[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 204 (Thursday, October 22, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64159-64189]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25023]

Vol. 80

Thursday,

No. 204

October 22, 2015

Part III

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 52

Air Plan Approval; Minnesota and Michigan; Revision to Taconite Federal
Implementation Plan; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 /
Proposed Rules

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2015-0196; FRL-9934-15-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Minnesota and Michigan; 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 taconite
plants in Minnesota and Michigan. In response to petitions for
reconsideration, we are proposing to revise the nitrogen oxides
(NOX) limits for taconite furnaces at facilities owned and
operated by Cliffs Natural Resources (Cliffs) and ArcelorMittal USA LLC
(ArcelorMittal). We are also proposing to revise the sulfur dioxide
(SO2) requirements at two of Cliffs' facilities. We are
proposing these changes because new information has come to light that
was not available when we originally promulgated the FIP on February 6,
2013.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 23, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2015-0196, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: Douglas Aburano, Chief, Attainment Planning and
Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Douglas Aburano, Chief, Attainment Planning and
Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal
hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID Nos. EPA-R05-OAR-
2015-0196. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in 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 at<PHONE_NUMBER>
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,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This notice is arranged as
follows:

I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
II. What action is EPA taking?
III. Background
IV. Petitions for Reconsideration of 2013 Taconite FIP
V. EPA's Basis for Granting Reconsideration
VI. Basis for Proposed Revisions to 2013 Taconite FIP Requirements
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What should I consider as i prepare my comments for EPA?

    When submitting comments, remember to:
    1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date, and page number).
    2. Follow directions--The EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

II. 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 BART emission limitations and compliance
schedules for the following taconite plants: United Taconite, Hibbing
Taconite, Tilden Mining, and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine. Cliffs is the
owner and operator of the United Taconite and Tilden Mining facilities
and part owner and operator of Hibbing Taconite. ArcelorMittal is the
owner and operator of the Minorca Mine facility and a part owner of the
Hibbing Taconite facility.

Specifically, EPA is proposing to revise the NOX limits and
compliance schedules for these four facilities and is also proposing to
revise the SO2 requirements for Tilden Mining and United
Taconite.

III. Background

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

    In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the Clean Air Act (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 revised the existing visibility regulations to
add provisions addressing regional haze impairment and established 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 51.300-
309.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)

    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 in order to address visibility
impacts from these sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the
CAA requires EPA to develop a FIP that contains 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 the ``Best Available Retrofit Technology'' as determined by
EPA. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 applicable source. 70 FR 39104.
    The process of establishing BART emission limitations follows three
steps: First, identify those sources which meet the definition of
``BART-eligible source'' set forth in 40 CFR 51.301; \3\ second,
determine which of these sources ``emits any air pollutant which may
reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of
visibility in any such area'' (a source which fits this description is
``subject to BART''); and third, for each source subject to BART,
identify the best available type and level of control for reducing
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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).

C. Regulatory and Legal History of the 2013 Taconite FIP

    On February 6, 2013, EPA promulgated a FIP (78 FR 8706) that
included 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.
Cliffs, ArcelorMittal, and the State of Michigan petitioned the Eighth
Circuit Court of Appeals for review of the FIP, and, on May 17, 2013,
Cliffs and ArcelorMittal filed a joint motion for stay of the final
rule, which was granted by the Eighth Circuit on June 14, 2013, and is
still in effect.
    EPA received petitions for reconsideration of the 2013 Taconite FIP
from the National Mining Association on March 8, 2013, ArcelorMittal on
March 22, 2013, the State of Michigan on April 1, 2013, Cliffs on April
3, 2013, Congressman Richard M. Nolan on April 8, 2013, the State of
Minnesota on April 8, 2013, and United States Steel Corporation (U.S.
Steel) on November 26, 2013.
    In a related action, EPA published a final partial disapproval of
the Michigan and Minnesota Regional Haze SIPs on September 30, 2013 (78
FR 59825), for failure to require BART for SO2 and
NOX emissions from taconite furnaces subject to BART. By
petitions dated November 26, 2013, Cliffs and U.S. Steel petitioned EPA
pursuant to section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA for reconsideration of
EPA's partial disapproval of the Michigan and Minnesota Regional Haze
SIPs. Further, Cliffs, ArcelorMittal, Michigan and U.S. Steel
petitioned the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals for review of the final
rule partially disapproving the Michigan and Minnesota Regional Haze
SIPs.
    EPA subsequently reached a settlement agreement with Cliffs,
ArcelorMittal, and Michigan regarding issues raised by these parties in
their petitions for review and reconsideration. Notice of the
settlement was published in the Federal Register on January 30, 2015
(80 FR 5111), and the settlement agreement was fully executed on April
9, 2015. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, EPA granted partial
reconsideration of the 2013

Taconite FIP on July 2, 2015, based on new information raised in
Cliffs, ArcelorMittal, and Michigan's petitions for reconsideration.
EPA did not grant reconsideration of the 2013 SIP disapprovals because
EPA continues to believe that BART for taconite plants involves
significant reductions of NOX and SO2 emissions
that were not required in the Michigan and Minnesota SIPs.

IV. Petitions for Reconsideration of 2013 Taconite FIP

A. Summary of Petitions for Reconsideration

    1. National Mining Association petitioned for reconsideration
because EPA promulgated the 2013 FIP before finalizing its disapproval
of the Michigan and Minnesota regional haze SIPs.
    2. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) petitioned
for reconsideration because, in its view: (1) There was no information
available prior to the close of Michigan's public comment period on
June 23, 2010, indicating that low NOX burners (LNBs) had
been successfully utilized on indurating furnaces; (2) the FIP schedule
for compliance did not provide sufficient time for the permitting
process necessary for the installation of the LNBs; and (3) EPA had not
followed proper procedure by finalizing the FIP for Tilden while at the
same time asking for additional comment on the SIP disapproval for
Tilden.
    3. Congressman Richard M. Nolan petitioned for reconsideration
because, in his view: (1) New information came to his attention
concerning the accuracy of EPA's visibility modeling; (2) the
feasibility of LNB technology was not established at the time EPA
intervened in the process; and (3) it was doubtful that LNBs could be
successfully installed and operated in the 26 months called for in the
FIP.
    4. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) petitioned for
reconsideration of the compliance schedules in the FIP and asked for a
10-month extension of the compliance deadlines for affected facilities
with more than one affected process line to provide adequate time for
MPCA to issue the required air quality permits.
    5. Cliffs petitioned for reconsideration because of perceived
procedural defects in EPA's decision to issue the FIP rule while it was
simultaneously evaluating Minnesota and Michigan's SIPs. Cliffs also
raised technical issues based on new information not available at the
time EPA promulgated the 2013 FIP. These technical issues included the
following: (a) The FIP imposed a new 0.60% sulfur limit on coal
combusted at United Taconite that was not proposed and was
inappropriate because it would require the use of a new type of coal
that the facility is not designed to handle, (b) the 2013 FIP restricts
Tilden to combusting natural gas instead of coal, and (c) installation
of LNBs will require a minimum of 34 months for the first straight-
grate furnace and a minimum of 39 months for the first grate kiln
furnace, instead of the 26 months provided in the original 2013 FIP
compliance schedule. Cliffs also provided additional evidence that, in
its view, indicates that installation and operation of LNBs would be
more costly and would require more time to install than EPA estimated,
including (1) estimates by furnace engineers and burner manufacturers
that LNB capital costs for Cliffs' furnaces will be a minimum of 4-5
times higher than EPA's Minntac-based cost estimate,(2) estimates by
Cliffs' furnace designer, Metso Minerals (Metso), and burner
manufacturer, Fives North America (Fives), that there would be an
energy penalty of 20-40% while operating the LNBs, and (3) an analysis
by Metso indicating that Cliffs would lose approximately $195 million
in production costs across its six lines because installing LNB cannot
be accomplished within normal annual outage time and will also impair
production during the shakedown period after installation.
    6. ArcelorMittal petitioned for reconsideration because of
perceived procedural defects in EPA's decision to finalize the 2013
Taconite FIP while still working to evaluate Minnesota's SIP.
ArcelorMittal claimed that EPA can only issue a FIP after it has fully
and properly evaluated the SIP, found it to be deficient, and provided
a reasonable opportunity for the state to address EPA's concerns.
ArcelorMittal also raised the following technical issues in the
attachment to its petition for reconsideration: (1) The costs of LNBs,
(2) the lack of any existing straight-grate furnaces with LNB
technology and the resulting unwillingness of vendors to provide
performance guarantees, (3) significant production losses because of
the downtime resulting from installation and adjustment of LNBs at
Hibbing, and (4) energy penalties due to the need for 25% more natural
gas at Hibbing and 10% to 20% more natural gas at Minorca to operate
the LNBs.
    7. U.S. Steel petitioned for reconsideration because it had
obtained new information showing that variations in kiln configuration
may have a substantial impact on the cost and performance of LNBs
installed on grate-kiln furnaces. In its November 26, 2013 petition for
reconsideration of the September 30, 2013 partial disapproval of the
Michigan and Minnesota regional haze SIPs, Cliffs referenced U.S.
Steel's petition for reconsideration in which it cited concerns related
to the high costs and energy penalties associated with the installation
of LNBs, as well as pellet quality issues.

B. Issues for Which EPA Has Granted Reconsideration

    EPA believes that the new information contained in the petitions
for reconsideration, as well as other supporting information provided
by Cliffs, represents significant new information that warrants
reconsideration of many of the emission limits that EPA promulgated for
the taconite facilities in 2013. As a result, on July 2, 2015, EPA sent
letters to Cliffs, ArcelorMittal, and Michigan granting portions of
their petitions for reconsideration. Specifically, EPA is granting
reconsideration, pursuant to section 307(d)(7)(b) of the CAA, of the
NOX and SO2 emission limits for the grate-kiln
furnaces and the NOX emission limits for the straight-grate
furnaces listed in the following table.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               State                     Facility--owner             Unit(s)                 Pollutant(s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minnesota..........................  United Taconite--       Grate-Kiln Lines 1 and  NOX and SO2.
                                      Cliffs.                 2.
Minnesota..........................  Minora Mine--           Straight-Grate Line 1.  NOX.
                                      ArcelorMittal.
Minnesota..........................  Hibbing Taconite--      Straight-Grate Lines 1- NOX.
                                      Cliffs (operator and    3.
                                      part owner).
                                     ArcelorMittal (part
                                      owner).
                                     U.S. Steel (part
                                      owner).
Michigan...........................  Tilden Mining--Cliffs.  Grate-Kiln Line 1.....  NOX and SO2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The U.S. taconite iron ore industry uses two types of pelletizing
machines or processes: Straight-grate kilns and grate-kilns. In a
straight-grate kiln, a continuous bed of agglomerated green pellets is
carried through different temperature zones with upward draft or
downward draft blown through the pellets on the metal grate. The grate-
kiln system consists of a traveling grate, a rotary kiln, and an
annular cooler. A significant difference between these designs is that
straight-grate kilns do not burn coal and therefore have a much lower
potential for emitting SO2. Further, even within the same
kiln type or process, individual (referred to as indurating or
pelletizing) furnaces or processes have distinct equipment and process
characteristics that may affect the compatibility and performance of
certain types of burners. The differences between these kilns and
processes form a key basis for the changes to the emissions limits
proposed in this action.
    EPA is not reconsidering all elements of its 2013 FIP. The 2013 FIP
contains SO2 and NOX limits for U.S. Steel's
Minntac and Keetac taconite furnaces in Minnesota. EPA has not granted
U.S. Steel's petition and is not proposing any revisions of the BART
limits for these U.S. Steel facilities at this time. Also, EPA is not
reconsidering the NOX limits at Cliffs' Northshore taconite
plant because this facility is already complying with the 1.2 pounds
per million Btu (lb/mmBtu) NOX limit in the 2013 FIP.
Finally, EPA is not reconsidering the SO2 limits at the
Hibbing, ArcelorMittal, or Northshore straight-grate furnaces.

V. EPA's Basis for Granting Reconsideration

    The 2013 Taconite FIP established BART NOX limits for
all straight-grate and grate-kiln taconite furnaces. The limits are 1.2
lbs NOX/MMBtu when burning natural gas and 1.5 lbs/MMBtu
when burning a gas/coal mix. These limits were based upon the
performance of high stoichiometric (high-stoich) LNBs \4\ at two of
U.S. Steel Minntac's grate-kilns. As explained in more detail below, we
granted reconsideration of the NOX limits for the United
Taconite and Tilden grate-kilns, as well as for the Hibbing and
ArcelorMittal straight-grate kilns, because information that became
available after the close of the public comment period (September 28,
2012) suggests that the installation of high-stoich LNBs at these
furnaces could lead to serious technical hurdles. In addition, we
granted reconsideration of the SO2 limits for the United
Taconite and Tilden grate-kilns because of information that became
available after the close of the public comment period regarding the
inability of United Taconite to handle and burn very low sulfur coal
and Tilden's intent to burn mixed fuels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In determining whether to grant reconsideration of certain
provisions of the 2013 Taconite FIP, the requirements of section
307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA apply. Section 307(d)(7)(B) provides a two-step
test to determine whether reconsideration should be granted. The
petitioner must first show that it was impracticable to raise the
comment or objection within the time period for public comment of the
rule, or, that the grounds for the comment or objection arose after the
period for public comment. Secondly, the petitioner must show that the
comment or objection is of ``central relevance to the outcome of the
rule.''
    Cliffs and ArcelorMittal provided significant new information in
their petitions for reconsideration and supplemental submittals
directly relevant to the outcome of the 2013 Taconite FIP. The
following discussion details the new information upon which EPA is
relying to base reconsideration of the BART emission limits and
compliance schedules for these facilities, and how the information
meets the criteria of section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA.

A. United Taconite

1. NOX Emission Limit
    EPA determined the NOX emission limits for BART in the
2013 Taconite FIP primarily from data arising from the installation of
high-stoich LNBs at U.S. Steel Minntac's furnaces 6 and 7. Although the
United Taconite furnaces and the Minntac furnaces are all grate-kiln
furnaces, Cliffs provided new information after the close of the
comment period that described various differences between the furnaces.
These differences included the structure of the kiln, the use of pre-
heaters, and the types of ore and pellets processed. Cliffs indicated
that because of these differences, the installation of high-stoich LNBs
at United Taconite would likely result in the impairment of pellet
quality and production, as well as increased fuel usage and emissions.
Cliffs subsequently provided modeling analyses that detailed the
impacts arising from the installation of high-stoich LNBs at United
Taconite.
    Cliffs submitted a declaration by Eric Wagner (of Metso) dated
November 26, 2013, which describes the differences relevant to
NOX emissions between US Steel's Minntac furnaces 6 and 7,
upon which the 2013 Taconite FIP NOX limits were based, and
Cliffs' grate-kiln furnaces at United Taconite. The declaration
describes several differences that EPA believes are relevant to the
development of BART NOX emission limits. For example,
whereas United Taconite uses a single large kiln burner, Minntac
furnaces 6 and 7 operate preheat burners, which supply about one-third
of the heat input from fuel, in addition to a large kiln burner. The
smaller preheat burners at Minntac achieve very low NOX
rates (0.1-0.3 lbs/MMBtu) due to a more favorable NOX
reduction combustion environment in the preheat zone as compared to the
firing end of the kiln. Correspondingly, the lower NOX
emissions from the preheaters result in a lower combined NOX
emission rate than the emissions arising from a large single kiln LNB.
    Another example in the declaration notes that the ore processed at
the facilities is different, resulting in different heat values. U.S.
Steel's Minntac facility processes an ore high in magnetite that
contributes heat to the kiln when oxidized. Correspondingly, by
processing high magnetite ore at Minntac furnaces 6 and 7, U.S. Steel
is able to effectively use ported kilns to maximize the benefit of the
ore. Ported kilns allow the introduction of additional air directly to
the kilns which helps oxidize the high magnetite ore, and changes the
heat balance of the furnace. In contrast, United Taconite processes
ores with a lower concentration of magnetite than the ore processed at
Minntac, and correspondingly, cannot effectively use ported kilns.
Because ported kilns change the heat balance of the furnace, U.S
Steel's experience with high-stoich LNBs at the Minntac furnaces may
not be directly applicable to the United Taconite furnaces.
    A final example from the declaration states that the application of
high-stoich LNB technology at United Taconite would require additional
air to reduce burner flame temperature, which would result in increased
airflow through the grate drying section and increased pressure drop
across the greenballs, which are the raw feed to the indurating
furnace. This higher bed pressure would result in deformed pellets,
reduced pellet quality, and lost production. Further, the increased air
flow would also likely cause pellet breakage that would reduce
production. The declaration notes that to avoid these

impacts, United Taconite likely would have to limit the dryer section
air flow and drying rate by reducing the amount of recovered heat from
the cooler. However, any unrecovered heat would have to be replaced
with additional heat from the burner, with corresponding increased fuel
usage and emissions.
    Subsequent to the submission of the declaration, Cliffs provided a
modeling analysis that supported the information provided in the
declaration. A report by Metso dated August 7, 2014, entitled
``Technical Analysis for applying LNB technology to (United Taconite)
UTAC Line 2 Grate-Kiln,'' provides a detailed analysis of expected
impacts from using high-stoich LNBs on pellet quality, fuel usage, and
emissions. Metso analyzed the effects of LNB technology on the United
Taconite Line 2 Grate-Kiln by using simulation modeling in which Metso
compared Line 2's normal operating conditions, which result in the
production of quality pellets, with simulations performed using high-
stoich LNBs (which are the basis of the 2013 Taconite FIP limits). The
report indicates that to maintain airflow, temperature, and pressures
sufficient to minimize pellet quality issues would require a
significant increase in fuel rates and corresponding emissions.
Further, the use of high-stoich LNBs would result in decreased oxygen
in the preheat zone gases from the kiln. The corresponding reduction in
the oxidation heat on the grate would result in lower pellet
temperatures at the point where the pellets leave the grate and enter
the kiln. This would likely result in pellet breakage and a
corresponding reduction in production.
    Finally, Cliffs provided additional information to EPA in a July
28, 2014 meeting, which Cliffs summarized in an August 8, 2014 letter
to EPA. The information provided included data comparing performance,
costs, and fuel usage between high-stoich LNBs and low-stoich LNBs.
Much of the information set forth in the August 8 letter is presented
in section VI of this notice, pertaining to the NOX BART
analysis. In general, the information pertains to advantages of the
low-stoich LNBs over the high-stoich LNBs.
    The information provided by Cliffs in its petition for
reconsideration and subsequent submittals arose from recent, time-
consuming research and analysis that could not have been completed and
made available during the public comment period. Therefore, Cliffs has
met the first requirement of the criteria for reconsideration set forth
at section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA. Significantly, the information that
Cliffs provided is of central relevance to the outcome of the 2013
Taconite FIP. EPA extensively based its NOX BART analysis on
the results arising from the installation of high-stoich LNBs at U.S.
Steel's Minntac furnaces 6 and 7. Step one of a BART analysis requires
the identification of all available retrofit control technologies. Step
two of a BART analysis requires the elimination of technically
infeasible control technologies. The new information provided by Cliffs
directly bears on the evaluation of the selection and feasibility of
high-stoich LNBs for use in the grate-kiln indurating furnaces at the
United Taconite facility. On this basis, we granted reconsideration of
the NOX determination for United Taconite (Lines 1 and 2)
and for the corresponding emission limits and compliance schedule.
2. SO2 Emission Limit
    The 2013 Taconite FIP set a 0.60% sulfur limit on coal combusted at
United Taconite. We promulgated this limit in response to a proposal by
Cliffs to use low sulfur fuel at United Taconite to decrease baseline
SO2 emissions. However, Cliffs did not have an opportunity
to comment on the specific numeric stringency of the limit we
promulgated. In other words, it was impracticable for Cliffs to comment
on the final sulfur limit prior to the close of the public comment
period.
    In its petition for reconsideration, Cliffs also presented new
information directly pertaining to the criteria for determining BART
limits. Cliffs stated that the United Taconite facility had been
designed to handle and burn eastern bituminous coal, not the low
sulfur, western subbituminous coals from the Powder River Basin (PRB)
that Cliffs would be required to use to meet the 0.60% sulfur content
limit. For example, PRB coal is more prone to explosion and fire and
has a lower heat value than eastern bituminous coal. These differences,
among others, would require Cliffs to expend significant costs to
change operations, address safety issues, and increase the amount of
coal required to be burned to meet furnace and pellet temperature
requirements.
    The information that Cliffs presented pertains to the feasibility
and costs of implementing the sulfur limit, which are criteria to be
used in determining BART. Therefore, the information provided by Cliffs
after the close of the comment period is of central relevance to the
outcome of the 2013 Taconite FIP. On this basis, we granted
reconsideration of the 0.60% sulfur limit on coal combusted at United
Taconite.

B. Tilden

1. NOX Emission Limit
    EPA determined the NOX emission limits for BART in the
2013 Taconite FIP primarily from data arising from the installation of
high-stoich LNBs at U.S. Steel's Minntac furnaces 6 and 7. Although the
Tilden furnace and the Minntac furnaces are all grate-kiln furnaces,
Cliffs provided new information after the close of the comment period
that described various differences between the furnaces. These
differences included the structure of the kiln, the use of pre-heaters,
and the ore and pellet types processed. Cliffs indicated that because
of these differences, the installation of high-stoich LNBs at Tilden
would likely result in the impairment of pellet quality and production,
as well as increased fuel usage and emissions. Cliffs subsequently
provided a modeling analysis that detailed the impacts arising from the
installation of high-stoich LNBs at Tilden.
    Cliffs submitted a declaration by Eric Wagner (of Metso) dated
November 26, 2013, which describes the differences relevant to
NOX emissions between U.S. Steel's Minntac furnaces 6 and 7,
upon which the 2013 Taconite FIP NOX limits were based, and
Cliffs' grate-kiln furnaces at Tilden. The declaration describes
several differences that EPA believes are relevant to the development
of BART NOX emission limits. For example, whereas Tilden
uses a single large kiln burner, Minntac furnaces 6 and 7 operate
preheat burners, which supply about one third of the heat input from
fuel, in addition to a large kiln burner. The smaller preheat burners
at Minntac achieve very low NOX rates (0.1-0.3 lbs/MMBtu)
due to a more favorable NOX reduction combustion environment
in the preheat zone as compared to the firing end of the kiln.
Correspondingly, the lower NOX emissions from the preheaters
result in a lower combined NOX emission rate than the
emissions arising from a large single kiln LNB.
    Another example in the declaration notes that the ore processed at
the facilities is different, resulting in different heat values. U.S.
Steel's Minntac facility processes an ore high in magnetite that
contributes heat to the kiln when oxidized. Correspondingly, by
processing high magnetite ore at Minntac furnaces 6 and 7, U.S. Steel
is able to effectively use ported kilns to maximize the benefit of the
ore. Ported kilns allow the introduction of additional air directly to
the kilns, which helps oxidize the high magnetite ore and changes the
heat balance of the

furnace. In contrast, Tilden primarily processes hematite, which is not
a source of heat for kilns. Correspondingly, Tilden cannot effectively
use ported kilns. Because ported kilns change the heat balance of the
furnace, U.S. Steel's experience with high-stoich LNBs at the Minntac
furnaces may not be directly applicable to the Tilden furnace.
    A final example from the declaration states that the application of
high-stoich LNB technology at Tilden would require additional air to
reduce burner flame temperature, which would result in increased
airflow through the grate drying section and increased pressure drop
across the greenballs. This higher bed pressure would result in
deformed pellets and reduced pellet quality. Further, the increased air
flow would also likely cause pellet breakage which would reduce
production. The declaration notes that to likely avoid these impacts,
Tilden would have to limit the dryer section air flow and drying rate
by reducing the amount of recovered heat from the cooler. However, any
unrecovered heat would have to be replaced with additional heat from
the burner, with corresponding increased fuel usage and emissions.
    In addition to the submission of the November 26, 2013 declaration,
Cliffs provided modeling and technical analyses that supported the
comments made in the declaration. In reports prepared by Metso dated
September 14, 2012, and January 13, 2015, Cliffs provided technical
analyses for applying LNB technology to the Tilden Line 1 grate kiln
through modeling simulations that compare current operations to
operations using high-stoich LNBs. Current operating conditions at
Tilden 1 were simulated using such factors as existing air flow
studies, operating parameters, and feed mineralogy. This baseline model
was then modified to simulate LNB operating conditions. The current
operating parameters and anticipated high-stoich LNB operating
conditions were then compared.
    High-stoich LNBs reduce NOX emissions by introducing
comparatively large amounts of cooler ambient air through the main
burner. Less NOX is produced at lower temperatures. The FIP
NOX limits were established based upon high-stoich LNBs
operating with air flow at 100 percent of stoichiometric through the
primary burner. Tilden currently operates with primary combustion air
at 15.5 percent of stoichiometric, and Metso estimated that primary
combustion air at 100 to 110 percent of the stoichiometric rate is
required to meet the 2013 Taconite FIP limits. Metso performed three
simulations in which it maintained peak pellet temperature and final
product temperature. The total air supplied to the cooler was adjusted
as needed to maintain final product temperature across all three
simulations. These simulations were intended to isolate the effects of
various process parameters when applying high-stoich LNB technology to
Tilden 1.
    The analysis indicated, among other things, that high-stoich LNB
technology would alter the flame temperature profile, which may
adversely affect pellet quality, and that the fuel usage rate would
increase by approximately 25 to 35 percent. Further, higher
temperatures and air flow rates through the grate would result in a 10
to 20 percent increase in exhaust gas volumes.
    The Metso comparative analysis dated January 2015 applies current
operating data to the high-stoich LNB design conditions, required for
NOX reduction, provided by COEN Company (COEN), a burner
manufacturer, in its Final Report for Tilden Line 1. The engineering
simulations held key process parameters constant, including pellet
production rate, greenball moisture, bentonite, and flux rate. The
total air supplied to the cooler was adjusted as needed to maintain
final product temperature across all simulations. Maintaining these
parameters ensures that fuel changes are not due to altered processing
requirements.
    The engineering simulations and comparisons reveal a number of
significant operational and environmental impacts arising from the
installation of a COEN high-stoich LNB. These impacts include a
significant change to the use of primary and secondary cooling air,
which will alter the cooling down cycle of pellets, create an imbalance
between primary and secondary cooling, and likely affect pellet
quality. The volume of secondary cooling air exiting the cooler vent
stack is projected to increase between 415 and 360 percent. This may
adversely affect the process and pellet quality and also increase dust
loading. Further, the increase in unheated primary combustion air to
the burner will require an increase in fuel to replace the heat not
used from heated secondary combustion air. It is expected that this
will result in an increase in the fuel rate from between 21 to 28
percent. In addition, the high-stoich LNB will alter the flame
temperature profile, which may affect pellet quality.
    The information provided by Cliffs in its petition for
reconsideration and subsequent submittals arose from recent, time-
consuming research and analysis that could not have been completed and
made available during the public comment period. Therefore, Cliffs has
met the first requirement of the criteria for reconsideration set forth
in section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA. Significantly, the information that
Cliffs provided is of central relevance to the outcome of the 2013
Taconite FIP. EPA extensively based its NOX BART analysis on
the results arising from the installation of high-stoich LNBs at U.S.
Steel's Minntac furnaces 6 and 7. Step one of a BART analysis requires
the identification of all available retrofit control technologies. Step
two of a BART analysis requires the elimination of technically
infeasible control technologies. The new information provided by Cliffs
directly bears on the selection and feasibility of high-stoich LNBs for
use in the grate-kiln indurating furnace at the Tilden facility. On
this basis, we granted reconsideration of the NOX
determination for Tilden (grate-kiln line 1) and for the corresponding
emission limits and compliance schedule.
2. SO2 Emission Limit
    The 2013 Taconite FIP required the Tilden grate-kiln Line 1 to burn
100% natural gas. However, although mentioned in discussions with
Cliffs, this requirement had not been proposed before the final rule.
Therefore, it was impracticable for Cliffs to comment on the final BART
requirement to burn solely natural gas.
    Cliffs more recent intent to burn mixed fuels at Tilden is new
information that we did not consider in determining BART for Tilden.
The burning of mixed fuels will significantly increase SO2
emissions, resulting in Cliffs' inability to meet the BART limit.
Therefore, the new information is of central relevance to the outcome
of the 2013 Taconite FIP. On this basis, we granted reconsideration to
the 2013 Taconite FIP requirement to burn only natural gas at the
Tilden grate-kiln Line 1.

C. ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine and Hibbing Taconite: NOX
Limit

    The 2013 Taconite FIP established NOX emission limits
for both grate-kiln and straight-grate kiln taconite furnaces. The
limits that EPA developed were based solely upon the performance of
high-stoich LNBs installed at two of U.S. Steel Minntac's grate-kilns.
However, as explained above, there are significant differences between
straight-grate kiln and grate-kiln furnaces that must be considered in
setting emissions limits.

    ArcelorMittal's Minorca taconite facility and the Hibbing taconite
facility, which is jointly owned by Cliffs, ArcelorMittal, and U.S.
Steel, operate straight-grate furnaces that are required to meet the
1.2 lbs NOX/MMBT BART limit under the 2013 Taconite FIP. In
the petitions for reconsideration submitted by ArcelorMittal and
Cliffs, the petitioners provided new information directly bearing on
the criteria used to establish BART NOX limits. Their
comments reflected similar issues to those that Cliffs presented in its
analysis of grate-kiln furnaces at the United Taconite and Tilden
facilities, including cost, increased fuel usage, the potential impact
on production, and the feasibility of meeting the BART NOX
limit. Further, it is significant that at the time of promulgation of
the 2013 Taconite FIP, no LNB had been installed on a straight grate
furnace. Correspondingly, ArcelorMittal reported that none of the
vendors it had contacted were willing to guarantee the successful
installation or operation of a LNB on a straight-grate furnace.
    The information provided by ArcelorMittal and Cliffs in their
petitions for reconsideration and subsequent submittals arose from
recent, time-consuming research and analysis that was not and could not
have been completed and made available during the public comment
period. Therefore, they have met the first requirement of the criteria
for reconsideration set forth at section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA. The
new information provided by the petitioners directly addresses the
costs and feasibility of LNB controls, which are criteria to be used in
determining BART. The cost and feasibility of the LNB controls are of
central relevance to the outcome of the 2013 Taconite FIP. On this
basis, we granted reconsideration to the NOX BART limits for
straight grate taconite furnaces at the ArcelorMittal Minorca facility
and the Hibbing facility.

VI. Basis for Proposed Revisions to 2013 Taconite FIP Requirements

A. Revised BART Determinations

i. United Taconite and Tilden Grate-Kilns--Five Step BART Evaluation
for NOX
(1) Step 1: Identify All Available Retrofit Control Technologies
    As discussed in the August 15, 2012 proposed FIP, the following
control technologies were identified: external flue gas recirculation,
low-NOX burners, induced flue gas recirculation burners,
energy efficiency projects, ported kilns, and selective catalytic
reduction (SCR). High-stoich and low-stoich low-NOX burners
were subsequently considered separately.
(2) Step 2: Eliminate Technically Infeasible Options
    External flue gas recirculation and induced flue gas recirculation
burners were eliminated from consideration since they are technically
infeasible for the specific application to pellet furnaces due to the
high oxygen content of the flue gas. Energy efficiency projects were
eliminated due to the difficulty of assigning a general potential
emission reduction for this category. EPA agrees that SCR controls are
infeasible for indurating furnaces based on two SCR vendors declining
to bid on NOX reduction testing at Minntac. The following
three Metso reports provide detailed analyses of expected adverse
impacts of using high-stoich LNBs, which are in use at U.S. Steel
Minntac, on both pellet quality and increased fuel use: an August 7,
2014, report entitled ``Technical Analysis for applying LNB technology
to United Taconite Line 2 Grate-Kiln,'' a September 14, 2012 report
titled ``Technical Analysis for Appling LNB Technology to Tilden 1
Grate Kiln System,'' and a January 13, 2015 report titled ``Technical
Analysis for Tilden Phase III Additional Simulations while Applying
COEN LNB Technology.'' A summary of the results from these Metso
reports is contained in an August 13, 2015 technical support document.
    A mass emission rate comparison between high-stoich and low-stoich
LNB options was presented by Metso, during a July 28, 2014 meeting
between EPA and Cliffs and summarized in a subsequent August 8, 2014
letter to EPA. Metso's analysis compared the amount of NOX
that would be generated when a furnace is retrofitted with a high-
stoich LNB and low-stoich staged combustion LNB options. This analysis
demonstrated that although the lbs NOX/MMBtu may be lower
from a high-stoich burner, the high-stoich LNB will require more fuel
(and BTUs) and result in higher NOX emissions. A more
detailed discussion of this analysis is contained in an August 13, 2015
technical support document.
    The declaration by Eric Wagner (of Metso) dated November 26, 2013
consists mainly of a description of differences relevant to
NOX emissions between U.S. Steel's Minntac furnaces 6 and 7,
upon which the 2013 Taconite FIP NOX limits were based, and
Cliffs' grate-kiln furnaces at Tilden and United Taconite. The
declaration noted these differences:

--Minntac furnaces 6 and 7 operate preheat burners, which supply about
one third of the heat input from fuel, in addition to the large kiln
burner. United Taconite and Tilden use a single kiln burner. These
smaller preheat burners can achieve very low NOX rates (0.1-
0.3 lbs/MMBtu) due to a more favorable NOX reduction
combustion environment in the preheat zone as compared to the firing
end of the kiln. These lower NOX emissions produce a lower
combined NOX rate than from the large kiln LNB.
--Minntac furnaces 6 and 7 process high magnetite ore that contributes
heat to the kiln when oxidized. Tilden's ores are primarily hematite,
which is not a source of heat for the kilns, and United Taconite
processes ores with a lower concentration of magnetite than Minntac.
Therefore, Tilden and United Taconite's furnaces must add more fuel to
achieve final product requirements than Minntac. The associated energy
penalties are predicted to remain 25-45 percent for Cliffs' grate-kiln
furnaces even after energy efficiency improvements at United Taconite
and Tilden.
--Minntac furnaces 6 and 7 use ported kilns to maximize the benefit of
their high magnetite ore bodies. Ported kilns allow the introduction of
additional air directly to the kilns where it helps to oxidize the high
magnetite ore that Minntac processes. United Taconite and Tilden do not
use ported kilns because porting will not produce significant benefits
for the type of ore they process. Ported kilns significantly change the
heat balance of the furnace, making it difficult to generalize from
Minntac's experience.
--Minntac furnaces 6 and 7 are also unique because they produce high
flux magnetite pellets. By contrast, United Taconite produces primarily
standard (low flux) magnetite pellets, and Tilden produces high flux
hematite pellets. Retrofitting a furnace with the Coen-type high-stoich
LNB burner introduces more air, requires more fuel, and at different
locations. As a result, the high-stoich LNB retrofit must be evaluated
in the context of the unique furnace design for that specific pellet
product from that specific ore type. The Minntac experience cannot
therefore be generalized to other furnaces.
--The application of high-stoich LNB technology at Tilden and United
Taconite would require additional air to reduce burner flame
temperature, which would result in increased airflow through the grate
drying

section and increased pressure drop across the greenballs. This higher
bed pressure would result in deformed pellets and reduced pellet
quality. The increased air flow would also cause pellet breakage
leading to decreased production. In order to maintain pellet quality
and production rate, the overall dryer section air flow and drying rate
must be limited by reducing the amount of recovered heat from the
cooler. This unrecovered heat must be replaced with additional burner
fuel, further increasing fuel requirements.

    EPA agrees with the results of the Metso reports and declaration
and have therefore determined that high-stoich LNBs are technically
infeasible for the United Taconite and Tilden grate-kilns. Low-stoich
grate-kilns remain technically feasible for grate-kilns.
(3) Step 3: Evaluate Control Effectiveness of Remaining Control
Technologies
    Low-stoich burners, as designed by FCT Combustion (FCT), are
expected to avoid the previously described drawbacks from high-stoich
burners and can be designed to meet 2.8 lbs/MMBtu when burning natural
gas and 1.5 lbs/MMBtu when burning a gas/coal mix. This technology is
described in the ``FCT Combustion Cliffs UTAC Line 2 Phase 3 Modeling
Report'' and August 8, 2014 letter from Douglas McWilliams. FCT
supplies a LNB, called the FCT COMBUSTION Gyro-Therm MKII burner. This
FCT low-stoich Gyro-Therm burner design achieves NOX
reductions by reducing flame temperature by mixing fuel and air to
simulate the effects of staged combustion for NOX reduction.
This burner uses a special gas nozzle that injects the gas in a
stirring type of motion. The fluid mechanics resulting from use of this
nozzle create a dramatically different flame and NOX is
greatly reduced through natural staging of the fuel-air mixing. This
FCT low-stoich LNB would not require additional primary air, which
would eliminate the air velocity and pressure contributions to pellet
quality problems. FCT's proposed low-stoich burner also does not
require substantial additional fuel because it is not introducing cool
primary air that must be heated to sustain critical furnace
temperatures.
    FCT performed CFD modeling at United Taconite in order to design a
new burner that will reduce NOX, but maintain product
quality, production and optimize fuel efficiency. The modeling for
combusting solely natural gas indicated a reduction from a base case of
5.3-6.4 lb NOX/MMBtu to 2.91 lbs NOX/MMBtu; the
modeling for co-firing at 30 percent gas and 70 percent coal indicated
a reduction from a base case of 1.6-5.4 (although the upper bound is
generally closer to 2.8 lbs/MMBtu), with a typical baseline value of
2.5 lbs/MMBtu, to 2.04 lbs NOX/MMBtu. The NOX
reduction technology appropriate for United Taconite would also be
appropriate for Tilden (and vice versa) because they have similar
grate-kilns.
(4) Step 4: Evaluate Impacts of Remaining Control Technologies
    There will be an estimated total of 3000 tons per year of
NOX reductions from the use of the low-stoich technology at
Tilden and United Taconite. There are no significant costs or
environmental impacts associated with this technology that would
necessitate its elimination from consideration as BART.
(5) Step 5: Evaluate Visibility Impacts
    There is about a 16% overall decrease in the amount of
NOX and SO2 reductions anticipated as a result of
the control technologies (and resulting emission limits) required by
this rulemaking, as compared to the 2013 FIP. EPA finds that the
candidate BART technologies would be expected to achieve substantial
visibility improvements, although slightly less than what would be
achieved from the 2013 FIP by an amount roughly corresponding to the
decrease in emission reductions.
(6) Propose BART
    In EPA's view, the CFD modeling that FCT has conducted provides the
best currently available evidence as to the NOX emission
levels that this technology will achieve. According to this modeling
and engineering reports provided by (the burner manufacturer) Coen, a
low-stoich burner can be designed to meet 2.8 lbs/MMBtu when burning
natural gas and 1.5 lbs/MMBtu when burning a gas/coal mix. BART
requires that the burners be designed to meet these limits and we
expect that these limits will be met. However, because of the lack of
experience with these low-stoich burners, including their impact on
pellet quality, we are proposing to increase the final limits up to 3.0
lbs/MMBtu when burning natural gas only, and up to 2.5 lbs/MMBtu when
burning a gas/coal mix if a rigorous demonstration is made that the 2.8
lbs/MMBtu and 1.5 lbs/MMBtu limits cannot be met.
ii. Hibbing Taconite and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine Straight-Grate
Kilns--Five Step BART Evaluation for NOX
(1) Step 1: Identify All Available Retrofit Control Technologies
    As discussed in the August 15, 2012 proposed FIP, the following
control technologies were identified: external flue gas recirculation,
low-NOX burners (including both high-stoich and low-stoich),
induced flue gas recirculation burners, energy efficiency projects,
ported kilns, and selective catalytic reduction (SCR). Water injection
in the preheat zone, a pre-combustion approach at the main burners and
steam injection to the fuel stream were subsequently considered
technologies.
(2) Step 2: Eliminate Technically Infeasible Options
    External flue gas recirculation and induced flue gas recirculation
burners were eliminated from consideration because they are technically
infeasible for the specific application to pellet furnaces due to the
high oxygen content of the flue gas. Energy efficiency projects were
eliminated due to the difficulty of assigning a general potential
emission reduction for this category. EPA agrees that SCR controls are
infeasible for indurating furnaces based on two SCR vendors declining
to bid on NOX reduction testing at Minntac.
    In addition, LNBs were eliminated from consideration due to the
technical challenges associated with their installation and operation
on the straight-grate kilns at Minorca Mine and Hibbing, which we
explained in detail in section V above--especially the fact that high-
stoich burners have never been used on any straight-grate kilns. Low-
stoich burners have also been eliminated from consideration because
they have never been used on straight-grate kilns and also because they
would be expected to result in higher NOX emissions than the
technologies being assessed by ArcelorMittal. As described in more
detail below, water injection in the preheat zone, a pre-combustion
approach at the main burners, and steam injection to the fuel stream
are considered to be feasible technologies.
(3) Step 3: Evaluate Control Effectiveness of Remaining Control
Technologies
    ArcelorMittal has retained engineering firms to assess
NOX reduction technologies for Minorca's straight-grate
indurating furnace. The results of this assessment are described in an
August 11, 2014 report titled ``ArcelorMittal Straight-Grate
NOX

Reduction Technology Development Efforts.'' Testing has revealed that
NOX can be reduced using water injection in the preheat and
the main burners, although it is significantly more effective at
reducing NOX in the preheat burners than the main burners.
Additional options for NOX reduction at straight grate
furnaces are: pre-combustion optimizations, steam injection, and
multiple point injection. The viability of these options will be based
on NOX reduction potential, impacts to pellet quality and
process, installation and operational downtime, and any energy penalty
and capital and operating costs.
    Test results have raised the prospect of optimizing NOX
reductions using both water injection in the preheat zone (where it
appears more effective) and a pre-combustion approach at the main
burners. This approach resulted in a 70% or greater reduction on a lbs/
MMBtu basis. Efforts have also been made to evaluate steam injection to
the fuel stream, which has the potential to provide better mixing in
the flame zone with increasing NOX reductions where
distribution concerns exist. Another alternative to reduce
NOX formation at the main combustion chambers is through a
number of smaller ``surface spray'' injectors.
    In conclusion, combined modeling indicates that water injection in
the preheat zone, a pre-combustion approach at the main burners and
steam injection to the fuel stream technologies can reasonably be
expected to achieve a 70% NOX reduction on a lbs/MMBtu
basis. EPA expects these technologies to be equally effective at
reducing NOX emissions at Hibbing as well as at Minorca
Mine.
(4) Step 4: Evaluate Impacts of Remaining Control Technologies
    There will be a total estimated 7,400 tons per year of
NOX reductions from water injection in the preheat zone, a
pre-combustion approach at the main burners, and steam injection to the
fuel stream at Minorca Mine and Hibbing. There are no significant costs
or environmental impacts associated with these control technologies.
(5) Step 5: Evaluate Visibility Impacts
    There is about a 16% overall decrease in the amount of
NOX and SO2 reductions anticipated as a result of
the control technologies (and resulting emission limits) required by
this rulemaking, as compared to the 2013 FIP. EPA finds that the
candidate BART technologies would be expected to achieve substantial
visibility improvements, although slightly less than what would be
achieved from the 2013 FIP by an amount roughly corresponding to the
decrease in emission reductions.
(6) Propose BART
    Based upon the engineering report prepared for ArcelorMittal in
which the use of water and steam injection and pre-combustion
technologies is described, EPA is confident that ArcelorMittal Minorca
Mine and Hibbing Taconite can meet a limit of 1.2 lbs NOX/
MMBtu. BART requires that these technologies be designed to meet a
limit of 1.2 lbs/MMBtu and we expect that these limits will be met.
However, because the particular combination of water and steam
injection and pre-combustion technologies being considered has not
previously been used on straight-grate kilns, and there is some
uncertainty with respect to their effect on pellet quality, we are
proposing to increase the final limit up to 1.8 lbs/MMBtu if a rigorous
demonstration is made that the 1.2 lbs/MMBtu limit cannot be met.
iii. United Taconite--Five Step BART Evaluation for SO2
(1) Step 1: Identify All Available Control Technologies
    Flue gas desulfurization (FGD) and use of low sulfur fuels are the
most appropriate available technologies.
(2) Step 2: Eliminate Technically Infeasible Options
    FGD and use of low sulfur fuels are both technically feasible.
(3) Step 3: Evaluate Control Effectiveness of Remaining Control
Technologies
    FGD can achieve 90 percent control and the reduction from the use
of low sulfur fuels varies depending upon the fuel mix and the sulfur
content of the fuel.
(4) Step 4: Evaluate Impacts of Remaining Control Technologies
    Dry FGD can achieve SO2 reductions of about 3600 tons
per year from lines 1 and 2. Based upon information supplied by Cliffs
in its response to comments on the proposed 2013 Taconite FIP, EPA
subsequently determined the annualized dollars per ton for FGD controls
to be $5,911/ton for Line 1 and $5,303/ton for Line 2. These cost-
effectiveness values were based upon prior baseline SO2
emission levels. 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 not economically feasible.
    United Taconite subsequently proposed an alternate BART definition
based on burning low sulfur fuels, including increased use of natural
gas. This alternative will result in about 1,900 tons per year of
SO2 reductions. There are no other significant impacts or
costs associated with this alternative.
(5) Step 5: Evaluate Visibility Impacts
    There is about a 16% overall decrease in the amount of
NOX and SO2 reductions anticipated as a result of
the control technologies (and resulting emission limits) required by
this rulemaking, as compared to the 2013 FIP. EPA finds that the
candidate BART technologies would be expected to achieve substantial
visibility improvements, although slightly less than what would be
achieved from the 2013 FIP by an amount roughly corresponding to the
decrease in emission reductions.
(6) Propose BART
    The proposed BART is based on burning low sulfur fuels, including
increased use of natural gas, sufficient to meet a Federally
enforceable aggregate emission limit of 529 lbs SO2/hr,
based on a 30-day rolling average. This alternative will result in
about 1900 tons per year of SO2 reductions. 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 establishing a limitation
on the coal to be used by requiring the coal have a sulfur content no
greater than 1.50 percent sulfur by weight based on a monthly block
average.
    The 529 lbs SO2/hour and 1.5 percent sulfur limit
constitute BART because of the economic infeasibility of FGD controls
and also because the facility is not designed to handle lower sulfur
coal.
iv. Tilden--Five Step BART Evaluation for SO2
(1) Step 1: Identify All Available Control Technologies
    FGD and use of low sulfur fuels are the most appropriate available
technologies.
(2) Step 2: Eliminate Technically Infeasible Options
    FGD and use of low sulfur fuels are both technically feasible.

(3) Step 3: Evaluate Control Effectiveness of Remaining Control
Technologies
    FGD can achieve 90 percent control and the reduction from the use
of low sulfur fuels varies depending upon the fuel mix and the sulfur
content of the fuel.
(4) Step 4: Evaluate Impacts of Remaining Control Technologies
    Dry FGD can achieve SO2 reductions of about 1100 tons
per year from Tilden's line 1. In its September 28, 2012 comments on
the proposed 2013 Taconite FIP, Cliffs documented dry FGD costs of
between $11,450 and $15,750 per ton of SO2 removed. These
costs are not economically reasonable.
    The use of low sulfur fuels, consisting of the use of either
natural gas or coal with no more than 0.6 percent sulfur, is expected
to result in a reduction in SO2 emissions of about 300 tons
per year from baseline conditions. There are no significant costs or
energy impacts associated with use of these low sulfur fuels.
(5) Step 5: Evaluate Visibility Impacts
    There is about a 16% overall decrease in the amount of
NOX and SO2 reductions anticipated as a result of
the control technologies (and resulting emission limits) required by
this rulemaking, as compared to the 2013 FIP. EPA finds that the
candidate BART technologies would be expected to achieve substantial
visibility improvements, although slightly less than what would be
achieved from the 2013 FIP by an amount roughly corresponding to the
decrease in emission reductions.
(6) Proposed BART
    BART for SO2 at Tilden's Grate Kiln Line 1 furnace is
proposed to be met by the use of low sulfur coal and natural gas.
Beginning six months after the effective date of the rule, any coal
burned on Tilden Grate Kiln Line 1 shall have no more than 0.60 percent
sulfur by weight based on a monthly block average. This furnace shall
also meet an initial emission limit of 500 lbs SO2/hr based
on a 30-day rolling average beginning six months after the effective
date of the rule. The owner or operator must subsequently calculate a
permanent lbs SO2/hr mass emission limit based on 12
continuous months of CEMS emissions data.
    In light of the reduction in SO2 emissions that will
result from the use of low-sulfur fuels at Tilden, it is expected that
the dollars per ton of SO2 reduction through FGD would be
even higher than previously estimated. Thus, EPA believes that the
installation of such controls is no longer economically reasonable. The
use of low sulfur fuels is therefore the most viable option and a 0.6
percent sulfur content represents the use of very low sulfur coal. The
initial mass limit of 500 lbs/hr is expected to be reduced after
obtaining a year's worth of CEMS data.

B. Compliance Schedule

    The staggered NOX compliance schedule proposed in this
action is generally consistent with the schedule in the February 6,
2013 FIP, as to the number of months to achieve compliance from the
effective date of the rule. The main differences are that under this
proposed revised FIP, at Tilden, installation of controls is required
after 50 months, not the 26 months in the 2013 Taconite FIP, and at
ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine, installation of controls is required within
44 months, not 26 months. The following summarizes the dates following
the effective date of the final action on reconsideration by which EPA
plans to publish notices making the NOX emission limits
effective:

Tilden--60 months
Hibbing Line 1--37 months
Hibbing Line 2--55 months
Hibbing Line 3--60 months
United Taconite Line 2--55 months
United Taconite Line 1--37 months
ArcelorMittal--55 months

The staggered schedule is necessary because there is a limited downtime
each year for each furnace during which the low NOX
burner(s) can be installed without interfering with production,
experience gained on the earlier installations can be applied to the
ones installed later, and installation costs may be spread out.
    The staggered schedule, including additional time at Tilden and
ArcelorMittal, is even more necessary for the proposed revisions to the
2013 Taconite FIP because, although the NOX controls that
are expected to be implemented as a result of the settlement agreement
and this proposed action have been subject to extensive engineering
studies, they have not been used on taconite furnaces in the US. There
will also be an eight month period after installation of controls
during which emission and pellet quality data will be evaluated and a
subsequent three month period during which a final emission limit will
be set by EPA based upon this data. The controls are being designed to
meet the lower end of the range and it is expected that the limits will
be set close to the lower end. The actual limit will be based upon the
UPL statistical test.

C. Averaging Times

    The limits in the 2013 Taconite FIP were expressed in terms of a
30-day average. A 30-day period in many cases would involve both
operation with only natural gas and operation with at least some firing
of coal. EPA prefers to require the companies to meet the limits with a
coal/gas mix and with only natural gas independently, rather than
imposing a variable limit computed as a composite of the limits with a
gas/coal mix and with only natural gas weighted according to time in
each operating mode. Therefore, EPA is proposing to require separate
compliance with two limits. One of these limits would govern the
emissions averaged over 720 successive hours in which the unit burns
only natural gas. The other limit would govern emissions averaged over
the 720 successive hours in which the unit burns a gas/coal mix. These
720-hour rolling average would correspond to a 30-day rolling average,
as used in the 2013 Taconite FIP, in cases when the fuel use remains
either natural gas or a gas/coal mix over 30 days. However, a 720-hour
rolling average ensures that the NOX emission rate will be
properly compared with the appropriate fuel based limit.
    An example helps illustrate the nature of these limits. Suppose
that a subject facility burns only natural gas on Days 1-12, burns a
coal/gas mix on Days 13-16, burns gas again on Days 17-30, does not
operate on Days 31 and 32, burns gas on Days 33-40, then burns a coal/
gas mix from Days 41-70. This example assumes 24 hours/day operation
for each operating day. In this case, compliance with the natural gas-
based limit would be determined by dividing total NOX
emissions by total heat input for the 720 hours on Days 1-12, Days 17-
30, and Days 33-36, as well as on each of the 96 additional sets of 720
successive hours of burning natural gas up to and including the period
ending at the end of Day 40. Compliance with the coal or gas/coal mixed
fuel limit would be determined by dividing total NOX
emissions by total heat input for the 720 hours on Days 13-16 and Days
41-66, as well as on each of the 96 additional sets of 720 successive
hours of burning coal or mixed fuel up to and including the period
ending at the end of day 70.

D. Procedures for Promulgating Revised FIP Limits

    The regulatory text that follows specifies a process for
establishing limits to which the identified facilities shall become
subject. While the text identifies limits that are to apply, the

text also states that these limits shall become enforceable only after
EPA publishes notice either confirming these limits or modifying the
limits within a range that EPA is proposing here to establish. The
regulatory text also specifies equations that are to be used to
establish any adjusted limit. Stated more generally, this action is
proposing not just a final action that will initiate a process to lead
to establishment of emission limits; today's action is also proposing
the criteria for determining the level of the ultimate limits and the
procedure by which these limits are to be made enforceable.
    EPA is proposing for the publication of the final rule to trigger a
number of subsequent requirements for implementing BART controls on the
affected taconite plants. Specific dates, defined as a given number of
months following the effective date of the final rule, are given for
deadlines for commencing operation of CEMS for NOX and
SO2, for submitting a report describing planned
NOX emission controls, for installing the planned
NOX emission controls, for reporting results of pellet
quality analyses and simultaneous NOX emission data, for the
source to submit any report recommending confirmation of modification
of the emission limit, and for EPA to publish a notice either
confirming the limit promulgated in 2016 or establishing an alternate
limit (within a range proposed here). The following summarizes the
dates following the effective date of the final action on
reconsideration by which EPA plans to publish notices making the
NOX emission limits effective:

Tilden--60 months
Hibbing Line 1--37 months
Hibbing Line 2--55 months
Hibbing Line 3--60 months
United Taconite Line 2--55 months
United Taconite Line 1--37 months
ArcelorMittal--55 months

    Based on the above schedule, EPA anticipates publishing a notice 37
months (addressing 2 units), 55 months (addressing 3 units), and 60
months (addressing 1 unit) after the effective date of the final rule
on reconsideration. In each case, the rulemaking will cause a limit to
become enforceable. EPA is proposing here that the limit will be either
the limit that is promulgated in the final rule on reconsideration or a
revised limit. In either case, EPA anticipates that the limit to which
each unit will ultimately be subject will be in accordance with the
equations being proposed here, within the upper and lower bounds
promulgated in the final rule on reconsideration.
    EPA is proposing that these subsequent notices will constitute
subsequent final actions to this proposal that require no further
opportunity for public comment. Accordingly, today's notice of proposed
rulemaking provides adequate information about the basis and timing of
the final limits such that no further proposals will be necessary. EPA
is taking this approach in order to expedite the establishment of
final, enforceable limits for these facilities, within the context of a
process that provides reasonable time to design and install emission
controls, to obtain data for determining control effectiveness, and to
minimize the time then needed to establish final, enforceable limits.
Therefore, commenters should provide comments during the comment period
for today's proposed rulemaking on any issues that might be anticipated
to arise at any point in the process described in this notice, up to
and including during the publication of final action as described above
establishing confirmed or modified limits as fully enforceable.
    The following is an example, based on Hibbing Line 1, of the
process for setting the final limit. The limits and schedules vary by
line but the steps are the same for all:
    1. A presumptive limit of 1.2 lbs/MMBtu, based on a 30-day rolling
average, is established.
    2. The owner or operator must install CEMS within 6 months of the
effective date of the rule.
    3. After installation of the CEMS, CEMS data must be submitted to
EPA no later than 30 days from the end of each calendar quarter until
34 months from the effective date of the rule.
    4. Within 24 months of the effective date a final report must be
submitted to EPA containing a detailed engineering analysis and
modeling of the NOX reduction technology (which must be
designed to meet 1.2 lbs/MMBtu) being installed.
    5. The NOX reduction control technology must be
installed no later than 26 months after the effective date of the rule.
    6. Within the earlier of 6 months of the installation of the
NOX reduction control technology or 26 months from the
effective date of the rule the results of pellet quality analyses must
be provided to EPA no later than 30 days from the end of each calendar
quarter pellet quality analyses must be provided to EPA until 34 months
from the effective date of the rule. For each pellet quality analysis
factor, e.g. compression and reducibilty, the following must be
provided: (a) The defined acceptable range for each factor as contained
in Hibbing's ISO 9001 quality management system, and (b) pellet quality
testing results that state the date and time when pellets were produced
outside of the defined acceptable range for the indicated pellet
quality factors.
    7. No later than 34 months after the effective date of the rule, a
report may be submitted to EPA either confirming the 1.2 lbs/MMBtu
presumptive limit or requesting a modification of the limit up to the
upper end of the range (1.8 lbs/MMBtu in this case).
    8. The final limit will be based on the CEMS data from the eight
month period from the end of month 26 to the end of month 34, excluding
any time in which the pellet quality standards are not met. The final
limit will be based upon the 95 percent upper predictive limit (UPL).
The UPL is a statistical technique that examines an existing set of
data points and predicts the chances (i.e., the probability) of future
data points (in this case, emission rates). In general terms, the UPL
is a value that is calculated from a data set that identifies the
emission rate that a source is meeting and would be expected to meet a
specified percent of the time that the source is operating. For
example, the 95 percent UPL value is the emission level that the source
would be predicted to be below during 95 out of 100 hourly intervals.
The UPL is calculated using an equation based on the average and
variance of a data set, the distribution of the data, and quantity of
data points.
    9. EPA will take final agency action by publishing its final
confirmation or modification of the NOX limit in the Federal
Register no later than 37 months after the effective date of the rule.

VI. 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 applies to only four sources. It is
therefore not a rule of general applicability.

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 six facilities, 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) 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 adds additional controls to certain sources. 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 and SO2 emissions on
specific units at three sources in Minnesota and one in Michigan. The
net result of the FIP action is that EPA is proposing emission controls
on the indurating furnaces at four taconite facilities and none of
these sources are owned by small entities, and therefore are not small
entities.

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 a June 28 conference call with the Michigan and 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 EO 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 EO
has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not
subject to EO 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 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: September 8, 2015.
Susan Hedman
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
2. Section 52.1183 is amended by revising paragraphs (k), (l), (m), and
(n) and adding paragraph (o) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1183  Visibility protection.

* * * * *
    (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.
    (i) An emission limit of 2.8 lbs NOX/MMBtu, based on a
720-hour rolling average, shall apply to Tilden Grate Kiln Line 1 when
burning natural gas, and an emission limit of 1.5 lbs NOX/
MMBtu, based on a 720-hour rolling average, shall apply to Tilden Grate
Kiln Line 1 when burning coal or a mixture of coal and natural gas.
These emission limits will become enforceable 60 months after
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] and only after EPA's confirmation or
modification of the emission limit in accordance with the procedures
set forth below.
    (ii) Compliance with these emission limits shall be demonstrated
with data collected by a continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS)
for NOX. The owner or operator must start collecting CEMS
data for NOX upon [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] and submit
the data to EPA no later than 30 days from the end of each calendar
quarter. Any remaining data through the end of the 57th month from
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], that doesn't fall within a calendar
quarter, must be submitted to EPA no later than 7 days from the end of
the 57th month. Although CEMS data must continue to be collected, it
does not need to be submitted to EPA starting 57 months after
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE].
    (iii) No later than 48 months from [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE],
the owner or operator must submit to EPA a report, including any final
report(s) completed by the selected NOX reduction technology
supplier and furnace retrofit engineer, containing a detailed
engineering analysis and modeling of the NOX reduction
control technology being installed on Tilden Grate Kiln Line 1. This
report must include a list of all variables that can reasonably be
expected to have an impact on NOX emission control

technology performance, as well as a description of how these variables
can be adjusted to reduce NOX emissions to meet the
NOX design emission limit. This NOx reduction control
technology must be designed to meet emission limits of 2.8 lbs
NOX/MMBtu when burning natural gas and 1.5 lbs
NOX/MMBtu when burning coal or a mixture of coal and natural
gas.
    (iv) The NOX reduction control technology shall be
installed on Tilden Grate Kiln Line 1 furnace no later than 50 months
from the effective date of the rule.
    (v) Commencing on the earlier of:
    (A) Six months from the installation of the NOX
reduction control technology; or
    (B) 50 months from [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], the owner or
operator must provide to EPA the results from pellet quality analyses.
The owner or operator shall provide the results from pellet quality
analyses no later than 30 days from the end of each calendar quarter up
until 57 months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]. Any remaining
results through the end of the 57th month, that do not fall within a
calendar quarter, must be submitted to EPA no later than seven days
from the end of the 57th month. The pellet quality analyses shall
include results for the following factors: Compression, reducibility,
before tumble, after tumble, and low temperature disintegration. For
each of the pellet quality analysis factors, the owner or operator must
explain the pellet quality analysis factor, as well as the defined
acceptable range for each factor using the applicable product quality
standards based upon customers' pellet specifications that are
contained in Tilden's ISO 9001 quality management system. The owner or
operator shall provide pellet quality analysis testing results that
state the date and time of the analysis and, in order to define the
time period when pellets were produced outside of the defined
acceptable range for the pellet quality factors listed, provide copies
of the production logs that document the starting and ending times for
such periods. The owner or operator shall provide an explanation of
causes for pellet samples that fail to meet the acceptable range for
any pellet quality analysis factor. Pellet quality information and data
may be submitted to EPA as Confidential Business Information.
    (vi) No later than 57 months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE],
the owner or operator may submit to EPA a report to either confirm or
modify the NOX limits for Tilden Grate Kiln Line 1 within
the upper and lower bounds described below. EPA will review the report
and either confirm or modify the NOX limits. If the CEMS
data collected during operating periods between months 50 and 57 that
both meet pellet quality specifications and proper furnace/burner
operation is normally distributed, the limit adjustment determination
shall be based on the appropriate (depending upon whether data are
statistically independent or dependent) 95% upper predictive limit
(UPL) equations in paragraph (o) of this section. If the CEMS data
collected during operating periods between months 50 and 57 that both
meet pellet quality specifications and proper furnace/burner operation
are not normally distributed, the limit adjustment determination shall
be based on the non-parametric equation provided in paragraph (o) of
this section. The data set for the determination shall exclude periods
when pellet quality did not fall within the defined acceptable ranges
of the pellet quality factors identified pursuant to paragraph
(k)(1)(v) of this section and for any subsequent period when production
had been reduced in response to pellet quality concerns consistent with
Tilden's ISO 9001 operating standards. Any excluded period will
commence at the time documented on the production log demonstrating
pellet quality did not fall within the defined acceptable range, and
shall end when pellet quality within the defined acceptable range has
been re-established at planned production levels, which will presumed
to be the level that existed immediately prior to the reduction in
production due to pellet quality concerns. EPA may also exclude data
where operations are inconsistent with the reported design parameters
of the NOX reduction control technology that were installed.
    (vii) EPA will take final agency action by publishing its final
confirmation or modification of the NOX limits in the
Federal Register no later than 60 months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL
RULE]. The confirmed or modified NOX limit for Tilden Grate
Kiln Line 1 when burning only natural gas may be no lower than 2.8 lbs
NOX/MMBtu, based on a 720-hour rolling average, and may not
exceed 3.0 lbs NOX/MMBtu, based on a 720-hour rolling
average. The confirmed or modified NOX limit for Tilden
Grate Kiln Line 1 when burning coal or a mixture of coal and natural
gas may be no lower than 1.5 lbs NOX/MMBtu, based on a 720-
hour rolling average, and may not exceed 2.5 lbs NOX/MMBtu,
based on a 720-hour rolling average.
    (viii) If the owner or operator submits a report proposing a single
NOX limit for all fuels, EPA may approve the proposed
NOX limit for all fuels based on a 30-day rolling average.
The confirmed or modified limit will be established and enforceable
within 60 months from [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE].
    (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 three 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 Tilden Grate Kiln Line 1 furnace
shall meet an emission limit of 500 lbs SO2/hr based on a
30-day rolling average beginning six months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF
FINAL RULE]. Compliance with these emission limits shall be
demonstrated with data collected by a CEMS for SO2. The
owner or operator must start collecting CEMS data for SO2
beginning six months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] and submit
the data to EPA no later than 30 days from the end of each calendar
quarter. The Tilden Grate Kiln Line 1 furnace shall not be limited to
natural gas fuel. Beginning 6 months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL
RULE], any coal burned on Tilden Grate Kiln Line 1 shall have no more
than 0.60 percent sulfur by weight based on a monthly block average.
The sampling and calculation methodology for determining the sulfur
content of coal must be described in the monitoring plan required for
this furnace. The owner or operator must calculate an SO2
limit based on twelve continuous months of CEMS emissions data and
submit such limit, calculations, and CEMS data to EPA no later than 36
months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]. If the submitted CEMS
SO2 hourly data is normally distributed, the SO2
lbs/hr emission rate shall be based on the appropriate (depending upon
whether data are statistically independent or dependent) 99% upper
predictive limit (UPL) equation. If the submitted CEMS SO2
hourly data is not normally distributed, the SO2 lbs/hr

emission rate shall be based on the non-parametric equation provided in
paragraph (o) of this section. Compliance to the SO2 lbs/hr
emission rate shall be determined on a 30-day rolling average basis.
EPA will take final agency action by publishing a confirmation or
modification of the SO2 limit in the Federal Register no
later than 39 months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]. EPA may
adjust the 500 lbs/hr SO2 limit downward to reflect the
calculated SO2 emission rate; however, EPA will not increase
the SO2 limit above 500 lbs/hr.
    (4) Starting 26 months from [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], 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 [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], the
SO2 limit for Grate Kiln Line 1 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 CEMS for NOX on
Tilden Grate Kiln Line 1. 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 Grate Kiln
Line 1. 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 Grate Kiln Line 1 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
regulation must meet the requirements of paragraphs (l)(4)(i) through
(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 upon [EFFECTIVE DATE OF
FINAL RULE]. All CEMS associated with monitoring SO2 must be
installed and operational no later than six months after [EFFECTIVE
DATE OF FINAL RULE]. 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) through (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) through (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 29 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 29 operating days.
    (C) Divide the total number of pounds of the pollutant in question
emitted during the 30 operating days by the total heat input (or actual
hours of operation depending on the emission limit selected) during the
30 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
five hours during a 24-hour period, then the actual operating hours for
that day are five. 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 720-hour rolling average emission rate determined from
data derived from the CEMS required by this section (in lbs/MMBtu) must
be calculated in accordance with paragraphs (l)(4)(xi)(A) through (C)
of this section.
    (A) Sum the total pounds of NOX emitted from the unit
every hour and the previous (not necessarily consecutive) 719 hours for
which that type of fuel (either natural gas or mixed coal and natural
gas) was used.
    (B) Sum the total heat input to the unit (in MMBtu) every hour and
the previous (not necessarily consecutive) 719 hours for which that
type of fuel (either natural gas or mixed coal and natural gas) was
used.
    (C) Divide the total number of pounds of NOX emitted
during the 720 hours, as defined above, by the total heat input during
the same 720 hour period. This calculation must be done separately for
each fuel type (either for natural gas or mixed coal and natural gas).
    (xii) Data substitution must not be used for purposes of
determining compliance under this regulation.
    (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) through (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 in
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. 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 (n)(2)(i) through (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 startup date for control devices and
burners installed as a result of this section postmarked no later than
30 days after the startup date.
    (vi) A notification of the startup date for CEMS required by this
section 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 in
paragraphs (n)(2)(viii) (A) through (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 in
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 (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.
    (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 of paragraphs (n)(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 in paragraphs (n)(7)(x)(A) through (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 in paragraphs (n)(7)(x)(C) of this section.
    (A) For purposes of section, an excess emission is defined as any
30-day or 720-hour rolling average period, including periods of
startup, shutdown and malfunction, during which the 30-day or 720-hour
(as appropriate) rolling average emissions of either regulated
pollutant (SO2 and NOX), as measured by a CEMS,
exceeds the applicable emission standards in this section.
    (B)(1) 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