concerning Non-Air Quality Impacts of the Proposed Rule

    Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources.
    Comment: Cliffs commented that significant environmental impacts 
will result if the rule is finalized as proposed. Cliffs stated that 
increased fuel combustion resulting from low NOX burner 
application will result in increased emissions of the products of 
combustion. Cliffs added that EPA's proposed SO2 controls 
also carry ancillary environmental consequences.
    Response: EPA disagrees. The BART Guidelines recognize that 
environmental concerns become important when sensitive site-specific 
receptors exist and are impacted by byproducts of the control device. 
However, the fact that a control device creates liquid and solid waste 
that must be disposed of does not necessarily argue against that 
technology as BART. In this case, there are no such sensitive, site-
specific issues. To avoid any such issues, EPA rejected the use of wet 
SO2 scrubbing at taconite plants in Minnesota because 
wastewater from wet scrubbing had the potential to interfere with the 
production of wild rice.
    Commenter: National Tribal Air Association.
    Comment: The Association commented that Tribal traditional 
practices will benefit by controlling NOX and SO2 
emissions from taconite ore processing facilities. Such benefits 
specifically relate to visibility, health, and acid deposition.
    Not only does regional haze, which the FIP addresses, reduce the 
clarity, color, and visible distance that one can see, it marginalizes 
Tribal traditional practices that have existed since time immemorial. 
Many Tribes engage in traditional practices associated with sacred 
mountains, lakes, or other places that hold significance to them. Some 
of these practices are dependent on Tribal members being able to view 
and honor such icons that may be located many miles from a Tribe's 
lands.
    A corresponding effect of NOX and SO2 
emissions on Tribal traditional practices is on the health of Tribal 
members. Tribes are not immune from the health effects of 
NOX and SO2, such as asthma, bronchitis, and 
heart disease. In fact, they are more susceptible to these effects 
based on lifestyles. Many Tribes and their members spend considerable 
time outdoors engaged in Tribal traditional practices. Time-honored 
practice precludes Tribal members from simply moving indoors during 
high or moderate NOX or SO2 emission episodes. 
Hence, they experience increased health effects due to their long-term 
exposure to NOX and SO2. However, the FIP does 
much to reduce their exposures to such emissions from taconite ore 
processing facilities.
    Tribal traditional practices are also affected by acid deposition 
for which NOX and SO2 serve as precursors. Upon 
being emitted into the atmosphere, NOX and SO2 
return to the Earth's surface is one of two ways. The first occurs when 
these pollutants mix with water vapor in the atmosphere and are 
subsequently converted into acids. This is known as wet deposition. The 
second way occurs when NOX and SO2 form gases and 
salts. These gases and salts can cling to basically anything, including 
the ground, trees, and buildings. After they attach to an object, they 
are converted into acids at the point where moisture in the air mixes 
with them. Tribal foods, such as wild rice, can be contaminated by acid 
deposition. Forest ecosystems, which are an integral part to Tribal 
life, are susceptible to oxidation damage due to acid deposition and 
ozone exposure. Acid deposition adversely affects everything in the 
forest ecosystem, and the plants and animals on which a number of 
Tribes subsist. The

[[Page 8728]]

petroglyphs (rock images) and other sacred sites of Tribes are also 
susceptible to acid deposition and decay. The FIP helps to control acid 
deposition that would otherwise occur due to the emissions of taconite 
ore processing facilities. Undeniably, this will benefit the region's 
Tribes.
    Response: While the focus of the regional haze program is to 
improve visibility at Class I areas, the EPA agrees with the 
Association that emission reductions made to improve visibility have 
additional benefits. EPA agrees that Midwestern Tribes will benefit as 
the regional haze program is implemented and emission reductions occur.
    Commenter: Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe.
    Comment: The Band commented about concerns related to the damage of 
wild rice. Wild rice is extremely susceptible to sulfides where impacts 
from these emissions can be currently observed. The effects of sulfide 
degradation can have detrimental effects on Tribal Lifeways for this 
important cultural and subsistence food source.
    Commenter: Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewas.
    Comment: Sulfur dioxide is a pollutant of special concern to the 
Red Cliff Tribe due to its negative impacts on sensitive aquatic 
organisms such as wild rice and its interaction with atmospherically 
deposited mercury in aquatic systems. Reductions in SO2 
could help to decrease the methylation of mercury in waters fished by 
Red Cliff and reduce limitations on how much locally harvested fish 
tribal members can safely consume.
    Response: EPA did consider the energy and non-air quality 
environmental impacts as part of its BART determinations. EPA is aware 
of the concerns regarding sulfur oxides in wastewater and the resulting 
effect on wild rice. Accordingly, EPA considered the significance of 
the potential impacts of wastewater releases while evaluating the 
control technology options for the taconite facilities.
    Commenter: National Tribal Air Association.
    Comment: Tribes shoulder a disproportionate burden of the negative 
environmental consequences caused by the operation of commercial and 
industrial facilities. Most of these facilities are not located in 
Tribal communities, but their emissions often find their way onto 
Reservations and Ceded Territories. Such is the case for the taconite 
ore processing facilities whose current emissions not only affect the 
region's Tribes, but whose conversion to ozone could impact these 
Tribes even further. The Association finds that the NOX 
reductions required under the FIP will help address the problem of 
ozone levels rising with respect to the taconite ore processing 
facilities and will inhibit climate change albeit a small amount.
    Response: While emission reductions being required of the taconite 
industry are solely to improve visibility at mandatory Class I areas, 
EPA agrees that collateral benefits may also be achieved due to the 
emission reductions. EPA did not attempt to identify or quantify these 
additional potential benefits in this final rule.

O. Miscellaneous Comments

    Commenter: Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewas.
    Comment: The Northeast Minnesota Plan calls for a 30 percent 
reduction in emissions of SO2 and NOX (regional 
haze causing pollutants) from large emitters in this region by the year 
2018, with an interim goal of a 20 percent reduction by the year 2012. 
Minnesota's regional haze SIP states that these facilities are well on-
track for meeting these goals. However, over the past several years 
there have been numerous applications for new mining projects in the 
area. The Band is very concerned with maintaining the progress that has 
already been achieved, so that Voyageurs National Park and the Boundary 
Waters Canoe and Wilderness Area can meet their regional haze 
Reasonable Progress Goals, as required in the Regional Haze Rule.
    Response: EPA gave final approval to many elements of the Minnesota 
regional haze plan on June 12, 2012 (77 FR 34801). This approval 
included the Northeast Minnesota Plan. EPA expects Minnesota to meet 
the pollution reductions goals in the Plan, which may include needing 
to offset any emission increases from new and expanding facilities with 
deeper emission reductions from other facilities.
    Commenter: Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa.
    Comment: The Band commented that it was concerned how the taconite 
facilities will meet the new hourly SO2 and NO2 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) that have recently been 
issued by EPA. It is likely that at least some of these facilities will 
need to install additional control equipment in order to be able to 
demonstrate attainment with these new standards. The installation of 
low NOX burners on the BART-eligible taconite sources 
promises to be a good solution, both for achieving the one-hour 
NO2 NAAQS and for reducing regional haze. Given the current 
state of uncertainty as to how modeling for this one-hour standard 
should be approached, it may be years before controls are required on 
taconite furnaces as a solution to any modeled exceedances of the 
NAAQS. The Band is concerned that this will cause delay in achieving 
regional haze goals in this area. It is also possible that litigation 
against or revocation of the NAAQS could further delay the area in 
achieving these goals.
    Response: EPA agrees that control technology installed to meet BART 
requirements for regional haze may also contribute to improvements in 
ambient air quality.
    Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine.
    Comment: Cliffs noted that it could not duplicate some of the delta 
DV and delta days values listed in Tables V-C.10, V-C.11, and V-C.14 of 
the proposed FIP.
    Response: Upon review of the values, EPA agrees with the Cliffs 
that some of the delta DV and delta days values were incorrect in the 
proposed rule. Specifically, some of the values listed in Tables V-C.5, 
V-C.8, and V.C.9 were incorrect. Cliffs also noted that it could not 
reproduce values in Tables V-C.10, V-C.11, and V-C.14. These values 
were linked to values in the previous tables and also were listed 
incorrectly. EPA regrets the errors, but overall, the corrections were 
minor and did not change the conclusions reached. Corrected tables are 
listed below.

  Table V-C.5--BART NOX and SO2 Emission Reductions and Modeled Visibility Impact/Emission Reduction Ratios for
                             Fine Particulates at Class I Areas for United Taconite
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Boundary
                            Parameter                                 waters         Voyageurs      Isle Royale
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX Emissions Decrease ([Delta] NOX)............................                    0 tons/year
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------

[[Page 8729]]

 
SO2 Emissions Decrease ([Delta] SO2)............................                  1,837 tons/year
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
[Delta] dv PM2.5................................................            -1.2            -0.8            -0.3
[Delta] dv PM2.5/[Delta] SO2....................................        -0.00065        -0.00043       -0.000016
[Delta] Days PM2.5..............................................             -10              -8              -3
[Delta] Days PM2.5/[Delta] SO2..................................         -0.0054         -0.0044         -0.0016
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Table V-C.8--BART NOX and SO2 Emission Reductions and Modeled Visibility Impact/Emission Reduction Ratios for
                       Fine Particulates at Class I Areas for Northshore Mining-Silver Bay
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Boundary
                            Parameter                                 waters         Voyageurs      Isle Royale
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX Emissions Decrease ([Delta] NOX)............................                   678 tons/year
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
SO2 Emissions Decrease ([Delta] SO2)............................                   444 tons/year
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
[Delta] dv PM2.5................................................            -0.2            -0.1            -0.2
[Delta] dv PM2.5/[Delta] NOX....................................        -0.00029        -0.00015        -0.00029
[Delta] DV PM2.5/[Delta] SO2....................................        -0.00045        -0.00023        -0.00045
[Delta] Days PM2.5..............................................              -5              -1              -3
[Delta] Days PM2.5/[Delta] NOX..................................         -0.0074         -0.0015         -0.0044
[Delta] Days PM2.5/[Delta] SO2..................................          -0.011         -0.0023         -0.0068
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


       Table V-C.9--Averaged Visibility Impact/Emission Change Ratios for Analyzed/Impacted Class I Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Boundary
                         Parameter ratio                              waters         Voyageurs      Isle Royale
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Delta] DV PM2.5/[Delta] NOX....................................        -0.00061        -0.00030        -0.00042
[Delta] DV PM2.5/[Delta] SO2....................................        -0.00050        -0.00025        -0.00030
[Delta] Days/[Delta] NOX........................................         -0.0083          -0.004        -0.00524
[Delta] Days/[Delta] SO2........................................         -0.0067         -0.0030         -0.0037
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Table V-C.10--Estimated Emission Reductions and Resulting Changes in Visibility Factors for ArcelorMittal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Boundary
       Visibility factor or pollutant emissions reduction             waters         Voyageurs      Isle Royale
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX Emissions Reduction.........................................                  2,859 tons/year
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
[Delta] DV......................................................            -1.7            -0.9            -1.2
[Delta] Days > 0.5 DV...........................................             -24             -11             -15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Table V-C.11--Estimated Emission Reductions and Resulting Changes in Visibility Factors for Hibbing Taconite
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Boundary
       Visibility factor or pollutant emissions reduction             waters         Voyageurs      Isle Royale
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX Emissions Reduction.........................................                  5,259 tons/year
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
[Delta] DV......................................................            -3.2            -1.6            -2.2
[Delta] Days > 0.5 DV...........................................             -44             -21             -28
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Table V-C.12--Estimated Emission Reductions and Resulting Changes in Visibility Factors for U.S. Steel-Keetac
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Boundary
       Visibility factor or pollutant emissions reduction             waters         Voyageurs      Isle Royale
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX Emissions Reduction.........................................                  2,908 tons/year
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
[Delta] DV......................................................            -1.8            -0.9            -1.2

[[Page 8730]]

 
[Delta] Days > 0.5 DV...........................................             -24             -11             -15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine.
    Comment: References to the optional use of Part 75 recordkeeping 
requirements should be removed from the proposed rule because taconite 
furnaces are not Acid Rain subject units.
    Response: EPA intended to provide the Part 75 recordkeeping 
requirements as an option for facilities electing to use those 
recordkeeping requirements. If a subject-to-BART facility is not 
subject to the Acid Rain requirements, then recordkeeping requirements 
of either 40 CFR part 60 or 40 CFR part 63 may be used.
    Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources, ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine, 
and U.S. Steel.
    Comment: Cliffs and U.S. Steel noted that the reference to 40 CFR 
163.3 is incorrect and should be revised to 40 CFR 136.3.
    Response: A correct citation is provided in the final rule.
    Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine.
    Comment: Cliffs noted that the reference to 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix B, Performance Specification 2, Procedure 1, is incorrect. 
Procedure 1 should be associated with 40 CFR part 60, appendix F.
    Response: A correct citation is provided in the final rule.
    Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources, ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine, 
and U.S. Steel.
    Comment: Cliffs and U.S. Steel stated that the inclusion of 
references to the General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63 is inappropriate 
and overly burdensome. The references to 40 CFR part 63 should be 
removed.
    Response: EPA included references to 40 CFR part 63 because many of 
those requirements (including the development of a startup, shutdown 
and malfunction plan and monitoring plan) should have already been 
developed for the subject-to-BART facilities for purposes of the 
Taconite MACT rule. Additionally, the requirements associated with the 
installation, certification, maintenance, and operation of the CEMS are 
similar. However, in response to the comments received, references to 
40 CFR part 63 will be removed. References to 40 CFR part 60, 
appendices B and F will be retained where appropriate. The rule has 
also been revised to specifically identify requirements that we 
intended to include (for example notifications or reporting), but which 
were previously incorporated through citing to either 40 CFR part 60 or 
40 CFR part 63.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    The emission sources discussed below are indurating furnaces at 
seven taconite facilities. Six of the taconite facilities, 
ArcelorMittal, Hibbing Taconite, Northshore Mining, U.S. Steel Keetac, 
U.S. Steel Minntac, and United Taconite, are located in Minnesota, 
while Tilden is located in Michigan. EPA has adopted the terminology 
used by the companies and states to identify the indurating furnaces to 
ensure consistency with permits and other enforceable documents. 
However, regardless of whether the emission sources are referred to as 
furnaces, kilns, or lines, all terms refer to indurating furnaces, 
which involve a high temperature process for hardening taconite pellets 
for subsequent use in blast furnaces.

A. NOX Limits

    EPA is revising its proposed limit of 1.2 lbs NOX/MMBTU, 
on a 30-day rolling average, to a limit of 1.2 lbs NOX/MMBTU 
when only natural gas is used and a limit of 1.5 lbs NOX/
MMBTU for all other fuels, on a 30-day rolling average, for all 
indurating furnaces. These revised limits are based upon test data 
submitted by U.S. Steel for Lines 6 and 7 at Minntac while using low 
NOX burners. This revision affects U.S. Steel Keetac, U.S. 
Steel Minntac, and United Taconite, which use solid fuel. The other 
four facilities will be subject to the natural gas limit of 1.2 lbs 
NOX/MMBTU. To meet these limits, the sources will 
essentially be required to install low NOX burners on each 
indurating furnace. Based upon information received during the comment 
period, EPA believes that 26 months is a reasonable time for a 
company's first indurating furnace to comply with the limit. This will 
allow each company sufficient time to perform an engineering analysis, 
prepare a permit applicability determination, manufacture and install 
the low NOX burner(s), and provide for a shakedown period to 
achieve compliance after the low NOX burner(s) have been 
installed. While this compliance schedule is six months longer than the 
proposal, EPA believes that the additional time is necessary for a 
shakedown period.
    As specified in the proposal, a second line will have an additional 
year to comply with the emission limit, while a third line will have 
two additional years to comply. This approach will stagger the 
installation and minimize impacts on production. EPA notes, however, 
that U.S. Steel Minntac is on a shorter schedule consistent with what 
was proposed, while U.S. Steel Keetac has been given three years to 
comply with its only line. The additional time afforded to U.S. Steel 
Keetac is primarily due to the lead time associated with acquiring 
process fans.

B. SO2 Limits

    EPA is revising all of the proposed SO2 limits as 
follows. Unless otherwise stated, these limits are based on the 95th 
percentile UPL.
Tilden Mining Company
    Tilden's Grate Kiln Line 1 is required to convert to 100 percent 
natural gas and install CEMS within one year of the effective date of 
this rule. Within 26 months of the effective date of this rule, an 
emission limit must be established, in terms of lbs SO2/hr, 
on a 30-day rolling average, based on the 95th percentile UPL. This 
compliance schedule allows two months to process 12 months of CEMS 
data. This is a change from the proposed requirement to install an add-
on control system, achieving either 5 ppmv SO2 or 95 percent 
removal efficiency, because such a control system is not economically 
feasible when a furnace is using only natural gas.
U.S. Steel Keetac
    An emission limit of 225 lbs SO2/hr, based on a 30-day 
rolling average, shall apply to U.S. Steel Keetac's Grate Kiln 
pelletizing furnace beginning three months from the effective date of 
the rule. This numerical limit and compliance schedule are the same as 
those contained in the proposed rulemaking and reflect existing 
controls. However, redundant control efficiency and pH limits have been 
eliminated.

[[Page 8731]]

EPA has clarified in the final rule that, in addition to this 
SO2 limit, any coal burned at Keetac must have a sulfur 
content no greater than 0.60 percent sulfur by weight based on a 
monthly block average.
Hibbing Taconite
    An aggregate emission limit of 247.8 lbs SO2/hr, based 
on a 30-day rolling average, shall apply to the pelletizing furnaces at 
Hibbing's three lines beginning six months from the effective date of 
this rule. This limit reflects existing controls. This is an increase 
from the proposed limit, which totaled 183 lbs SO2/hr, based 
on a 30-day rolling average. This increase is a result of more accurate 
emission data that was obtained subsequent to the proposal.
U.S. Steel Minntac
    An aggregate emission limit of 498 lbs SO2/hr shall 
apply to indurating furnace Lines 3-7 when all lines are producing flux 
pellets. An aggregate emission limit of 630 lbs SO2/hr shall 
apply to Lines 3-7 when Lines 3-5 are producing acid pellets and Lines 
6 and 7 are producing flux pellets. An aggregate emission limit of 800 
lbs SO2/hr shall apply to Lines 3-7 when all lines are 
producing acid pellets. These limits reflect existing controls. These 
SO2 emission limits are based on a 30-day rolling average 
and apply three months from the effective date of this rule. This is an 
increase from the proposed limits, which totaled 327 lbs 
SO2/hr, based on a 30-day rolling average. This increase is 
a result of more accurate emission data that was obtained subsequent to 
the proposal. EPA has clarified in the final rule that, in addition to 
these SO2 limits, any coal burned at Minntac must have a 
sulfur content no greater than 0.60 percent sulfur by weight based on a 
monthly block average.
United Taconite
    An aggregate emission limit of 529 lbs SO2/hr, based on 
a 30-day rolling average, shall apply to the Line 1 and Line 2 pellet 
furnaces beginning 54 months from the effective date of this rule. In 
addition to this limit, United Taconite is required to burn either 
natural gas or a blend of natural gas and coal. Any coaled burned must 
have a sulfur content no greater than 0.60 percent sulfur by weight 
based on a monthly block average. This limit represents a change from 
the proposed requirement to install an add-on control system, achieving 
either 5 ppmv SO2 or 95 percent removal efficiency. Because 
this federally enforceable operational change in fuel mixture will 
achieve approximately a 50 percent reduction in the facility's baseline 
and actual emissions, the proposed add-on control system is no longer 
cost effective.
ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine
    An emission limit of 38.16 lbs SO2/hr, based on a 30-day 
rolling average, shall apply to ArcelorMittal's indurating furnace 
beginning six months from the effective date of this rule. This is an 
increase from the proposed limit of 23 lbs SO2/hr, based 
upon a 30-day rolling average. This increase is a result of more 
accurate emission data that was obtained subsequent to the proposal.
Northshore Mining Company
    An aggregate emission limit of 39 lbs SO2/hr, based on a 
30-day rolling, shall apply to Furnace 11 and Furnace 12, beginning six 
months from the effective date of this rule. This limit will stay 
effective for one year. This is an increase from the proposed limit of 
33.4 lbs SO2/hr, based upon a 30-day rolling average. The 
proposed control efficiency requirement has been eliminated because it 
is a redundant requirement. Within 20 months of the effective date of 
this rule, a revised SO2 limit must be established based on 
one year of hourly CEMS data using the 95th percentile UPL.

C. CEMS

    As required in the proposal, installation and operation of CEMS is 
required no later than the applicable compliance date for each limit. 
This represents no change from the proposed rulemaking. However, as 
indicated above, some compliance dates have been extended, and some 
indurating furnaces are now subject to status-quo SO2 
limits. Based upon comments received, as well as additional information 
regarding the amount of time needed to install CEMS, we have increased 
the compliance schedule from three months to six months for those 
sources that are maintaining status quo controls and do not currently 
have CEMS.

D. Visibility Benefits and Cost Effectiveness

    EPA estimates that this action will improve visibility at four 
Class I areas by reducing about 22,000 tons per year of NOX 
emissions and 2,000 tons per year of SO2 emissions from 
seven taconite facilities. The reductions in NOX emissions 
will result from the installation of low NOX burners, a 
relatively inexpensive control device that does not involve significant 
retrofit costs as the process consists primarily of switching out 
burners. U.S. Steel Minntac is the only facility at which low 
NOX burners have been installed and the only one for which 
detailed cost information is available.

                       Table 8--Low NOX Burner Cost Analysis at U.S. Steel Minntac Line 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Annualized                         Total           Cost-
           Fuel blend              Capital cost    capital cost   Annual O&M ($/    annualized     effectiveness
                                        ($)           ($/yr)            yr)         cost ($/yr)       ($/ton)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
60% Coal/40% Natural Gas........      $2,846,422        $536,754        $228,293        $765,048            $441
100% Natural Gas................       2,846,422         536,754         228,293         765,048             210
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA believes that the costs cited by U.S. Steel are generally 
applicable across the industry based on discussions the Agency had with 
vendors. As a result, a figure of $500/ton was ultimately selected as a 
conservative upper bound for the cost effectiveness of installations at 
the other taconite facilities.
    Reductions in SO2 emissions will result from fuel 
switching and new emission limits that properly reflect existing 
SO2 controls. EPA did not have sufficient information to 
estimate the costs of fuel switching.
Proposed Disapproval of the States' BART Determinations for Taconite 
Facilities
    EPA reiterates that the Agency is not taking action today on its 
proposed disapproval of Minnesota and Michigan's BART determinations 
for the taconite industry. EPA is issuing a separate supplemental 
notice of

[[Page 8732]]

proposed rulemaking that provides additional explanation of the 
Agency's rationale for the proposed disapproval and solicits additional 
comments. EPA will publish a separate final rulemaking regarding the 
proposed disapproval once the Agency has completed review of any 
additional public comments received.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    This action finalizes BART requirements for seven taconite 
facilities in Minnesota and Michigan. Therefore, it is not a rule of 
general applicability, and not a ``significant regulatory action'' 
under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51753, October 4, 
1993). Because this type of action is exempt from review under EO 
12866, it is also not subject to review under Executive Order 13563 (76 
FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Because this FIP only applies to 
seven facilities in Minnesota and Michigan, the Paperwork Reduction Act 
does not apply. See 5 CFR 1320.3(c).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an Agency 
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the Agency certifies that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small 
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined 
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of 
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a 
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is 
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated 
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this action on small 
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The net 
result of this final action is that EPA is promulgating emission 
controls on selected units at seven large taconite facilities that are 
not owned by small entities, and therefore are not themselves small 
entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in 
expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. 
It is a rule of particular applicability that affects only seven 
facilities in Michigan and Minnesota. Thus, this rule is not subject to 
the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.
    This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of 
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This rule only 
applies to seven facilities in Michigan and Minnesota.

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, as 
specified in Executive Order 13132. This action addresses Michigan and 
Minnesota's failure to submit SIPs by the applicable deadline that meet 
the regional haze requirements under the Clean Air Act. Thus, Executive 
Order 13132 does not apply to this action. Although section 6 of 
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action, EPA did consult 
with Michigan and Minnesota in developing this action.

F. Executive Order 13175

    Subject to Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
EPA may not issue a regulation that has Tribal implication, that 
imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required 
by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary 
to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by Tribal governments, or 
EPA consults with Tribal officials early in the process of developing 
the proposed regulation and develops a Tribal summary impact statement.
    EPA has concluded that this action may have Tribal implications. 
For example, although the FIP does not apply to sources in Indian 
country, controls and emission reductions arising from the program may 
affect Indian country or other Tribal interests. However, the 
regulations arising under this action will neither impose substantial 
direct compliance costs on Tribal governments, nor preempt Tribal law.
    EPA initiated consultation with Tribal officials early in the 
process of developing this regulation to permit them to have meaningful 
and timely input into its development. EPA sent an invitation to 
consult to each Region 5 Tribe on August 15, 2012, along with a copy of 
the proposed taconite FIP Federal Register notice. Conference calls 
were held on the taconite FIP proposal on August 22, 2012 and September 
12, 2012 to provide all Region 5 Tribes with more information on the 
proposed rulemaking and an opportunity to ask questions of EPA 
technical staff and request individual consultation if desired. Four 
Region 5 Tribes participated in the August 22, 2012 call. Two Region 5 
Tribes participated in the September 12, 2012 discussion. One Region 5 
Tribe provided verbal testimony at the public hearing held on the 
proposed taconite FIP rulemaking on August 29, 2012. One Region 5 
Tribal Chair expressed appreciation for the discussions held with the 
Tribes and gratitude for EPA's careful consideration of the regional 
haze situation in northeast Minnesota.

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

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 
as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or 
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of 
the executive order has the potential to influence the regulation. This 
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it implements 
specific standards established by Congress in statutes. However, to the 
extent this rule will limit emissions, the rule will have a beneficial 
effect on children's health by reducing air pollution.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, 
May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under 
Executive Order 12866.

[[Page 8733]]

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory 
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling 
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by 
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use 
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This action does not involve technical standards. Today's action 
does not require the public to perform activities conducive to the use 
of voluntary consensus standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the 
use of any voluntary consensus standards.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes 
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.
    We have determined that this rule will not have disproportionately 
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or 
low-income populations because it increases the level of environmental 
protection for all affected populations without having any 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on any population, including any minority or low-income 
population. This rule limits emissions from seven facilities.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types 
of rules: (1) Rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to 
agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization, 
procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or 
obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not required 
to submit a rule report regarding today's action under section 801 
because this is a rule of particular applicability.

L. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 8, 2013. Pursuant to 
Clean Air Act section 307(d)(1)(B), this action is subject to the 
requirements of Clean Air Act section 307(d) because it promulgates a 
FIP under Clean Air Act section 110(c). Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review, nor 
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may 
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or 
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to 
enforce its requirements. See Clean Air Act section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, 
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: January 15, 2013.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart X--Michigan

0
2. Section 52.1183 is amended by adding and reserving paragraph (j), 
and adding paragraphs (k), (l), (m), and (n) to read as follows:


Sec.  52.1183  Visibility protection.

* * * * *
    (j) [Reserved]
    (k) Tilden Mining Company, or any subsequent owner/operator of the 
Tilden Mining Company facility in Ishpeming, Michigan, shall meet the 
following requirements:
    (1) NOX Emission Limits. An emission limit of 1.5 lbs 
NOX/MMBtu, based on a 30-day rolling average, shall apply to 
the indurating furnace, Grate Kiln Line 1 (EUKILN1), beginning 26 
months from March 8, 2013. However, for any 30, or more, consecutive 
days when only natural gas is used a limit of 1.2 lbs NOX/
MMBtu, based on a 30-day rolling average, shall apply.
    (2) SO2 Emission Limits. A fuel sulfur content limit of no greater 
than 1.20 percent sulfur content by weight shall apply to fuel 
combusted in Process Boiler 1 (EUBOILER1) and Process Boiler 
2 (EUBOILER2) beginning 3 months from March 8, 2013. A fuel 
sulfur content limit of no greater than 1.50 percent sulfur content by 
weight shall apply to fuel combusted in the Line 1 Dryer (EUDRYER1) 
beginning 3 months from March 8, 2013. The sampling and calculation 
methodology for determining the sulfur content of fuel must be 
described in the monitoring plan required at paragraph (n)(8)(x) of 
this section.
    (3) The owner or operator of the facility must switch Grate Kiln 
Line 1 (EUKILN1) to 100 percent natural gas beginning 1 year from March 
8, 2013. For the purposes of CEMS requirements, the compliance date by 
which the CEMS must be installed and operated for Tilden is one year 
from March 8, 2013. Within 26 months of March 8, 2013, the owner or 
operator must calculate and comply with an SO2 limit based 
on one year of hourly CEMS emissions data reported in lbs 
SO2/hr and submit such limit, calculations and CEMS data to 
EPA. This limit shall be calculated in terms of lbs SO2/hr, 
based on the following equations, with compliance to be determined on a 
30-day rolling average.

m - (n + 1) * [alpha]

m = the rank of the ordered data point, when data is sorted smallest 
to largest
n = number of data points
[alpha] = 0.95, to reflect the 95th percentile

    If m is a whole number, then the limit, UPL, shall be computed 
as:

UPL = Xm,
Where:

xm - value of the mth data point in terms of lbs SO2/hr, 
when the data is sorted smallest to largest

    If m is not a whole number, the limit shall be computed by linear

[[Page 8734]]

interpolation according to the following equation.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06FE13.003

Where:

mt = the integer portion of m, i.e., m truncated at zero decimal 
places, and
md = the decimal portion of m

    (4) Starting 26 months from March 8, 2013, records shall be kept 
for any day during which fuel oil is burned as fuel (either alone or 
blended with other fuels) in Grate Kiln Line 1. These records must 
include, at a minimum, the gallons of fuel oil burned per hour, the 
sulfur content of the fuel oil, and the SO2 emissions in 
pounds per hour.
    (5) Starting 26 months from March 8, 2013 for Grate Kiln Line 1, 
the SO2 limit does not apply for any hour in which it is 
documented that there is a natural gas curtailment, beyond Cliffs' 
control, necessitating that the supply of natural gas to Tilden's Line 
1 indurating furnace is restricted or eliminated. Records must be kept 
of the cause of the curtailment and duration of such curtailment. 
During such curtailment, the use of backup coal is restricted to coal 
with no greater than 0.60 percent sulfur by weight.
    (l) Testing and monitoring. (1) The owner or operator shall 
install, certify, calibrate, maintain and operate a Continuous 
Emissions Monitoring System (CEMS) for NOX on Tilden Mining 
Company unit EUKILN1. Compliance with the emission limits for 
NOX shall be determined using data from the CEMS.
    (2) The owner or operator shall install, certify, calibrate, 
maintain and operate a CEMS for SO2 on Tilden Mining Company 
unit EUKILN1. Compliance with the emission standard selected for 
SO2 shall be determined using data from the CEMS.
    (3) The owner or operator shall install, certify, calibrate, 
maintain and operate one or more continuous diluent monitor(s) 
(O2 or CO2) and continuous flow rate monitor(s) 
on Tilden Mining Company unit EUKILN1 to allow conversion of the 
NOX and SO2 concentrations to units of the 
standard (lbs/MMBtu and lbs/hr, respectively) unless a demonstration is 
made that a diluent monitor and continuous flow rate monitor are not 
needed for the owner or operator to demonstrate compliance with 
applicable emission limits in units of the standards.
    (4) For purposes of this section, all CEMS required by this section 
must meet the requirements of paragraphs (l)(4)(i)-(xiv) of this 
section.
    (i) All CEMS must be installed, certified, calibrated, maintained, 
and operated in accordance with 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix B, Performance 
Specification 2 (PS-2) and Appendix F, Procedure 1.
    (ii) All CEMS associated with monitoring NOX (including 
the NOX monitor and necessary diluent and flow rate 
monitors) must be installed and operational no later than the 
compliance date for the emission limit identified at (k)(1). All CEMS 
associated with monitoring SO2 must be installed and 
operational no later than twelve months after March 8, 2013. 
Verification of the CEMS operational status shall, as a minimum, 
include completion of the manufacturer's written requirements or 
recommendations for installation, operation, and calibration of the 
devices.
    (iii) The owner or operator must conduct a performance evaluation 
of each CEMS in accordance with 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix B, PS-2. The 
performance evaluations must be completed no later than 60 days after 
the respective CEMS installation.
    (iv) The owner or operator of each CEMS must conduct periodic 
Quality Assurance, Quality Control (QA/QC) checks of each CEMS in 
accordance with 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix F, Procedure 1. The first CEMS 
accuracy test will be a relative accuracy test audit (RATA) and must be 
completed no later than 60 days after the respective CEMS installation.
    (v) The owner or operator of each CEMS must furnish the Regional 
Administrator two, or upon request, more copies of a written report of 
the results of each performance evaluation and QA/QC check within 60 
days of completion.
    (vi) The owner or operator of each CEMS must check, record, and 
quantify the zero and span calibration drifts at least once daily 
(every 24 hours) in accordance with 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix F, 
Procedure 1, Section 4.
    (vii) Except for CEMS breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, and 
zero and span adjustments, all CEMS required by this section shall be 
in continuous operation during all periods of process operation of the 
indurating furnaces, including periods of process unit startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction.
    (viii) All CEMS required by this section must meet the minimum data 
requirements at paragraphs (l)(4)(viii)(A)-(C) of this section.
    (A) Complete a minimum of one cycle of operation (sampling, 
analyzing, and data recording) for each successive 15-minute quadrant 
of an hour.
    (B) Sample, analyze and record emissions data for all periods of 
process operation except as described in paragraph (l)(4)(viii)(C) of 
this section.
    (C) When emission data from CEMS are not available due to 
continuous monitoring system breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, 
or zero and span adjustments, emission data must be obtained using 
other monitoring systems or emission estimation methods approved by the 
EPA. The other monitoring systems or emission estimation methods to be 
used must be incorporated into the monitoring plan required by this 
section and provide information such that emissions data are available 
for a minimum of 18 hours in each 24 hour period and at least 22 out of 
30 successive unit operating days.
    (ix) Owners or operators of each CEMS required by this section must 
reduce all data to 1-hour averages. Hourly averages shall be computed 
using all valid data obtained within the hour but no less than one data 
point in each fifteen-minute quadrant of an hour. Notwithstanding this 
requirement, an hourly average may be computed from at least two data 
points separated by a minimum of 15 minutes (where the unit operates 
for more than one quadrant in an hour) if data are unavailable as a 
result of performance of calibration, quality assurance, preventive 
maintenance activities, or backups of data from data acquisition and 
handling systems, and recertification events.
    (x) The 30-day rolling average emission rate determined from data 
derived from the CEMS required by this section (in lbs/MMBtu or lbs/hr 
depending on the emission standard selected) must be calculated in 
accordance with paragraphs (l)(4)(x)(A)-(F) of this section.
    (A) Sum the total pounds of the pollutant in question emitted from 
the Unit during an operating day and the previous twenty-nine operating 
days.
    (B) Sum the total heat input to the unit (in MMBtu) or the total 
actual hours of operation (in hours) during an

[[Page 8735]]

operating day and the previous twenty-nine operating days.
    (C) Divide the total number of pounds of the pollutant in question 
emitted during the thirty operating days by the total heat input (or 
actual hours of operation depending on the emission limit selected) 
during the thirty operating days.
    (D) For purposes of this calculation, an operating day is any day 
during which fuel is combusted in the BART affected Unit regardless of 
whether pellets are produced. Actual hours of operation are the total 
hours a unit is firing fuel regardless of whether a complete 24-hour 
operational cycle occurs (i.e. if the furnace is firing fuel for only 5 
hours during a 24-hour period, then the actual operating hours for that 
day are 5. Similarly, total number of pounds of the pollutant in 
question for that day is determined only from the CEMS data for the 
five hours during which fuel is combusted.)
    (E) If the owner or operator of the CEMS required by this section 
uses an alternative method to determine 30-day rolling averages, that 
method must be described in detail in the monitoring plan required by 
this section. The alternative method will only be applicable if the 
final monitoring plan and the alternative method are approved by EPA.
    (F) A new 30-day rolling average emission rate must be calculated 
for the period ending each new operating day.
    (xi) The 30-day rolling average removal efficiency determined from 
data derived from the CEMS required by this section must be calculated 
in accordance with paragraphs (l)(4)(xi)(A)-(G) of this section.
    (A) Calculate the 30-day rolling average emission rate described in 
paragraphs (l)(4)(x)(A)-(F) of this section at the inlet of the control 
device.
    (B) Calculate the 30-day rolling average emission rate described in 
paragraphs (l)(4)(x)(A)-(F) of this section at the outlet of the 
control device.
    (C) Subtract the 30-day rolling average emission rate determined at 
the outlet of the control device from the 30-day rolling average 
emission rate determined at the inlet of the control device.
    (D) Divide the result of paragraph (l)(4)(xi)(C) of this section by 
the 30-day rolling average emission rate determined at the inlet.
    (E) Multiply the result of paragraph (l)(4)(xi)(D) of this section 
by 100 to determine the 3-day rolling average percent removal 
efficiency.
    (F) If the owner or operator of the CEMS required by this section 
uses an alternative method to determine the 30-day rolling average 
removal efficiency, that method must be described in detail in the 
monitoring plan required by this section. The alternative method will 
only be applicable if the final monitoring plan and the alternative 
method are approved by EPA.
    (G) A new 30-day rolling average removal efficiency must be 
calculated for each new operating day.
    (xii) Data substitution must not be used for purposes of 
determining compliance under this section.
    (xiii) All CEMS data shall be reduced and reported in units of the 
applicable standard.
    (xiv) A Quality Control Program must be developed and implemented 
for all CEMS required by this section in accordance with 40 CFR Part 
60, Appendix F, Procedure 1, Section 3. The program will include, at a 
minimum, written procedures and operations for calibration checks, 
calibration drift adjustments, preventative maintenance, data 
collection, recording and reporting, accuracy audits/procedures, 
periodic performance evaluations, and a corrective action program for 
malfunctioning CEMS.
    (m) Recordkeeping requirements. (1)(i) Records required by this 
section must be kept in a form suitable and readily available for 
expeditious review.
    (ii) Records required by this section must be kept for a minimum of 
5 years following the date of creation.
    (iii) Records must be kept on site for at least 2 years following 
the date of creation and may be kept offsite, but readily accessible, 
for the remaining 3 years.
    (2) The owner or operator of the BART affected unit must maintain 
the records identified in paragraphs (m)(2)(i)-(xi) of this section.
    (i) A copy of each notification and report developed for and 
submitted to comply with this section including all documentation 
supporting any initial notification or notification of compliance 
status submitted, according to the requirements of this section.
    (ii) Records of the occurrence and duration of each startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction of the BART affected unit, air pollution 
control equipment, and CEMS required by this section.
    (iii) Records of activities taken during each startup, shutdown, 
and malfunction of the BART affected unit, air pollution control 
equipment, and CEMS required by this section.
    (iv) Records of the occurrence and duration of all major 
maintenance conducted on the BART affected unit, air pollution control 
equipment, and CEMS required by this section.
    (v) Records of each excess emission report, including all 
documentation supporting the reports, dates and times when excess 
emissions occurred, investigations into the causes of excess emissions, 
actions taken to minimize or eliminate the excess emissions, and 
preventative measures to avoid the cause of excess emissions from 
occurring again.
    (vi) Records of all CEMS data including, as a minimum, the date, 
location, and time of sampling or measurement, parameters sampled or 
measured, and results.
    (vii) All records associated with quality assurance and quality 
control activities on each CEMS as well as other records required by 40 
CFR Part 60, Appendix F, Procedure 1 including, but not limited to, the 
quality control program, audit results, and reports submitted as 
required by this section.
    (viii) Records of the NOX emissions during all periods 
of BART affected unit operation, including startup, shutdown and 
malfunction, in the units of the standard. The owner or operator shall 
convert the monitored data into the appropriate unit of the emission 
limitation using appropriate conversion factors and F-factors. F-
factors used for purposes of this section shall be documented in the 
monitoring plan and developed in accordance with 40 CFR Part 60, 
Appendix A, Method 19. The owner or operator may use an alternate 
method to calculate the NOX emissions upon written approval 
from EPA.
    (ix) Records of the SO2 emissions or records of the 
removal efficiency (based on CEMS data), depending on the emission 
standard selected, during all periods of operation, including periods 
of startup, shutdown and malfunction, in the units of the standard.
    (x) Records associated with the CEMS unit including type of CEMS, 
CEMS model number, CEMS serial number, and initial certification of 
each CEMS conducted in accordance with 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix B, 
Performance Specification 2 must be kept for the life of the CEMS unit.
    (xi) Records of all periods of fuel oil usage as required at 
paragraph (k)(4) of this section.
    (n) Reporting requirements. (1) All requests, reports, submittals, 
notifications, and other communications to the Regional Administrator 
required by this section shall be submitted, unless instructed 
otherwise, to the Air and Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 5 (A-18J) at 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604.

[[Page 8736]]

References in this section to the Regional Administrator shall mean the 
EPA Regional Administrator for Region 5.
    (2) The owner or operator of each BART affected unit identified in 
this section and CEMS required by this section must provide to the 
Regional Administrator the written notifications, reports and plans 
identified at paragraphs (n)(2)(i)-(viii) of this section. If 
acceptable to both the Regional Administrator and the owner or operator 
of each BART affected unit identified in this section and CEMS required 
by this section the owner or operator may provide electronic 
notifications, reports and plans.
    (i) A notification of the date construction of control devices and 
installation of burners required by this section commences postmarked 
no later than 30 days after the commencement date.
    (ii) A notification of the date the installation of each CEMS 
required by this section commences postmarked no later than 30 days 
after the commencement date.
    (iii) A notification of the date the construction of control 
devices and installation of burners required by this section is 
complete postmarked no later than 30 days after the completion date.
    (iv) A notification of the date the installation of each CEMS 
required by this section is complete postmarked no later than 30 days 
after the completion date.
    (v) A notification of the date control devices and burners 
installed by this section startup postmarked no later than 30 days 
after the startup date.
    (vi) A notification of the date CEMS required by this section 
startup postmarked no later than 30 days after the startup date.
    (vii) A notification of the date upon which the initial CEMS 
performance evaluations are planned. This notification must be 
submitted at least 60 days before the performance evaluation is 
scheduled to begin.
    (viii) A notification of initial compliance, signed by the 
responsible official who shall certify its accuracy, attesting to 
whether the source has complied with the requirements of this section, 
including, but not limited to, applicable emission standards, control 
device and burner installations, CEMS installation and certification. 
This notification must be submitted before the close of business on the 
60th calendar day following the completion of the compliance 
demonstration and must include, at a minimum, the information at 
paragraphs (n)(2)(viii)(A)-(F) of this section.
    (A) The methods used to determine compliance.
    (B) The results of any CEMS performance evaluations, and other 
monitoring procedures or methods that were conducted.
    (C) The methods that will be used for determining continuing 
compliance, including a description of monitoring and reporting 
requirements and test methods.
    (D) The type and quantity of air pollutants emitted by the source, 
reported in units of the standard.
    (E) A description of the air pollution control equipment and 
burners installed as required by this section, for each emission point.
    (F) A statement by the owner or operator as to whether the source 
has complied with the relevant standards and other requirements.
    (3) The owner or operator must develop and implement a written 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan for NOX and 
SO2. The plan must include, at a minimum, procedures for 
operating and maintaining the source during periods of startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction; and a program of corrective action for a 
malfunctioning process and air pollution control and monitoring 
equipment used to comply with the relevant standard. The plan must 
ensure that, at all times, the owner or operator operates and maintains 
each affected source, including associated air pollution control and 
monitoring equipment, in a manner which satisfies the general duty to 
minimize or eliminate emissions using good air pollution control 
practices. The plan must ensure that owners or operators are prepared 
to correct malfunctions as soon as practicable after their occurrence.
    (4) The written reports of the results of each performance 
evaluation and QA/QC check in accordance with and as required by 
paragraph (l)(4)(v) of this section.
    (5) Compliance Reports. The owner or operator of each BART affected 
unit must submit semiannual compliance reports. The semiannual 
compliance reports must be submitted in accordance with paragraphs 
(n)(5)(i) through (iv) of this section, unless the Regional 
Administrator has approved a different schedule.
    (i) The first compliance report must cover the period beginning on 
the compliance date that is specified for the affected source through 
June 30 or December 31, whichever date comes first after the compliance 
date that is specified for the affected source.
    (ii) The first compliance report must be postmarked no later than 
30 calendar days after the reporting period covered by that report 
(July 30 or January 30), whichever comes first.
    (iii) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the semiannual 
reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual 
reporting period from July 1 through December 31.
    (iv) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked no later 
than 30 calendar days after the reporting period covered by that report 
(July 30 or January 30).
    (6) Compliance report contents. Each compliance report must include 
the information in paragraphs (n)(6)(i) through (vi) of this section.
    (i) Company name and address.
    (ii) Statement by a responsible official, with the official's name, 
title, and signature, certifying the truth, accuracy, and completeness 
of the content of the report.
    (iii) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the 
reporting period.
    (iv) Identification of the process unit, control devices, and CEMS 
covered by the compliance report.
    (v) A record of each period of a startup, shutdown, or malfunction 
during the reporting period and a description of the actions the owner 
or operator took to minimize or eliminate emissions arising as a result 
of the startup, shutdown or malfunction and whether those actions were 
or were not consistent with the source's startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan.
    (vi) A statement identifying whether there were or were not any 
deviations from the requirements of this section during the reporting 
period. If there were deviations from the requirements of this section 
during the reporting period, then the compliance report must describe 
in detail the deviations which occurred, the causes of the deviations, 
actions taken to address the deviations, and procedures put in place to 
avoid such deviations in the future. If there were no deviations from 
the requirements of this section during the reporting period, then the 
compliance report must include a statement that there were no 
deviations. For purposes of this section, deviations include, but are 
not limited to, emissions in excess of applicable emission standards 
established by this section, failure to continuously operate an air 
pollution control device in accordance with operating requirements 
designed to assure compliance with emission standards, failure to 
continuously operate CEMS required by this section, and failure to 
maintain records or submit reports required by this section.

[[Page 8737]]

    (7) Each owner or operator of a CEMS required by this section must 
submit quarterly excess emissions and monitoring system performance 
reports to the Regional Administrator for each pollutant monitored for 
each BART affected unit monitored. All reports must be postmarked by 
the 30th day following the end of each three-month period of a calendar 
year (January-March, April-June, July-September, October-December) and 
must include, at a minimum, the requirements at paragraphs (n)(7)(i)-
(xv).
    (i) Company name and address.
    (ii) Identification and description of the process unit being 
monitored.
    (iii) The dates covered by the reporting period.
    (iv) Total source operating hours for the reporting period.
    (v) Monitor manufacturer, monitor model number and monitor serial 
number.
    (vi) Pollutant monitored.
    (vii) Emission limitation for the monitored pollutant.
    (viii) Date of latest CEMS certification or audit.
    (ix) A description of any changes in continuous monitoring systems, 
processes, or controls since the last reporting period.
    (x) A table summarizing the total duration of excess emissions, as 
defined at paragraphs (n)(7)(x)(A)-(B) of this section, for the 
reporting period broken down by the cause of those excess emissions 
(startup/shutdown, control equipment problems, process problems, other 
known causes, unknown causes), and the total percent of excess 
emissions (for all causes) for the reporting period calculated as 
described at paragraph (n)(7)(x)(C) of this section.
    (A) For purposes of this section, an excess emission is defined as 
any 30-day rolling average period, including periods of startup, 
shutdown and malfunction, during which the 30-day rolling average 
emissions of either regulated pollutant (SO2 and 
NOX), as measured by a CEMS, exceeds the applicable emission 
standards in this section.
    (B) For purposes of this section, if a facility calculates a 30-day 
rolling average emission rate in accordance with this section which 
exceeds the applicable emission standards of this section, then it will 
be considered 30 days of excess emissions. If the following 30-day 
rolling average emission rate is calculated and found to exceed the 
applicable emission standards of this section as well, then it will add 
one more day to the total days of excess emissions (i.e. 31 days). 
Similarly, if an excess emission is calculated for a 30-day rolling 
average period and no additional excess emissions are calculated until 
15 days after the first, then that new excess emission will add 15 days 
to the total days of excess emissions (i.e. 30 + 15 = 45). For purposes 
of this section, if an excess emission is calculated for any period of 
time within a reporting period, there will be no fewer than 30 days of 
excess emissions but there should be no more than 121 days of excess 
emissions for a reporting period.
    (C) For purposes of this section, the total percent of excess 
emissions will be determined by summing all periods of excess emissions 
(in days) for the reporting period, dividing that number by the total 
BART affected unit operating days for the reporting period, and then 
multiplying by 100 to get the total percent of excess emissions for the 
reporting period. An operating day, as defined previously, is any day 
during which fuel is fired in the BART affected unit for any period of 
time. Because of the possible overlap of 30-day rolling average excess 
emissions across quarters, there are some situations where the total 
percent of excess emissions could exceed 100 percent. This extreme 
situation would only result from serious excess emissions problems 
where excess emissions occur for nearly every day during a reporting 
period.
    (xi) A table summarizing the total duration of monitor downtime, as 
defined at paragraph (n)(7)(xi)(A) of this section, for the reporting 
period broken down by the cause of the monitor downtime (monitor 
equipment malfunctions, non-monitor equipment malfunctions, quality 
assurance calibration, other known causes, unknown causes), and the 
total percent of monitor downtime (for all causes) for the reporting 
period calculated as described at paragraph (n)(7)(xi)(B) of this 
section.
    (A) For purposes of this section, monitor downtime is defined as 
any period of time (in hours) during which the required monitoring 
system was not measuring emissions from the BART affected unit. This 
includes any period of CEMS QA/QC, daily zero and span checks, and 
similar activities.
    (B) For purposes of this section, the total percent of monitor 
downtime will be determined by summing all periods of monitor downtime 
(in hours) for the reporting period, dividing that number by the total 
number of BART affected unit operating hours for the reporting period, 
and then multiplying by 100 to get the total percent of excess 
emissions for the reporting period.
    (xii) A table which identifies each period of excess emissions for 
the reporting period and includes, at a minimum, the information in 
paragraphs (n)(7)(xii)(A)-(F) of this section.
    (A) The date of each excess emission.
    (B) The beginning and end time of each excess emission.
    (C) The pollutant for which an excess emission occurred.
    (D) The magnitude of the excess emission.
    (E) The cause of the excess emission.
    (F) The corrective action taken or preventative measures adopted to 
minimize or eliminate the excess emissions and prevent such excess 
emission from occurring again.
    (xiii) A table which identifies each period of monitor downtime for 
the reporting period and includes, at a minimum, the information in 
paragraphs (n)(7)(xiii)(A)-(D) of this section.
    (A) The date of each period of monitor downtime.
    (B) The beginning and end time of each period of monitor downtime.
    (C) The cause of the period of monitor downtime.
    (D) The corrective action taken or preventative measures adopted 
for system repairs or adjustments to minimize or eliminate monitor 
downtime and prevent such downtime from occurring again.
    (xiv) If there were no periods of excess emissions during the 
reporting period, then the excess emission report must include a 
statement which says there were no periods of excess emissions during 
this reporting period.
    (xv) If there were no periods of monitor downtime, except for daily 
zero and span checks, during the reporting period, then the excess 
emission report must include a statement which says there were no 
periods of monitor downtime during this reporting period except for the 
daily zero and span checks.
    (8) The owner or operator of each CEMS required by this section 
must develop and submit for review and approval by the Regional 
Administrator a site specific monitoring plan. The purpose of this 
monitoring plan is to establish procedures and practices which will be 
implemented by the owner or operator in its effort to comply with the 
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements of this section. 
The monitoring plan must include, at a minimum, the information at 
paragraphs (n)(8)(i)-(x) of this section.
    (i) Site specific information including the company name, address, 
and contact information.

[[Page 8738]]

    (ii) The objectives of the monitoring program implemented and 
information describing how those objectives will be met.
    (iii) Information on any emission factors used in conjunction with 
the CEMS required by this section to calculate emission rates and a 
description of how those emission factors were determined.
    (iv) A description of methods to be used to calculate emission 
rates when CEMS data is not available due to downtime associated with 
QA/QC events.
    (v) A description of the QA/QC program to be implemented by the 
owner or operator of CEMS required by this section. This can be the QA/
QC program developed in accordance with 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix F, 
Procedure 1, Section 3.
    (vi) A list of spare parts for CEMS maintained on site for system 
maintenance and repairs.
    (vii) A description of the procedures to be used to calculate 30-
day rolling averages and an example calculation which shows the 
algorithms used by the CEMS to calculate 30-day rolling averages.
    (viii) A sample of the document to be used for the quarterly excess 
emission reports required by this section.
    (ix) A description of the procedures to be implemented to 
investigate root causes of excess emissions and monitor downtime and 
the proposed corrective actions to address potential root causes of 
excess emissions and monitor downtime.
    (x) A description of the sampling and calculation methodology for 
determining the percent sulfur by weight as a monthly block average for 
coal used during that month.

Subpart Y--Minnesota

0
3. Section 52.1235 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  52.1235  Regional haze.

    (a) [Reserved]
    (b)(1) NOX emission limits. (i) United States Steel Corporation, 
Keetac: An emission limit of 1.5 lbs NOX/MMBtu, based on a 
30-day rolling average, shall apply to the Grate Kiln pelletizing 
furnace (EU030), beginning 3 years from March 8, 2013. However, for any 
30, or more, consecutive days when only natural gas is used a limit of 
1.2 lbs NOX/MMBtu, based on a 30-day rolling average, shall 
apply.
    (ii) Hibbing Taconite Company: An emission limit of 1.5 lbs 
NOX/MMBtu, based on a 30-day rolling average, shall apply to 
the Line 1 pelletizing furnace (EU020) beginning 26 months from March 
8, 2013. An emission limit of 1.5 lbs NOX/MMBtu, based on a 
30-day rolling average, shall apply to the Line 2 pelletizing furnace 
(EU021) beginning 38 months from March 8, 2013. An emission limit of 
1.5 lbs NOX/MMBtu, based on a 30-day rolling average, shall 
apply to the Line 3 pelletizing furnace (EU022) beginning 50 months 
from March 8, 2013. However, for any 30, or more, consecutive days when 
only natural gas is used at any Hibbing Taconite pelletizing furnace, a 
limit of 1.2 lbs NOX/MMBtu, based on a 30-day rolling 
average, shall apply to that furnace.
    (iii) United States Steel Corporation, Minntac: An emission limit 
of 1.5 lbs NOX/MMBtu, based on a 30-day rolling average, 
shall apply to each of the five indurating furnaces (EU225, EU261, 
EU282, EU315, and EU334). The owner or operator shall comply with this 
NOX emission limit beginning 12 months from March 8, 2013 
for the Line 6 indurating furnace (EU315); 24 months from March 8, 2013 
for the Line 7 indurating furnace (EU334); 36 months from March 8, 2013 
for the Line 4 or Line 5 indurating furnace (EU261) or (EU282); 48 
months from March 8, 2013 for the Line 5 or Line 4 indurating furnace 
(EU282) or (EU261); and 59 months from March 8, 2013 for the Line 3 
indurating furnace (EU225). However, for any 30 or more consecutive 
days when only natural gas is used at any of Minntac's indurating 
furnaces, a limit of 1.2 lbs NOX/MMBtu, based on a 30-day 
rolling average, shall apply to that furnace.
    (iv) United Taconite: An emission limit of 1.5 lbs NOX/
MMBtu, based on a 30-day rolling average, shall apply to the Line 1 
pellet furnace (EU040) beginning 38 months from March 8, 2013. An 
emission limit of 1.5 lbs NOX/MMBtu, based on a 30-day 
rolling average, shall apply to the Line 2 pellet furnace (EU042) 
beginning 26 months from March 8, 2013. However, for any 30, or more, 
consecutive days when only natural gas is used at either of United 
Taconites' Line 1 or Line 2 pellet furnaces, a limit of 1.2 lbs 
NOX/MMBtu, based on a 30-day rolling average, shall apply to 
that furnace.
    (v) ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine: An emission limit of 1.5 lbs 
NOX/MMBtu, based on a 30-day rolling average, shall apply to 
the indurating furnace (EU026) beginning 26 months from March 8, 2013. 
However, for any 30, or more, consecutive days when only natural gas is 
used, a limit of 1.2 lbs NOX/MMBtu, based on a 30-day 
rolling average, shall apply.
    (vi) Northshore Mining Company- Silver Bay: An emission limit of 
1.5 lbs NOX/MMBtu, based on a 30-day rolling average, shall 
apply to Furnace 11 (EU100/EU104) beginning 26 months from March 8, 
2013. An emission limit of 1.5 lbs NOX/MMBtu, based on a 30-
day rolling average, shall apply to Furnace 12 (EU110/114) beginning 38 
months from March 8, 2013. However, for any 30, or more, consecutive 
days when only natural gas is used at either Northshore Mining Furnace 
11 or Furnace 12, a limit of 1.2 lbs NOX/MMBtu, based on a 
30-day rolling average, shall apply. An emission limit of 0.085 lbs/
MMBtu, based on a 30-day rolling average, shall apply to Process Boiler 
1 (EU003) and Process Boiler 2 (EU004) beginning 5 
years from March 8, 2013. The 0.085 lbs/MMBtu emission limit for each 
process boiler applies at all times a unit is operating, including 
periods of start-up, shut-down and malfunction.
    (2) SO2 emission limits. (i) United States Steel 
Corporation, Keetac: An emission limit of 225 lbs SO2/hr, 
based on a 30-day rolling average, shall apply to the Grate Kiln 
pelletizing furnace (EU030). Any coal burned at Keetac shall have a 
sulfur content of 0.60 percent sulfur by weight or less based on a 
monthly block average. The sampling and calculation methodology for 
determining the sulfur content of fuel must be described in the 
monitoring plan required at paragraph (e)(8)(x) of this section. 
Compliance with these requirements for EU030 is required beginning 3 
months from March 8, 2013.
    (ii) Hibbing Taconite Company: An aggregate emission limit of 247.8 
lbs SO2/hr shall apply to the three affected lines, EU020, 
EU021, and EU022. The SO2 emission limits for these three 
pelletizing furnaces are based on a 30-day rolling average. Emissions 
resulting from the combustion of fuel oil are not included in the 
calculation of the 30-day rolling average. However, if any fuel oil is 
burned after the first day that SO2 CEMS are required to be 
operational, then the information specified in (b)(2)(vii) must be 
submitted, for each calendar year, to the Regional Administrator no 
later than 30 days after the end of each calendar year so that a limit 
can be set. Compliance with the emission limits is required beginning 6 
months from March 8, 2013. Within 20 months of March 8, 2013, the owner 
or operator may calculate a revised SO2 limit based on one 
year of hourly CEMS emissions data reported in lbs SO2/hr 
and submit such limit, calculations and CEMS data to EPA. This limit 
shall be set in terms of lbs

[[Page 8739]]

SO2/hr, based on the following equations, with compliance to 
be determined on a 30-day rolling average.

m=(n+1)*[alpha]

m = the rank of the ordered data point, when data is sorted smallest 
to largest
n=[alpha] number of data points
[alpha] = 0.95, to reflect the 95\th\ percentile

    If m is a whole number, then the limit, UPL, shall be computed 
as:

UPL = Xm,

Where:

X=m value of the m\th\ data point in terms of lbs 
SO2/hr, when the data is sorted smallest to largest.

    If m is not a whole number, the limit shall be computed by linear 
interpolation according to the following equation.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06FE13.004

Where:

m=[igr] the integer portion of m, i.e., m truncated at 
zero decimal places, and
m=d the decimal portion of m

    (iii) United States Steel Corporation, Minntac: An aggregate 
emission limit for indurating furnace Lines 3-7 (EU225, EU261, EU282, 
EU315, and EU334) of 498 lbs SO2/hr shall apply when all 
lines are producing flux pellets. An aggregate emission limit of 630 
lbs SO2/hr shall apply to Lines 3-7 when Line 3-5 are 
producing acid pellets and Lines 6 and 7 are producing flux pellets. An 
aggregate emission limit of 800 lbs SO2/hr shall apply to 
Lines 3-7 when all lines are producing acid pellets. The SO2 
emission limits are based on a 30-day rolling average and apply 
beginning 3 months from March 8, 2013. The emission limit for a given 
30-day rolling average period is calculated using a weighted average as 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06FE13.005

Where:

L30 = the limit for a given 30 day averaging period
nf = the number of days in the 30 day period that the facility is 
producing flux pellets on lines 3-7
naf = the number of days in the 30 day period that the facility is 
producing acid pellets on lines 3-5 and flux pellets on lines 6 and 
7
na = the number of days in the 30 day period that the facility is 
producing acid pellets on lines 3-7

    Also, beginning 3 months from March 8, 2013, any coal burned at 
Minntac's Lines 3-7 shall have a sulfur content of 0.60 percent sulfur 
by weight or less based on a monthly block average. The sampling and 
calculation methodology for determining the sulfur content of fuel must 
be described in the monitoring plan required at paragraph (e)(8)(x) of 
this section.
    (iv) United Taconite: An aggregate emission limit of 529.0 lbs 
SO2/hr, based on a 30-day rolling average, shall apply to 
the Line 1 pellet furnace (EU040) and Line 2 pellet furnace (EU042) 
beginning 54 months from March 8, 2013. Also, beginning 54 months from 
March 8, 2013, any coal burned in the Line 1 or Line 2 pellet furnace 
shall have a sulfur content of 0.60 percent sulfur by weight or less 
based on a monthly block average. The sampling and calculation 
methodology for determining the sulfur content of fuel must be 
described in the monitoring plan required at paragraph (e)(8)(x) of 
this section.
    (v) ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine: An emission limit of 38.16 lbs 
SO2/hr, based on a 30-day rolling average, shall apply to 
the indurating furnace (EU026) beginning 6 months from March 8, 2013. 
This limit shall not apply when the unit is combusting fuel oil. 
However, if any fuel oil is burned after the first day that 
SO2 CEMS are required to be operational, then the 
information specified in paragraph (b)(2)(vii) of this section must be 
submitted, for each calendar year, to the Regional Administrator no 
later than 30 days after the end of each calendar year so that a limit 
can be set. Within 20 months of March 8, 2013, the owner or operator 
may calculate a revised SO2 limit based on one year of 
hourly CEMS emissions data reported in lbs SO2/hr and submit 
such limit, calculations, and CEMS data to EPA. This limit shall be set 
in terms of lbs SO2/hr, based on the following equations, 
with compliance to be determined on a 30-day rolling average.

m = (n + 1) * [alpha]

m = the rank of the ordered data point, when data is sorted smallest 
to largest
n = number of data points
[alpha] = 0.95, to reflect the 95\th\ percentile

    If m is a whole number, then the limit, UPL, shall be computed 
as:

UPL = Xm,

Where:

xm = value of the mth data point in terms of lbs 
SO2/hr, when the data is sorted smallest to largest

    If m is not a whole number, the limit shall be computed by linear 
interpolation according to the following equation.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06FE13.006

Where:

mi = the integer portion of m, i.e., m truncated at zero decimal 
places, and
m[alpha] = the decimal portion of m

    (vi) Northshore Mining Company--Silver Bay: An aggregate emission 
limit of 39.0 lbs SO2/hr, based on a 30-day rolling average, 
shall apply to Furnace 11 (EU100/EU104) and Furnace 12 (EU110/EU114). 
Compliance with this limit is required within 6 months. Emissions 
resulting from the combustion of fuel oil are not included in the 
calculation of the 30-day rolling average. However, if any fuel oil is 
burned after the first day that SO2 CEMS are required to be 
operational, then the information specified in paragraph (b)(2)(vii) of 
this section must be submitted, for each calendar year, to the Regional 
Administrator no later than 30 days after the end of each calendar year 
so that a limit can be set. Within 20 months of March 8, 2013, the 
owner or operator must calculate a revised SO2 limit based 
on one year of hourly CEMS emissions data reported in lbs 
SO2/hr and submit such limit, calculations and CEMS data to 
EPA. This limit shall be set in terms of lbs SO2/hr, based 
on the following equations, with compliance to be determined on a 30-
day rolling average.

m = (n + 1) * [alpha]

m = the rank of the ordered data point, when data is sorted smallest 
to largest
n = number of data points
[alpha] = 0.95, to reflect the 95th percentile

    If m is a whole number, then the limit, UPL, shall be computed 
as:

UPL = Xm,

Where:


[[Page 8740]]


xm = value of the mth data point in terms of lbs 
SO2/hr, when the data is sorted smallest to largest

    If m is not a whole number, the limit shall be computed by linear 
interpolation according to the following equation.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06FE13.007

Where:

mi = the integer portion of m, i.e., m truncated at zero decimal 
places, and
m[alpha] = the decimal portion of m

    (vii) Starting with the first day that SO2 CEMS are 
required to be operational, for the facilities listed in paragraphs 
(b)(2)(i)-(b)(2)(vi) of this section, records shall be kept for any day 
during which fuel oil is burned (either alone or blended with other 
fuels) in one or more of a facility's indurating furnaces. These 
records must include, at a minimum, the gallons of fuel oil burned per 
hour, the sulfur content of the fuel oil, and the SO2 
emissions in pounds per hour. If any fuel oil is burned after the first 
day that SO2 CEMS are required to be operational, then the 
records must be submitted, for each calendar year, to the Regional 
Administrator no later than 30 days after the end of each calendar 
year.
    (c) Testing and monitoring. (1) The owner or operator of the 
respective facility shall install, certify, calibrate, maintain and 
operate Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMS) for 
NOX on United States Steel Corporation, Keetac unit EU030; 
Hibbing Taconite Company units EU020, EU021, and EU022; United States 
Steel Corporation, Minntac units EU225, EU261, EU282, EU315, and EU334; 
United Taconite units EU040 and EU042; ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine unit 
EU026; and Northshore Mining Company--Silver Bay units Furnace 11 
(EU100/EU104) and Furnace 12 (EU110/EU114). Compliance with the 
emission limits for NOX shall be determined using data from 
the CEMS.
    (2) The owner or operator shall install, certify, calibrate, 
maintain and operate CEMS for SO2 on United States Steel 
Corporation, Keetac unit EU030; Hibbing Taconite Company units EU020, 
EU021, and EU022; United States Steel Corporation, Minntac units EU225, 
EU261, EU282, EU315, and EU334; United Taconite units EU040 and EU042; 
ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine unit EU026; and Northshore Mining Company--
Silver Bay units Furnace 11 (EU100/EU104) and Furnace 12 (EU110/EU114).
    (3) The owner or operator shall install, certify, calibrate, 
maintain and operate one or more continuous diluent monitor(s) 
(O2 or CO2) and continuous flow rate monitor(s) 
on the BART affected units to allow conversion of the NOX 
and SO2 concentrations to units of the standard (lbs/MMBtu 
and lbs/hr, respectively) unless a demonstration is made that a diluent 
monitor and continuous flow rate monitor are not needed for the owner 
or operator to demonstrate compliance with applicable emission limits 
in units of the standards.
    (4) For purposes of this section, all CEMS required by this section 
must meet the requirements of paragraphs (c)(4)(i)-(xiv) of this 
section.
    (i) All CEMS must be installed, certified, calibrated, maintained, 
and operated in accordance with 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix B, Performance 
Specification 2 (PS-2) and Appendix F, Procedure 1.
    (ii) All CEMS associated with monitoring NOX (including 
the NOX monitor and necessary diluent and flow rate 
monitors) must be installed and operational no later than the unit 
specific compliance dates for the emission limits identified at 
paragraphs (b)(1)(i)-(vi) of this section. All CEMS associated with 
monitoring SO2 (except the CEMS associated with monitoring 
SO2 at United Taconite Line 1 and Line 2 pellet furnaces) 
must be installed and operational no later than six months after March 
8, 2013. All CEMs associated with monitoring SO2 at United 
Taconite Line 1 and Line 2 pellet furnaces must be installed and 
operational no later than 54 months from March 8, 2013. Verification of 
the CEMS operational status shall, as a minimum, include completion of 
the manufacturer's written requirements or recommendations for 
installation, operation, and calibration of the devices.
    (iii) The owner or operator must conduct a performance evaluation 
of each CEMS in accordance with 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix B, PS-2. The 
performance evaluations must be completed no later than 60 days after 
the respective CEMS installation.
    (iv) The owner or operator of each CEMS must conduct periodic 
Quality Assurance, Quality Control (QA/QC) checks of each CEMS in 
accordance with 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix F, Procedure 1. The first CEMS 
accuracy test will be a relative accuracy test audit (RATA) and must be 
completed no later than 60 days after the respective CEMS installation.
    (v) The owner or operator of each CEMS must furnish the Regional 
Administrator two, or upon request, more copies of a written report of 
the results of each performance evaluation and QA/QC check within 60 
days of completion.
    (vi) The owner or operator of each CEMS must check, record, and 
quantify the zero and span calibration drifts at least once daily 
(every 24 hours) in accordance with 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix F, 
Procedure 1, Section 4.
    (vii) Except for CEMS breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, and 
zero and span adjustments, all CEMS required by this section shall be 
in continuous operation during all periods of BART affected process 
unit operation, including periods of process unit startup, shutdown, 
and malfunction.
    (viii) All CEMS required by this section must meet the minimum data 
requirements at paragraphs (c)(4)(viii)(A)-(C) of this section.
    (A) Complete a minimum of one cycle of operation (sampling, 
analyzing, and data recording) for each successive 15-minute quadrant 
of an hour.
    (B) Sample, analyze and record emissions data for all periods of 
process operation except as described in paragraph (c)(4)(viii)(C) of 
this section.
    (C) When emission data from CEMS are not available due to 
continuous monitoring system breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, 
or zero and span adjustments, emission data must be obtained using 
other monitoring systems or emission estimation methods approved by the 
EPA. The other monitoring systems or emission estimation methods to be 
used must be incorporated into the monitoring plan required by this 
section and provide information such that emissions data are available 
for a minimum of 18 hours in each 24 hour period and at least 22 out of 
30 successive unit operating days.
    (ix) Owners or operators of each CEMS required by this section must 
reduce all data to 1-hour averages. Hourly averages shall be computed 
using all valid data obtained within the hour but no less than one data 
point in each fifteen-minute quadrant of an hour. Notwithstanding this 
requirement, an hourly average may be computed from at least two data 
points separated by a

[[Page 8741]]

minimum of 15 minutes (where the unit operates for more than one 
quadrant in an hour) if data are unavailable as a result of performance 
of calibration, quality assurance, preventive maintenance activities, 
or backups of data from data acquisition and handling systems, and 
recertification events.
    (x) The 30-day rolling average emission rate determined from data 
derived from the CEMS required by this section (in lbs/MMBtu or lbs/hr 
depending on the emission standard selected) must be calculated in 
accordance with paragraphs (c)(4)(x)(A)-(F) of this section.
    (A) Sum the total pounds of the pollutant in question emitted from 
the Unit during an operating day and the previous twenty-nine operating 
days.
    (B) Sum the total heat input to the unit (in MMBtu) or the total 
actual hours of operation (in hours) during an operating day and the 
previous twenty-nine operating days.
    (C) Divide the total number of pounds of the pollutant in question 
emitted during the thirty operating days by the total heat input (or 
actual hours of operation depending on the emission limit selected) 
during the thirty operating days.
    (D) For purposes of this calculation, an operating day is any day 
during which fuel is combusted in the BART affected Unit regardless of 
whether pellets are produced. Actual hours of operation are the total 
hours a unit is firing fuel regardless of whether a complete 24-hour 
operational cycle occurs (i.e. if the furnace is firing fuel for only 5 
hours during a 24-hour period, then the actual operating hours for that 
day are 5. Similarly, total number of pounds of the pollutant in 
question for that day is determined only from the CEMS data for the 
five hours during which fuel is combusted.)
    (E) If the owner or operator of the CEMS required by this section 
uses an alternative method to determine 30-day rolling averages, that 
method must be described in detail in the monitoring plan required by 
this section. The alternative method will only be applicable if the 
final monitoring plan and the alternative method are approved by EPA.
    (F) A new 30-day rolling average emission rate must be calculated 
for each new operating day.
    (xi) The 30-day rolling average removal efficiency determined from 
data derived from the CEMS required by this section must be calculated 
in accordance with paragraphs (c)(4)(xi)(A)-(G) of this section.
    (A) Calculate the 30-day rolling average emission rate described in 
paragraphs (c)(4)(x)(A)-(F) of this section at the inlet of the control 
device.
    (B) Calculate the 30-day rolling average emission rate described in 
paragraphs (c)(4)(x)(A)-(F) of this section at the outlet of the 
control device.
    (C) Subtract the 30-day rolling average emission rate determined at 
the outlet of the control device from the 30-day rolling average 
emission rate determined at the inlet of the control device.
    (D) Divide the result of paragraph (c)(4)(xi)(C) of this section by 
the 30-day rolling average emission rate determined at the inlet.
    (E) Multiply the result of paragraph (c)(4)(xi)(D) of this section 
by 100 to determine the 30-day rolling average removal efficiency.
    (F) If the owner or operator of the CEMS required by this section 
uses an alternative method to determine the 30-day rolling average 
removal efficiency, that method must be described in detail in the 
monitoring plan required by this section. The alternative method will 
only be applicable if the final monitoring plan and the alternative 
method are approved by EPA.
    (G) A new 30-day rolling average removal efficiency must be 
calculated for each new operating day.
    (xii) Data substitution must not be used for purposes of 
determining compliance under this section.
    (xiii) All CEMS data shall be reduced and reported in units of the 
applicable standard.
    (xiv) A Quality Control Program must be developed and implemented 
for all CEMS required by this section in accordance with 40 CFR Part 
60, Appendix F, Procedure 1, Section 3. The program will include, at a 
minimum, written procedures and operations for calibration checks, 
calibration drift adjustments, preventative maintenance, data 
collection, recording and reporting, accuracy audits/procedures, 
periodic performance evaluations, and a corrective action program for 
malfunctioning CEMS.
    (5) No later than the compliance date of this section, owners or 
operators utilizing a wet scrubber to control SO2 shall 
include in the performance testing an evaluation of compliance with the 
pH limits established by this section. The pH evaluation shall be 
performed in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 136.3 using EPA 
Method 150.2.
    (d) Recordkeeping requirements. (1)(i) Records required by this 
section must be kept in a form suitable and readily available for 
expeditious review.
    (ii) Records required by this section must be kept for a minimum of 
5 years following the date of creation.
    (iii) Records must be kept on site for at least 2 years following 
the date of creation and may be kept offsite, but readily accessible, 
for the remaining 3 years.
    (2) The owner or operator of the BART affected units must maintain 
the records at paragraphs (d)(2)(i)-(xi) of this section.
    (i) A copy of each notification and report developed for and 
submitted to comply with this section including all documentation 
supporting any initial notification or notification of compliance 
status submitted according to the requirements of this section.
    (ii) Records of the occurrence and duration of startup, shutdown, 
and malfunction of the BART affected units, air pollution control 
equipment, and CEMS required by this section.
    (iii) Records of activities taken during each startup, shutdown, 
and malfunction of the BART affected unit, air pollution control 
equipment, and CEMS required by this section.
    (iv) Records of the occurrence and duration of all major 
maintenance conducted on the BART affected units, air pollution control 
equipment, and CEMS required by this section.
    (v) Records of each excess emission report, including all 
documentation supporting the reports, dates and times when excess 
emissions occurred, investigations into the causes of excess emissions, 
actions taken to minimize or eliminate the excess emissions, and 
preventative measures to avoid the cause of excess emissions from 
occurring again.
    (vi) Records of all CEMS data including, as a minimum, the date, 
location, and time of sampling or measurement, parameters sampled or 
measured, and results.
    (vii) All records associated with quality assurance and quality 
control activities on each CEMS as well as other records required by 40 
CFR Part 60, Appendix F, Procedure 1 including, but not limited to, the 
quality control program, audit results, and reports submitted as 
required by this section.
    (viii) Records of the NOX emissions during all periods 
of BART affected unit operation, including startup, shutdown and 
malfunction in the units of the standard. The owner or operator shall 
convert the monitored data into the appropriate unit of the emission 
limitation using appropriate conversion factors and F-factors. F-
factors used for purposes of this section shall be documented in the 
monitoring plan and developed in accordance with 40 CFR

[[Page 8742]]

Part 60, Appendix A, Method 19. The owner or operator may use an 
alternate method to calculate the NOX emissions upon written 
approval from EPA.
    (ix) Records of the SO2 emissions or records of the 
removal efficiency (based on CEMS data), depending on the emission 
standard selected, during all periods of operation, including periods 
of startup, shutdown and malfunction, in the units of the standard.
    (x) Records associated with the CEMS unit including type of CEMS, 
CEMS model number, CEMS serial number, and initial certification of 
each CEMS conducted in accordance with 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix B, 
Performance Specification 2 must be kept for the life of the CEMS unit.
    (xi) Records of all periods of fuel oil usage as required at 
paragraph (b)(2)(vi) of this section.
    (e) Reporting requirements. (1) All requests, reports, submittals, 
notifications, and other communications to the Regional Administrator 
required by this section shall be submitted, unless instructed 
otherwise, to the Air and Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 5 (A-18J), at 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    (2) The owner or operator of each BART affected unit identified in 
this section and CEMS required by this section must provide to the 
Regional Administrator the written notifications, reports and plans 
identified at paragraphs (e)(2)(i)-(viii) of this section. If 
acceptable to both the Regional Administrator and the owner or operator 
of each BART affected unit identified in this section and CEMS required 
by this section the owner or operator may provide electronic 
notifications, reports and plans.
    (i) A notification of the date construction of control devices and 
installation of burners required by this section commences postmarked 
no later than 30 days after the commencement date.
    (ii) A notification of the date the installation of each CEMS 
required by this section commences postmarked no later than 30 days 
after the commencement date.
    (iii) A notification of the date the construction of control 
devices and installation of burners required by this section is 
complete postmarked no later than 30 days after the completion date.
    (iv) A notification of the date the installation of each CEMS 
required by this section is complete postmarked no later than 30 days 
after the completion date.
    (v) A notification of the date control devices and burners 
installed by this section startup postmarked no later than 30 days 
after the startup date.
    (vi) A notification of the date CEMS required by this section 
startup postmarked no later than 30 days after the startup date.
    (vii) A notification of the date upon which the initial CEMS 
performance evaluations are planned. This notification must be 
submitted at least 60 days before the performance evaluation is 
scheduled to begin.
    (viii) A notification of initial compliance, signed by the 
responsible official who shall certify its accuracy, attesting to 
whether the source has complied with the requirements of this section, 
including, but not limited to, applicable emission standards, control 
device and burner installations, CEMS installation and certification. 
This notification must be submitted before the close of business on the 
60th calendar day following the completion of the compliance 
demonstration and must include, at a minimum, the information at 
paragraphs (e)(2)(viii)(A)-(F) of this section.
    (A) The methods used to determine compliance.
    (B) The results of any CEMS performance evaluations, and other 
monitoring procedures or methods that were conducted.
    (C) The methods that will be used for determining continuing 
compliance, including a description of monitoring and reporting 
requirements and test methods.
    (D) The type and quantity of air pollutants emitted by the source, 
reported in units of the standard.
    (E) A description of the air pollution control equipment and 
burners installed as required by this section, for each emission point.
    (F) A statement by the owner or operator as to whether the source 
has complied with the relevant standards and other requirements.
    (3) The owner or operator must develop and implement a written 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan for NOX and 
SO2. The plan must include, at a minimum, procedures for 
operating and maintaining the source during periods of startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction; and a program of corrective action for a 
malfunctioning process and air pollution control and monitoring 
equipment used to comply with the relevant standard. The plan must 
ensure that, at all times, the owner or operator operates and maintains 
each affected source, including associated air pollution control and 
monitoring equipment, in a manner which satisfies the general duty to 
minimize or eliminate emissions using good air pollution control 
practices. The plan must ensure that owners or operators are prepared 
to correct malfunctions as soon as practicable after their occurrence.
    (4) The written reports of the results of each performance 
evaluation and QA/QC check in accordance with and as required by 
paragraph (c)(4)(v) of this section.
    (5) Compliance reports. The owner or operator of each BART affected 
unit must submit semiannual compliance reports. The semiannual 
compliance reports must be submitted in accordance with paragraphs 
(e)(5)(i) through (iv) of this section, unless the Administrator has 
approved a different schedule.
    (i) The first compliance report must cover the period beginning on 
the compliance date that is specified for the affected source through 
June 30 or December 31, whichever date comes first after the compliance 
date that is specified for the affected source.
    (ii) The first compliance report must be postmarked no later than 
30 calendar days after the reporting period covered by that report 
(July 30 or January 30), whichever comes first.
    (iii) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the semiannual 
reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual 
reporting period from July 1 through December 31.
    (iv) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked no later 
than 30 calendar days after the reporting period covered by that report 
(July 30 or January 30).
    (6) Compliance report contents. Each compliance report must include 
the information in paragraphs (e)(6)(i) through (vi) of this section.
    (i) Company name and address.
    (ii) Statement by a responsible official, with the official's name, 
title, and signature, certifying the truth, accuracy, and completeness 
of the content of the report.
    (iii) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the 
reporting period.
    (iv) Identification of the process unit, control devices, and CEMS 
covered by the compliance report.
    (v) A record of each period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction 
during the reporting period and a description of the actions the owner 
or operator took to minimize or eliminate emissions arising as a result 
of the startup, shutdown, or malfunction and whether those actions were 
or were not consistent with the source's startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan.
    (vi) A statement identifying whether there were or were not any 
deviations from the requirements of this section

[[Page 8743]]

during the reporting period. If there were deviations from the 
requirements of this section during the reporting period, then the 
compliance report must describe in detail the deviations which 
occurred, the causes of the deviations, actions taken to address the 
deviations, and procedures put in place to avoid such deviations in the 
future. If there were no deviations from the requirements of this 
section during the reporting period, then the compliance report must 
include a statement that there were no deviations. For purposes of this 
section, deviations include, but are not limited to, emissions in 
excess of applicable emission standards established by this section, 
failure to continuously operate an air pollution control device in 
accordance with operating requirements designed to assure compliance 
with emission standards, failure to continuously operate CEMS required 
by this section, and failure to maintain records or submit reports 
required by this section.
    (7) Each owner or operator of a CEMS required by this section must 
submit quarterly excess emissions and monitoring system performance 
reports for each pollutant monitored for each BART affected unit 
monitored. All reports must be postmarked by the 30\th\ day following 
the end of each three-month period of a calendar year (January-March, 
April-June, July-September, October-December) and must include, at a 
minimum, the requirements at paragraphs (e)(7)(i)-(xv) of this section.
    (i) Company name and address.
    (ii) Identification and description of the process unit being 
monitored.
    (iii) The dates covered by the reporting period.
    (iv) Total source operating hours for the reporting period.
    (v) Monitor manufacturer, monitor model number and monitor serial 
number.
    (vi) Pollutant monitored.
    (vii) Emission limitation for the monitored pollutant.
    (viii) Date of latest CEMS certification or audit.
    (ix) A description of any changes in continuous monitoring systems, 
processes, or controls since the last reporting period.
    (x) A table summarizing the total duration of excess emissions, as 
defined at paragraphs (e)(7)(x)(A)-(B) of this section, for the 
reporting period broken down by the cause of those excess emissions 
(startup/shutdown, control equipment problems, process problems, other 
known causes, unknown causes), and the total percent of excess 
emissions (for all causes) for the reporting period calculated as 
described at paragraph (e)(7)(x)(C) of this section.
    (A) For purposes of this section, an excess emission is defined as 
any 30-day rolling average period, including periods of startup, 
shutdown and malfunction, during which the 30-day rolling average 
emissions of either regulated pollutant (SO2 and 
NOX), as measured by a CEMS, exceeds the applicable emission 
standards in this section.
    (B) For purposes of this section, if a facility calculates a 30-day 
rolling average emission rate in accordance with this section which 
exceeds the applicable emission standards of this section, then it will 
be considered 30 days of excess emissions. If the following 30-day 
rolling average emission rate is calculated and found to exceed the 
applicable emission standards of this section as well, then it will add 
one more day to the total days of excess emissions (i.e. 31 days). 
Similarly, if an excess emission is calculated for a 30-day rolling 
average period and no additional excess emissions are calculated until 
15 days after the first, then that new excess emission will add 15 days 
to the total days of excess emissions (i.e. 30 + 15 = 45). For purposes 
of this section, if an excess emission is calculated for any period of 
time within a reporting period, there will be no fewer than 30 days of 
excess emissions but there should be no more than 121 days of excess 
emissions for a reporting period.
    (C) For purposes of this section, the total percent of excess 
emissions will be determined by summing all periods of excess emissions 
(in days) for the reporting period, dividing that number by the total 
BART affected unit operating days for the reporting period, and then 
multiplying by 100 to get the total percent of excess emissions for the 
reporting period. An operating day, as defined previously, is any day 
during which fuel is fired in the BART affected unit for any period of 
time. Because of the possible overlap of 30-day rolling average excess 
emissions across quarters, there are some situations where the total 
percent of excess emissions could exceed 100 percent. This extreme 
situation would only result from serious excess emissions problems 
where excess emissions occur for nearly every day during a reporting 
period.
    (xi) A table summarizing the total duration of monitor downtime, as 
defined at paragraph (e)(7)(xi)(A) of this section, for the reporting 
period broken down by the cause of the monitor downtime (monitor 
equipment malfunctions, non-monitor equipment malfunctions, quality 
assurance calibration, other known causes, unknown causes), and the 
total percent of monitor downtime (for all causes) for the reporting 
period calculated as described at paragraph (e)(7)(xi)(B) of this 
section.
    (A) For purposes of this section, monitor downtime is defined as 
any period of time (in hours) during which the required monitoring 
system was not measuring emissions from the BART affected unit. This 
includes any period of CEMS QA/QC, daily zero and span checks, and 
similar activities.
    (B) For purposes of this section, the total percent of monitor 
downtime will be determined by summing all periods of monitor downtime 
(in hours) for the reporting period, dividing that number by the total 
number of BART affected unit operating hours for the reporting period, 
and then multiplying by 100 to get the total percent of excess 
emissions for the reporting period.
    (xii) A table which identifies each period of excess emissions for 
the reporting period and includes, at a minimum, the information in 
paragraphs (e)(7)(xii)(A)-(F) of this section.
    (A) The date of each excess emission.
    (B) The beginning and end time of each excess emission.
    (C) The pollutant for which an excess emission occurred.
    (D) The magnitude of the excess emission.
    (E) The cause of the excess emission.
    (F) The corrective action taken or preventative measures adopted to 
minimize or eliminate the excess emissions and prevent such excess 
emission from occurring again.
    (xiii) A table which identifies each period of monitor downtime for 
the reporting period and includes, at a minimum, the information in 
paragraphs (e)(7)(xiii)(A)-(D) of this section.
    (A) The date of each period of monitor downtime.
    (B) The beginning and end time of each period of monitor downtime.
    (C) The cause of the period of monitor downtime.
    (D) The corrective action taken or preventative measures adopted 
for system repairs or adjustments to minimize or eliminate monitor 
downtime and prevent such downtime from occurring again.
    (xiv) If there were no periods of excess emissions during the 
reporting period, then the excess emission report must include a 
statement which says there were no periods of excess emissions during 
this reporting period.
    (xv) If there were no periods of monitor downtime, except for daily 
zero

[[Page 8744]]

and span checks, during the reporting period, then the excess emission 
report must include a statement which says there were no periods of 
monitor downtime during this reporting period except for the daily zero 
and span checks.
    (8) The owner or operator of each CEMS required by this section 
must develop and submit for review and approval by the Regional 
Administrator a site specific monitoring plan. The purpose of this 
monitoring plan is to establish procedures and practices which will be 
implemented by the owner or operator in its effort to comply with the 
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements of this section. 
The monitoring plan must include, at a minimum, the information at 
paragraphs (e)(8)(i)-(x) of this section.
    (i) Site specific information including the company name, address, 
and contact information.
    (ii) The objectives of the monitoring program implemented and 
information describing how those objectives will be met.
    (iii) Information on any emission factors used in conjunction with 
the CEMS required by this section to calculate emission rates and a 
description of how those emission factors were determined.
    (iv) A description of methods to be used to calculate emission 
rates when CEMS data is not available due to downtime associated with 
QA/QC events.
    (v) A description of the QA/QC program to be implemented by the 
owner or operator of CEMS required by this section. This can be the QA/
QC program developed in accordance with 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix F, 
Procedure 1, Section 3.
    (vi) A list of spare parts for CEMS maintained on site for system 
maintenance and repairs.
    (vii) A description of the procedures to be used to calculate 30-
day rolling averages and an example calculation which shows the 
algorithms used by the CEMS to calculate 30-day rolling averages.
    (viii) A sample of the document to be used for the quarterly excess 
emission reports required by this section.
    (ix) A description of the procedures to be implemented to 
investigate root causes of excess emissions and monitor downtime and 
the proposed corrective actions to address potential root causes of 
excess emissions and monitor downtime.
    (x) A description of the sampling and calculation methodology for 
determining the percent sulfur by weight as a monthly block average for 
coal used during that month.

[FR Doc. 2013-01473 Filed 2-5-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


