[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 23 (Tuesday, February 4, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6125-6129]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-01321]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0037; FRL-10004-62-Region 5]


Air Plan Approval; Minnesota; Revision to Taconite Federal 
Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing 
revisions to a Federal implementation plan (FIP) addressing the 
requirement for best available retrofit technology (BART) for the 
United States Steel Corporation's (U.S. Steel) taconite plant located 
in Mt. Iron, Minnesota (Minntac or Minntac facility). We are proposing 
to revise the nitrogen oxides (NOX) limits for U.S. Steel's 
taconite furnaces at its Minntac facility because new information has 
come to light that was not available when we originally promulgated the 
FIP on February 6, 2013. The EPA is proposing this action pursuant to 
sections 110 and 169A of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 5, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2010-0037 at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to 
aburano.douglas@epa.gov. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, 
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, 
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either 
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its 
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you 
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia 
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written 
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and 
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will 
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of 
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person 
identified in the ``For Further Information Contact'' section. For the 
full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia 
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please 
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen D'Agostino, Environmental 
Scientist, Attainment Planning & Maintenance Section, Air Programs 
Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-1767, 
dagostino.kathleen@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

I. What action is EPA taking?

    On February 6, 2013, EPA promulgated a FIP that included BART 
limits for certain taconite furnaces in Minnesota and Michigan (2013 
Taconite FIP; 78 FR 8706). EPA is proposing to revise the 2013 Taconite 
FIP with respect to the NOX BART emission limitations and 
compliance schedules for U.S. Steel's Minntac facility in Minnesota.

II. Background

A. Requirements of the Clean Air Act and EPA's Regional Haze Rule

    In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created 
a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and 
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national 
goal the ``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, 
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas \1\ which 
impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' Congress added section 
169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional haze issues. EPA 
promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1, 1999. 64 FR 
35714 (July 1, 1999), codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart P (herein 
after referred to as the ``Regional Haze Rule''). The Regional Haze 
Rule codified and clarified the BART provisions in the CAA and revised 
the existing visibility regulations to add provisions addressing 
regional haze impairment and to

[[Page 6126]]

establish a comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I 
areas. The requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 
51.309, are included in EPA's visibility protection regulations at 40 
CFR part 51, subpart P.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist 
of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and 
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international 
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). 
In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation 
with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas 
where visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 69122 
(November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes 
subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C. 
7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate as Class I 
additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an 
important value, the requirements of the visibility program set 
forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class I 
Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the 
responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). 
When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this action, we mean a 
``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 169A of the CAA directs states, or EPA if developing a FIP, 
to evaluate the use of retrofit controls at certain larger, often 
uncontrolled, older stationary sources to address visibility impacts 
from these sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA 
requires that implementation plans contain such measures as may be 
necessary to make reasonable progress toward the natural visibility 
goal, including a requirement that certain categories of existing major 
stationary sources \2\ built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, 
and operate BART as determined by EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject 
to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7) and includes ``taconite 
ore processing facilities.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Regional Haze Rule, states (or in the case of a FIP, EPA) 
are directed to conduct BART determinations for such ``BART-eligible'' 
sources that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to 
any visibility impairment in a Class I area.
    On July 6, 2005, EPA published the Guidelines for BART 
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule at appendix Y to 40 CFR 
part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the ``BART Guidelines'') to assist 
states and EPA in determining which sources should be subject to the 
BART requirements and in determining appropriate emission limits for 
each source subject to BART. 70 FR 39104.
    The process of establishing BART emission limitations follows three 
steps. First, states, or EPA if developing a FIP, must identify and 
list ``BART-eligible sources.'' \3\ Once the state or EPA has 
identified the BART-eligible sources, the second step is to identify 
those sources that may ``emit any air pollutant which may reasonably be 
anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility'' in 
a Class I area (Under the Regional Haze Rule, a source which fits this 
description is ``subject to BART.''). Third, for each source subject to 
BART, the state or EPA must identify the level of control representing 
BART after considering the five factors set forth in CAA section 
169A(g). The BART Guidelines provide a process for making BART 
determinations that states can use in implementing the BART 
requirements on a source-by-source basis. See 40 CFR part 51, appendix 
Y, at IV.D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``BART-eligible sources'' are those sources that have the 
potential to emit 250 tons or more of a visibility-impairing air 
pollutant, were not in operation prior to August 7, 1962, but were 
in existence on August 7, 1977, and whose operations fall within one 
or more of 26 specifically listed source categories. 40 CFR 51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    States, or EPA if developing a FIP, must address all visibility-
impairing pollutants emitted by a source in the BART determination 
process. The most significant visibility impairing pollutants are 
SO2, NOX, and particulate matter (PM).
    A state implementation plan (SIP) or FIP addressing regional haze 
must include source-specific BART emission limits and compliance 
schedules for each source subject to BART. Once a state or EPA has made 
a BART determination, the BART controls must be installed and operated 
as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than five years after the 
date of the final SIP or FIP. See CAA section 169A(g)(4) and 40 CFR 
51.308(e)(1)(iv). In addition to what is required by the Regional Haze 
Rule, general SIP requirements mandate that the SIP or FIP include all 
regulatory requirements related to monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
reporting for the BART controls on the source. See CAA section 110(a).

B. BART for U.S. Steel's Minntac Facility

    On February 6, 2013, EPA promulgated a FIP (78 FR 8706) that 
included NOX BART limits for taconite furnaces subject to 
BART in Minnesota and Michigan. EPA took this action because Minnesota 
and Michigan had failed to meet a statutory deadline to submit their 
Regional Haze SIPs and subsequently failed to require BART at the 
taconite facilities. The FIP established BART NOX limits of 
1.2 lbs NOX per million British Thermal Unit (MMBTU) when 
burning natural gas and 1.5 lbs NOX/MMBTU when co-firing 
coal and natural gas. These limits were based upon the performance of 
high stoichiometric (high-stoich) low-NOX burners (LNBs) \4\ 
at two of the taconite furnaces at U.S. Steel's Minntac facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Stoichiometry refers to the relationship between the actual 
quantity of combustion air to the theoretical minimum quantity of 
air needed for 100 percent combustion of the fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Basis for Revised NOX BART Limits for Minntac

    The NOX BART limits for taconite furnaces in the 2013 
FIP were based upon U.S. Steel's experience to date with LNBs on 
Minntac Lines 6 and 7, as well as an expectation that NOX 
emissions would be higher when burning coal because of the nitrogen 
content of coal. Since that time, U.S. Steel has collected additional 
continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) data and has experience 
operating LNBs on four of its five lines, Minntac Lines 4-7.
    While U.S. Steel's experience has confirmed that LNBs are a 
technically feasible control technology for reducing NOX 
emissions at taconite furnaces, and thus are the appropriate control 
technology for establishing BART limits, the emissions data generated 
through subsequent use of LNBs at Minntac indicate that LNB technology 
cannot consistently achieve the same results on all taconite furnaces 
while operating under various production scenarios and maintaining 
pellet quality.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Minntac CEMS Data and Analysis, available in the docket 
for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CEMS data also showed that NOX emissions are 
actually lower when burning coal or a mixture of coal and natural gas 
than when burning only natural gas. Further, the CEMS data showed that 
U.S. Steel has been moving toward using natural gas rather than burning 
coal or co-firing. Lines 6 and 7 at Minntac are the only lines that can 
burn coal or a mixture of coal and natural gas. Over the six years of 
CEMS data evaluated, the use of natural gas has increased dramatically, 
from 15% to 97% of total operating hours on the two lines.\6\ Given the 
trajectory of fuel markets, EPA has no reason to believe that U.S. 
Steel will not continue to use natural gas at Minntac.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the new CEMS data and trend toward primarily burning natural 
gas, U.S. Steel found that a revised NOX BART limit at 
Minntac of 1.6 lbs/MMBTU averaged over 30 days and across all five of 
its lines is the most stringent limit that can be met while maintaining 
pellet quality, based upon its experience operating LNBs under various 
production scenarios.\7\ To justify this limit, U.S. Steel provided EPA 
with hourly NOX emissions data in lbs/MMBTU documenting 
actual emissions levels after installation of LNB technology on Minntac 
Lines 4-7.\8\ U.S. Steel also provided hourly NOX emissions 
data in lbs/MMBTU for Line 3, which has not yet installed LNB 
technology. Because the NOX limits in the 2013 FIP were 
based on a rolling 30-day average, EPA evaluated the 720-hour 
average\9\ NOX emissions levels

[[Page 6127]]

achieved by each line when burning natural gas. Averaging these 
NOX emissions levels across Lines 4-7 resulted in an 
emission rate of 1.6 lbs NOX/MMBTU based on a 720-hour 
rolling average. Because of Line 3's similarity to Line 4, Line 3's 
performance (after an LNB is installed) is expected to be consistent 
with and have the same emission rate as Line 4. Averaging the 
NOX emission levels across Lines 3-7 while assuming this 
level of LNB performance on Line 3 also resulted in an emission rate of 
1.6 lbs NOX/MMBTU based on a 720-hour rolling average.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ U.S. Steel Confidential Settlement Communication, May 1, 
2018.
    \8\ See Minntac CEMS Data and Analysis, available in the docket 
for this action.
    \9\ Hourly NOX emissions data was available, which 
allowed for the separation of hours when burning natural gas from 
hours when burning coal or co-firing. Since there are 720 hours in a 
30-day period, a 720-hour average was used to calculate 
NOX emissions when burning only natural gas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on this new information, EPA is proposing to replace the 
NOX BART emission limits that currently apply to Minntac 
Lines 3-7 with a single facility-wide NOX BART limit of 1.6 
lbs MMBTU that will apply on a rolling 30-day basis. Under the BART 
Guidelines, a source may be permitted to ``average'' emissions across a 
set of BART-eligible emission units within a fenceline, so long as the 
emission reductions from each pollutant being controlled for BART would 
be equal to those reductions that would be obtained by simply 
controlling each of the BART-eligible units that constitute BART-
eligible sources. See 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, at V. In this case, 
given the unique issues U.S. Steel faced in trying to comply with the 
individual limits in the 2013 FIP, EPA has determined that it is 
appropriate to provide U.S. Steel with this additional flexibility. EPA 
is confident that allowing U.S. Steel to average NOX 
emissions levels across Minntac Lines 3-7 will achieve NOX 
emission reductions equal to the reductions that would have been 
obtained had EPA revised the individual limits for Minntac Lines 3-7 
separately.
    In conclusion, a review of U.S. Steel's recent CEMS data when using 
primarily natural gas indicates that a limit of 1.6 lbs/MMBTU, averaged 
across all lines, is needed to operate under varying production 
scenarios while maintaining adequate pellet quality. Therefore, EPA is 
proposing that a limit of 1.6 lbs NOX/MMBTU, averaged across 
all lines and over 30 days, represents NOX BART for U.S. 
Steel's Minntac facility.

IV. CAA Section 110(l)

    Under CAA section 110(l), the EPA cannot approve a plan revision 
``if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement 
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in 
section 7501 of this title), or any other applicable requirement of 
this chapter.'' \10\ We propose to find that these revisions satisfy 
section 110(l). The previous sections of the notice explain how the 
proposed FIP revision will comply with applicable regional haze 
requirements and general implementation plan requirements. With respect 
to requirements concerning attainment of the National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards (NAAQS) and reasonable further progress, the 2013 
Taconite FIP, as revised by this action, will allow for greater 
NOX emissions at the five subject-to-BART units as compared 
to the 2013 Taconite FIP. All areas in Minnesota are designated as 
attainment for all NAAQS with the exception of the Dakota County lead 
nonattainment area in Eagan, MN. The nearest ozone, particulate matter 
or nitrogen dioxide nonattainment areas are the ozone nonattainment 
areas along the western shore of Lake Michigan.\11\ At the time these 
areas were designated as nonattainment, EPA evaluated HYSPLIT (HYbrid 
Single-Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory) trajectories to 
identify areas potentially contributing to monitored violations of the 
NAAQS. None of these trajectories indicated that the area near Mt. 
Iron, Minnesota had the potential to contribute any of the monitored 
violations of the ozone NAAQS. EPA concludes that all areas impacted by 
emissions from Minntac are in attainment with the NAAQS. These areas 
have been able to attain and maintain the standards with emissions 
levels above the emissions limits that we are proposing to approve. 
Thus, the revision to the FIP proposed in this action will not 
interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Note that ``reasonable further progress'' as used in CAA 
section 110(l) is a reference to that term as defined in section 
301(a) (i.e., 42 U.S.C. 7501(a)), and as such means reductions 
required to attain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 
(NAAQS) set for criteria pollutants under section 109. This term as 
used in section 110(l) (and defined in section 301(a)) is not 
synonymous with ``reasonable progress'' as that term is used in the 
regional haze program. Instead, section 110(l) provides that EPA 
cannot approve plan revisions that interfere with regional haze 
requirements (including reasonable progress requirements) insofar as 
they are ``other applicable requirement[s]'' of the Clean Air Act.
    \11\ The nearest area, Door County, WI, is over 300 miles from 
Mt. Iron, MN.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' 
under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) 
and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 
13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). As discussed in detail in section 
VI. C below, the proposed FIP is not a rule of general applicability. 
The proposed FIP only applies to one taconite facility.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed action does not impose an information collection 
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 
3501 et seq. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, a ``collection of 
information'' is defined as a requirement for ``answers to . . . 
identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or 
more persons . . . .'' 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). Because the proposed FIP 
applies to just one facility, the Paperwork Reduction Act does not 
apply. See 5 CFR 1320(c).
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. 
The OMB control numbers for our regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 
CFR part 9.

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 proposed rule on 
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as 
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA)

[[Page 6128]]

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 proposed action on 
small entities, I certify that this proposed action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
EPA's proposal revises control requirements at one source. The Regional 
Haze FIP that EPA is proposing for purposes of the regional haze 
program consists of imposing Federal control requirements to meet the 
BART requirement for NOX emissions on specific units at one 
source in Minnesota. The net result of the FIP action is that EPA is 
proposing emission controls on the indurating furnaces at one taconite 
facilities and this sources is not owned by small entities, and 
therefore is not a small entity.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local, and Tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more 
(adjusted for inflation) in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA 
rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of UMRA 
generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of 
regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-
effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives 
of the rule. The provisions of section 205 of UMRA do not apply when 
they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 of 
UMRA allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, 
most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including Tribal governments, it must have developed under 
section 203 of UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must 
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling 
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely 
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and 
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory 
requirements.
    Under Title II of UMRA, EPA has determined that this proposed rule 
does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures that 
exceed the inflation-adjusted UMRA threshold of $100 million by State, 
local, or Tribal governments or the private sector in any one year. In 
addition, this proposed rule does not contain a significant Federal 
intergovernmental mandate as described by section 203 of UMRA nor does 
it contain any regulatory requirements that might significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces 
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the 
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to 
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input 
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies 
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that 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.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a 
regulation that has federalism implications, 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 State and local governments, or EPA 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation 
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the 
Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    This rule 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, because it 
merely addresses the State not fully meeting its obligation to prohibit 
emissions from interfering with other states measures to protect 
visibility established in the CAA. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not 
apply to this action. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and 
consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and 
State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this 
proposed rule from State and local officials.

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

    Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely 
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies 
that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not have 
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not 
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments. Thus, Executive 
Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. However, EPA did discuss this 
action in conference calls with the Minnesota Tribes.

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

    Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to 
any rule that: (1) Is determined to be economically significant as 
defined under Executive Order 12866; and (2) concerns an environmental 
health or safety risk that we have reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. EPA interprets E.O. 13045 as 
applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety 
risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the E.O. 
has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not 
subject to E.O. 13045 because it does not establish an environmental 
standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks. This proposed 
action addresses regional haze and visibility protection. Further, 
because this proposed amendment to the current regulation will require 
controls that will cost an amount equal to or less than the cost of 
controls required under the current

[[Page 6129]]

regulation, it is not an economically significant regulatory action. 
However, to the extent this proposed rule will limit emissions of 
NOX, SO2, and PM, 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.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing 
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with 
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards'' 
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies 
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impractical.
    VCS are inapplicable to this action because application of those 
requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.

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 proposed rule, if finalized, 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.

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 9, 2020.
Cheryl L. Newton,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is proposed to be 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.

0
3. In Sec.  52.1235, revise paragraph (b)(1)(iii) to read as follows:


Sec.  52.1235   Regional haze.

* * * * *
    (b)(1) * * *
    (iii) United States Steel Corporation, Minntac: An aggregate 
emission limit of 1.6 lbs NOX/MMBtu, based on a 30-day 
rolling average, shall apply to the combined NOX emissions 
from the five indurating furnaces: Line 3(EU225), Line 4(EU261), Line 
5(EU282), Line 6(EU315), and Line 7(EU334). To determine the aggregate 
emission rate, the combined NOX emissions from lines 3, 4, 
5, 6 and 7 shall be divided by the total heat input to the five lines 
(in MMBTU) during every rolling 30-day period commencing either upon 
notification of a starting date by United States Steel Corporation, 
Minntac, or with the 30-day period from September 1, 2019 to September 
30, 2019, whichever occurs first. The aggregate emission rate shall 
subsequently be determined on each day, 30 days after the starting date 
contained in such notification or September 30, 2019, whichever occurs 
first.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2020-01321 Filed 2-3-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


