----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          White and Minority by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White...........................................................              62              93               0
Minority........................................................              38               7               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Minority Detail by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
African American................................................              12               1               0
Native American.................................................             0.8             2.8               0
Hispanic or Latino..............................................              18               1               0
Other and Multiracial...........................................               7               2               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Income by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below the Poverty Level.........................................              14              19               0
Above the Poverty Level.........................................              86              82               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Education by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 Without High a School Diploma...........................              14               8               0
Over 25 With a High School Diploma..............................              86              92               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Linguistically Isolated by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated.........................................               6             0.2               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of the Taconite Iron Ore Processing source category
risk assessment (described in section IV.A.1 of this preamble)
indicates that actual emissions from the source category expose
approximately 38,000 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million
and no one to a chronic noncancer HI greater than 1. The percent of
minorities nationally (38 percent) is much higher than for the category
population with cancer risk greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million (7
percent). The category population with cancer risk greater than or
equal to 1-in-1 million has a greater percentage of Native American
(2.8 percent) as compared to nationally (0.8 percent), but lower
percentages for African American (1 percent) and Hispanic (1 percent)
as compared to nationally, 12 percent and 18 percent, respectively. The
category population with cancer risk greater than or equal to 1-in-1
million has about the same percentage of the population below the
poverty level (18 percent) as compared to nationally (14 percent). The
percentage of the population over 25 without a high school diploma and
the percentage of the population that is linguistically isolated are
lower for the category population (8 percent and 0.2 percent,
respectively) than nationally (14 percent and 6 percent, respectively).
    The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are
presented in a technical report titled Risk and Technology Review--
Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Taconite
Iron Ore Processing Source Category Operations, June 2019 (hereafter
referred to as the Taconite Iron Ore Processing Demographic Analysis
Report), which may be found in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0664.
2. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample
margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect?
a. Risk Acceptability
    As noted in section III.A of this preamble, we weigh all health
risk factors in our risk acceptability determination, including the
cancer MIR, the number of persons in various cancer and noncancer risk
ranges, cancer incidence, the maximum noncancer TOSHI, the maximum
acute noncancer HQ, the extent of noncancer risks, the distribution of
cancer and noncancer risks in the exposed population, and risk
estimation uncertainties (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989).
    For the Taconite Iron Ore Processing source category, the risk
analysis indicates that the cancer risks to the individual most exposed
could be up to 2-in-1 million due to actual emissions or up to 6-in-1
million based on allowable emissions. These risks are considerably less
than 100-in-1 million, which is the presumptive upper limit of
acceptable risk. The risk analysis also shows very low cancer incidence
(0.001 cases per year for actual and allowable emissions), and we did
not identify a potential for adverse chronic noncancer health effects.
The acute noncancer risks based on actual emissions are low, with a
maximum HQ of less than 1 (based on the REL) for arsenic. Therefore, we
find there is little potential concern of acute noncancer health
impacts from actual emissions. In addition, the risk assessment
indicates no significant potential for multipathway health effects.
    Considering all of the health risk information and factors
discussed above, including the uncertainties discussed in section
III.C.7 of this preamble, we propose to find that the risks from the
Taconite Iron Ore Processing source category are acceptable.
b. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis
    Although we are proposing that the risks from the Taconite Iron Ore
Processing source category are acceptable, we are required to consider
whether the MACT standards for the source category provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health. The risk estimates show that
approximately 38,000 individuals in the exposed population have a
cancer risk above 1-in-1 million based on actual emissions and 43,000
individuals have a cancer risk above 1-in-1 million based on allowable
emissions. The MIR based on actual emissions is 2-in-1 million, and
based on allowable emissions, the MIR is 6-in-1 million. With regard to
chronic and acute noncancer risks, as described above in section
IV.A.1, all HIs and HQs are below one. Under the ample margin of safety
analysis, in addition to the health risks, we evaluated the cost and
feasibility of available control technologies and other measures
(including the controls, measures, and costs reviewed under the
technology review as described in section III.B of this preamble) that
could be applied to this source category to further reduce the risks
(or potential risks) due to emissions of HAP identified in the risk
assessment.
    In this analysis, we focused on cancer risks since all the chronic
and acute noncancer HIs and HQs are below one. The cancer risks are
driven by metal HAP emissions (e.g., arsenic, nickel, and chromium VI)
from indurating furnaces and fugitive dust sources. The indurating
furnaces are currently controlled via wet scrubbers. We evaluated the
option of reducing emissions from indurating furnaces by installing a
wet electrostatic precipitator (wet ESP) after the existing wet
scrubbers. Under this scenario, we estimate that the current metal HAP
emissions would be reduced by about 99.9 percent, and the MIR would be
reduced from 2-in-1 million based on actual emissions and 6-in-1 based
on allowable emissions to less than 1-in-1 million for both actual and
allowable emissions. We estimate annual costs of about $167 million for
the industry, with a cost effectiveness of about $16 million per ton of
metal HAP reduced. Due to the relatively small reduction in risk and
the substantial costs associated with this option, we are proposing
that additional emissions controls for metal HAP from indurating
furnaces are not necessary to provide an ample margin of safety to
protect public health. See the technical memorandum titled Taconite
Iron Ore Processing--Ample Margin of Safety Analysis, in Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0664 for details.
    For the other affected sources that emit metal HAP (i.e., ore
crushing and handling operations, finished pellet handling operations,
ore drying, and sources subject to the fugitive dust emission control
plan), we did not identify any developments in processes, practices, or
control technologies. Therefore, we are proposing that additional
emissions controls for metal HAP from these affected sources are not
necessary to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health.
c. Environmental Effects
    The emissions data for the Taconite Iron Ore Processing source
category indicate that eight environmental HAP are emitted by sources
within this source category: Arsenic, cadmium, D/F, mercury, POM, lead,
HCl, and HF.
    In the Tier 1 screening analysis for PB-HAP (other than lead, which
was evaluated differently), D/F and POM emissions had no exceedances of
any of the ecological benchmarks evaluated. Arsenic, cadmium, and
mercury had Tier 1 exceedances for some of the benchmarks evaluated by
a maximum screening value of 4. Therefore, a Tier 2 screening analysis
was performed for arsenic, cadmium, and mercury. In the Tier 2
screening analysis, there were no exceedances of any of the ecological
benchmarks evaluated for any of the pollutants.
    The screening-level evaluation of the potential for adverse
environmental

effects from emissions of lead indicated that the secondary NAAQS for
lead would not be exceeded by any facility. The screening-level
evaluation of the potential for adverse environmental effects
associated with emissions of HCl and HF from the Taconite Iron Ore
Processing source category indicated that each individual concentration
(i.e., each off-site data point in the modeling domain) was below the
ecological benchmarks for all facilities. In addition, we are unaware
of any adverse environmental effects caused by HAP emitted by this
source category. Therefore, we do not expect there to be an adverse
environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions from this source
category and we are proposing that it is not necessary to set a more
stringent standard to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy,
safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect.
B. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology
review?
    The MACT standards for the Taconite Iron Ore Processing source
category require compliance with numeric emission limits for PM, a
surrogate for metal HAP, for ore crushing and handling operations, ore
dryers, pellet induration furnaces, and finished pellet handling
sources and for acid gases for pellet indurating furnaces. The rule
requires work practice standards to reduce PM (again as a surrogate for
metal HAP) emissions from fugitive dust emission sources (i.e.,
stockpiles, material transfer points, facility roadways, tailings
basins, pellet loading areas, and yard areas). Furthermore, the rule
includes operation and maintenance requirements for pellet indurating
furnaces to ensure good combustion to minimize emissions of
formaldehyde and other organic HAP that are products of incomplete
combustion.
    Under the technology review we searched, reviewed, and considered
several sources of information to determine whether there have been
developments in practices, processes, and control technologies as
required by section 112(d)(6) of the CAA. Section III.B of this
preamble describes the types of information and factors we consider to
determine if there have been any such ``developments.'' Our
investigations included internet searches, discussions with industry
representatives during site visits to taconite iron ore processing
plants, a review of state permits, and a review of state air quality
and regional haze implementation plans from Minnesota and Michigan, the
two states where taconite iron ore processing plants are located.
    Particulate matter emissions from the pellet induration furnaces
are controlled by wet scrubbers or wet ESPs. Based on our review, we
identified wet ESPs as a potential development in control technology
for indurating furnaces, as discussed under the ample margin of safety
analysis (see section IV.A.2.b of this preamble). As described in our
ample margin of safety analysis, we estimate the cost for implementing
this control technology would be $167 million annualized costs for the
source category, with estimated cost effectiveness of $16 million per
ton of metal HAP. We are proposing that it is not necessary under CAA
section 112(d)(6) to require these additional controls for indurating
furnaces because of the high annualized costs and because these
controls are not cost effective.
    With regard to the ore crushing and handling, ore drying, and
finished pellet handling emissions sources as well as for fugitive dust
emissions, based on our searches and reviews of the information sources
described above, we did not identify any developments in practices,
processes, or control technologies. For more details, refer to the
document, Technology Review for the Taconite Iron Ore Processing Source
Category, which is available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0664.

C. What other actions are we proposing?

    In addition to the proposed determinations described above, we are
proposing some revisions to the NESHAP. We are proposing revisions to
the SSM provisions of the MACT rule in order to ensure that they are
consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d
1019 (DC Cir. 2008), which vacated two provisions that exempted sources
from the requirement to comply with otherwise applicable CAA section
112(d) emission standards during periods of SSM. We are also proposing
the following: (1) Facilities can reduce compliance testing duration of
individual runs from 2 hours to 1 hour; (2) to remove pressure drop as
a monitoring option for dynamic wet scrubbers; (3) to remove the
requirements for monitoring pressure drop and conducting quarterly
internal baghouse inspections whenever the baghouse is equipped with a
bag leak detection system; and (4) various other changes to clarify
testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements and to
correct typographical errors. Furthermore, we are proposing a
determination that a certain compound (known as elongated mineral
particulate) is not a HAP. Our analyses, proposed changes, and proposed
determination related to these issues are discussed below.
1. SSM
    In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (DC Cir.
2008), the Court vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's CAA
section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods
of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption contained in
40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1), holding that under section 302(k) of the
CAA, emissions standards or limitations must be continuous in nature
and that the SSM exemption violates the CAA's requirement that some
section 112 standards apply continuously.
    Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, we are proposing the
elimination of the SSM exemption in this NESHAP and we are proposing
the standards apply at all times. We are also proposing several
revisions to Table 2 (the General Provisions Applicability Table) which
are explained in more detail below. For example, we are proposing to
eliminate the incorporation of the General Provisions' requirement that
sources develop an SSM plan. We also are proposing to eliminate and
revise certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the
SSM exemption as described below.
    The EPA has attempted to ensure that the provisions we are
proposing to eliminate are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in
the absence of the SSM exemption. We are specifically seeking comment
on whether we have successfully done so.
    In proposing the standards in this rule, the EPA has considered
startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained below, is
not proposing alternative standards for those periods. The associated
control devices are operational before startup and during shutdown of
the affected sources at taconite iron ore processing facilities.
Therefore, we expect that emissions during startup and shutdown would
be no higher than emissions during normal operations. We know of no
reason why the existing standards should not apply at all times.
    Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Malfunctions,
in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead they are, by
definition, sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failures
of emissions control, process, or monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 63.2)
(definition of malfunction). The EPA

interprets CAA section 112 as not requiring emissions that occur during
periods of malfunction to be factored into development of CAA section
112 standards and this reading has been upheld as reasonable by the
Court in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016). Under
section 112, emissions standards for new sources must be no less
stringent than the level ``achieved'' by the best controlled similar
source and for existing sources generally must be no less stringent
than the average emission limitation ``achieved'' by the best
performing 12 percent of sources in the category. There is nothing in
section 112 that directs the Agency to consider malfunctions in
determining the level ``achieved'' by the best performing sources when
setting emission standards. As the Court has recognized, the phrase
``average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12
percent of sources ``says nothing about how the performance of the best
units is to be calculated.'' Nat'l Ass'n of Clean Water Agencies v.
EPA, 734 F.3d 1115, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2013). While the EPA accounts for
variability in setting emissions standards, nothing in CAA section 112
requires the Agency to consider malfunctions as part of that analysis.
The EPA is not required to treat a malfunction in the same manner as
the type of variation in performance that occurs during routine
operations of a source. A malfunction is a failure of the source to
perform in a ``normal or usual manner'' and no statutory language
compels the EPA to consider such events in setting CAA section 112
standards.
    As the Court recognized in U.S. Sugar Corp, accounting for
malfunctions in setting standards would be difficult, if not
impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can
occur across all sources in the category and given the difficulties
associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree, and
duration of various malfunctions that might occur. Id. at 608 (``the
EPA would have to conceive of a standard that could apply equally to
the wide range of possible boiler malfunctions, ranging from an
explosion to minor mechanical defects. Any possible standard is likely
to be hopelessly generic to govern such a wide array of
circumstances.''). As such, the performance of units that are
malfunctioning is not ``reasonably'' foreseeable. See, e.g. Sierra Club
v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (``The EPA typically has
wide latitude in determining the extent of data-gathering necessary to
solve a problem. We generally defer to an agency's decision to proceed
on the basis of imperfect scientific information, rather than to
'invest the resources to conduct the perfect study.' ''). See also,
Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (``In the
nature of things, no general limit, individual permit, or even any
upset provision can anticipate all upset situations. After a certain
point, the transgression of regulatory limits caused by `uncontrollable
acts of third parties,' such as strikes, sabotage, operator
intoxication or insanity, and a variety of other eventualities, must be
a matter for the administrative exercise of case-by-case enforcement
discretion, not for specification in advance by regulation.''). In
addition, emissions during a malfunction event can be significantly
higher than emissions at any other time of source operation. For
example, if an air pollution control device with 99-percent removal
goes off-line as a result of a malfunction (as might happen if, for
example, the bags in a baghouse catch fire) and the emission unit is a
steady state type unit that would take days to shut down, the source
would go from 99-percent control to zero control until the control
device was repaired. The source's emissions during the malfunction
would be 100 times higher than during normal operations. As such, the
emissions over a 4-day malfunction period would exceed the annual
emissions of the source during normal operations. As this example
illustrates, accounting for malfunctions could lead to standards that
are not reflective of (and significantly less stringent than) levels
that are achieved by a well-performing non-malfunctioning source. It is
reasonable to interpret CAA section 112 to avoid such a result. The
EPA's approach to malfunctions is consistent with CAA section 112 and
is a reasonable interpretation of the statute.
    Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set standards for
malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where feasible. For
example, in the Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR, the EPA established a
work practice standard for unique types of malfunction that result in
releases from pressure relief devices (PRDs) or emergency flaring
events because the EPA had information to determine that such work
practices reflected the level of control that applies to the best
performers. 80 FR 75178, 75211-14 (December 1, 2015). The EPA will
consider whether circumstances warrant setting standards for a
particular type of malfunction and, if so, whether the EPA has
sufficient information to identify the relevant best performing sources
and establish a standard for such malfunctions. (We also encourage
commenters to provide any such information.)
    Based on the EPA's knowledge of the processes and engineering
judgement, malfunctions in the Taconite Iron Ore Processing source
category are considered unlikely to result in a violation of the
standard. Affected sources at taconite iron ore processing plants are
controlled with add-on air pollution control devices which will
continue to function in the event of a process upset. Also, processes
in the industry are typically equipped with controls that will not
allow startup of the emission source until the associated control
device is operating and will automatically shut down the emission
source if the associated controls malfunction. Indurating furnaces,
which are the largest sources of HAP emissions, typically operate
continuously for long periods of time with no significant spikes in
emissions. These minimal fluctuations in emissions are controlled by
the existing add-on air pollution control devices used at all plants in
the industry.
    In the unlikely event that a source fails to comply with the
applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction
event, the EPA would determine an appropriate response based on, among
other things, the good faith efforts of the source to minimize
emissions during malfunction periods, including preventative and
corrective actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and
rectify excess emissions. The EPA would also consider whether the
source's failure to comply with the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in
fact, sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable, and was not
instead caused, in part, by poor maintenance or careless operation. 40
CFR 63.2 (definition of malfunction).
    If the EPA determines in a particular case that an enforcement
action against a source for violation of an emission standard is
warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses in that
enforcement action and the federal district court will determine what,
if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement
actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative
proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine whether
administrative penalties are appropriate.
    In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and, in particular,
section 112, is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid
malfunctions.

Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing exceedances of
the standards fully recognize that violations may occur despite good
faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those situations. U.S.
Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016).
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions Applicability
Table (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) by changing the ``yes''
in the column titled ``Applies to Subpart RRRRR'' to a ``no.'' Section
63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general duty to minimize emissions. Some of
the language in that section is no longer necessary or appropriate in
light of the elimination of the SSM exemption. We are proposing instead
to add general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.9600(a) that reflects
the general duty to minimize emissions while eliminating the reference
to periods covered by an SSM exemption. The current language in 40 CFR
3.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes what the general duty entails during periods
of SSM. With the elimination of the SSM exemption, there is no need to
differentiate between normal operations and SSM events in describing
the general duty. Therefore, the language the EPA is proposing for 40
CFR 63.9600(a) does not include that language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1).
    We are also proposing to revise the General Provisions
Applicability Table (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) by
changing the ``yes'' in the column titled ``Applies to Subpart RRRRR''
to a ``no.'' Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes requirements that are not
necessary with the elimination of the SSM exemption or are redundant
with the general duty requirement being added at 40 CFR 63.9600(a).
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions Applicability
Table (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) by changing the ``yes'' in
the column titled ``Applies to Subpart RRRRR'' to a ``no.'' Generally,
these paragraphs require development of an SSM plan and specify SSM
recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM plan. As
noted, the EPA is proposing to remove the SSM exemptions. Therefore,
affected units will be subject to an emission standard during such
events. The applicability of a standard during such events will ensure
that sources have ample incentive to plan for and achieve compliance
and, thus, the SSM plan requirements are no longer necessary.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions Applicability
Table (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in
the column titled ``Applies to Subpart RRRRR'' to a ``no.'' The current
language of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts sources from non-opacity
standards during periods of SSM. As discussed above, the Court in
Sierra Club v. EPA vacated the exemptions contained in this provision
and held that the CAA requires that some CAA section 112 standards
apply continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, the EPA is
proposing to revise standards in this rule to apply at all times.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions Applicability
Table (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in
the column titled ``Applies to Subpart RRRRR'' to a ``no.'' Section
63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing requirements. The EPA is
instead proposing to add a performance testing requirement at 40 CFR
63.9621(a). The performance testing requirements we are proposing to
add differ from the General Provisions performance testing provisions
in several respects. The regulatory text removes the cross-reference to
40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) and does not include the language in 40 CFR
63.7(e)(1) that restated the SSM exemption and language that precluded
startup and shutdown periods from being considered ``representative''
for purposes of performance testing. The proposed performance testing
provisions will not allow performance testing during malfunctions. As
in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), performance tests conducted under this subpart
should not be conducted during malfunctions because conditions during
malfunctions are often not representative of normal operating
conditions. The EPA is proposing to add language that requires the
owner or operator to record the process information that is necessary
to document operating conditions during the test and include in such
record an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal
operation. Section 63.7(e) requires that the owner or operator make
available to the Administrator such records ``as may be necessary to
determine the condition of the performance test'' available to the
Administrator upon request but does not specifically require the
information to be recorded. The regulatory text the EPA is proposing to
add to this provision builds on that requirement and makes explicit the
requirement to record the information.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions Applicability
Table (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii) by changing
the ``yes'' in the column titled ``Applies to Subpart RRRRR'' to a
``no.'' The cross-references to the general duty and SSM plan
requirements in those subparagraphs are not necessary in light of other
requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air pollution control
practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the requirements of a
quality control program for monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)).
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions Applicability
Table (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) by changing the ``yes'' in
the column titled ``Applies to Subpart RRRRR'' to a ``no.'' The final
sentence in 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) refers to the General Provisions' SSM
plan requirement which is no longer applicable. The EPA is proposing to
add to the rule at 40 CFR 63.9632(b)(5) text that is identical to 40
CFR 63.8(d)(3) except for the final sentence with the reference to SSM.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions Applicability
Table (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) by changing the ``yes''
in the column titled ``Applies to Subpart RRRRR'' to a ``no.'' Section
63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the recordkeeping requirements during startup
and shutdown. These recording provisions are no longer necessary
because the EPA is proposing that recordkeeping and reporting
applicable to normal operations will apply to startup and shutdown. In
the absence of special provisions applicable to startup and shutdown,
such as a startup and shutdown plan, there is no reason to retain
additional recordkeeping for startup and shutdown periods.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions Applicability
Table (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) by changing the
``yes'' in the column titled ``Applies to Subpart RRRRR'' to a ``no.''
Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the recordkeeping requirements during
a malfunction. The EPA is proposing to add such requirements to 40 CFR
63.9642. The regulatory text we are proposing to add differs from the
General Provisions it is replacing in that the General Provisions
requires the creation and retention of a record of the occurrence and
duration of each malfunction of process, air pollution control, and
monitoring equipment. The EPA is proposing that this requirement apply
to any failure to meet an applicable standard and is requiring that the
source record the date, time, and duration of the failure rather than
the ``occurrence.'' The EPA is also proposing to add to 40 CFR 63.9642
a requirement that sources keep records that include a list of the
affected source or equipment and actions taken to minimize emissions,
an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over
the standard for which the source failed to meet the standard, and a
description of the method used to

estimate the emissions. Examples of such methods would include product-
loss calculations, mass balance calculations, measurements when
available, or engineering judgment based on known process parameters.
The EPA is proposing to require that sources keep records of this
information to ensure that there is adequate information to allow the
EPA to determine the severity of any failure to meet a standard, and to
provide data that may document how the source met the general duty to
minimize emissions when the source has failed to meet an applicable
standard.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions Applicability
Table (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) by changing the
``yes'' in the column titled ``Applies to Subpart RRRRR'' to a ``no.''
When applicable, the provision requires sources to record actions taken
during SSM events when actions were inconsistent with their SSM plan.
The requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no
longer be required. The requirement previously applicable under 40 CFR
63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to record actions to minimize emissions and record
corrective actions is now applicable by reference to 40 CFR 63.9642.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions Applicability
Table (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) by changing the ``yes''
in the column titled ``Applies to Subpart RRRRR'' to a ``no.'' When
applicable, the provision requires sources to record actions taken
during SSM events to show that actions taken were consistent with their
SSM plan. The requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM plans
will no longer be required.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions Applicability
Table (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) by changing the ``yes''
in the column titled ``Applies to Subpart RRRRR'' to a ``no.'' The EPA
is proposing that 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no longer applies. When
applicable, the provision allows an owner or operator to use the
affected source's SSM plan or records kept to satisfy the recordkeeping
requirements of the SSM plan, specified in 40 CFR 63.6(e), to also
satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10) through (12). The EPA
is proposing to eliminate this requirement because SSM plans would no
longer be required, and, therefore, 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no longer
serves any useful purpose for affected units.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions Applicability
Table (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) by changing the ``yes'' in
the column titled ``Applies to Subpart RRRRR'' to a ``no.'' Section
63.10(d)(5) describes the reporting requirements for startups,
shutdowns, and malfunctions. To replace the General Provisions
reporting requirement, the EPA is proposing to add reporting
requirements to 40 CFR 63.9641. The replacement language differs from
the General Provisions requirement in that it eliminates periodic SSM
reports as a stand-alone report. We are proposing language that
requires sources that fail to meet an applicable standard at any time
to report the information concerning such events in the semi-annual
compliance report already required under this rule. We are proposing
that the report must contain the number, date, time, duration, and the
cause of such events (including unknown cause, if applicable), a list
of the affected source or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of
each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, and a
description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
    Examples of such methods would include product-loss calculations,
mass balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering
judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA is proposing this
requirement to ensure that there is adequate information to determine
compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of the failure
to meet an applicable standard, and to provide data that may document
how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions during a
failure to meet an applicable standard.
    We will no longer require owners or operators to determine whether
actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan,
because SSM plans would no longer be required. The proposed amendments,
therefore, eliminate the cross-reference to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) that
contains the description of the previously required SSM report format
and submittal schedule from this section. These specifications are no
longer necessary because the events will be reported in otherwise
required reports with similar format and submittal requirements.
    The proposed amendments eliminate the cross-reference to 40 CFR
63.10(d)(5)(ii), which requires an immediate report for SSM when a
source failed to meet an applicable standard but did not follow the SSM
plan. We will no longer require owners and operators to report when
actions taken during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction were not
consistent with an SSM plan, because SSM plans would no longer be
required.
2. Electronic Reporting
    The EPA is proposing that owners and operators of taconite iron ore
processing plants submit electronic copies of required performance test
reports and compliance reports through EPA's Central Data Exchange
(CDX) using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
(CEDRI). A description of the electronic data submission process is
provided in the memorandum, Electronic Reporting Requirements for New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, available in Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0664. The proposed rule requires that performance test
results collected using test methods that are supported by the EPA's
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the ERT website \21\ at
the time of the test be submitted in the format generated through the
use of the ERT and that other performance test results be submitted in
portable document format (pdf) using the attachment module of the ERT.
For compliance reports, the proposed rule requires that owners and
operators use the appropriate spreadsheet template to submit
information to CEDRI. A draft version of the proposed template for
these reports is included in the docket for this rulemaking. The EPA
specifically requests comment on the content, layout, and overall
design of the template.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, we have identified two broad circumstances in which
electronic reporting extensions may be provided. In both circumstances,
the decision to accept the claim of needing additional time to report
is within the discretion of the Administrator, and reporting should
occur as soon as possible. We are providing these potential extensions
to protect owners and operators from noncompliance in cases where they
cannot successfully submit a report by the reporting deadline for
reasons outside of their control. The situation where an extension may
be warranted due to outages of EPA's CDX or CEDRI which precludes an
owner or operator from accessing the system and submitting required
reports is addressed in 40 CFR 63.9641. The situation where an
extension may be warranted due to a force majeure event, which is
defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances
beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any
entity controlled by

the affected facility that prevents an owner or operator from complying
with the requirement to submit a report electronically as required by
this rule is addressed in 40 CFR 63.9641. Examples of such events are
acts of nature, acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or
safety hazards beyond the control of the facility.
    The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this proposed
rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those
reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability and
transparency, and will further assist in the protection of public
health and the environment. Furthermore, it will improve compliance by
facilitating the ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate
compliance with requirements and by facilitating the ability of
delegated state, local, tribal, and territorial air agencies and the
EPA to assess and determine compliance, and will ultimately reduce
burden on regulated facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA.
Electronic reporting also eliminates paper-based, manual processes,
thereby saving time and resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating
redundancies, minimizing data reporting errors, and providing data
quickly and accurately to the affected facilities, air agencies, the
EPA, and the public. Moreover, electronic reporting is consistent with
the EPA's plan \22\ to implement Executive Order 13563 and is in
keeping with the EPA's Agency-wide policy \23\ developed in response to
the White House's Digital Government Strategy.\24\ For more information
on the benefits of electronic reporting, see the memorandum, Electronic
Reporting Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
Rules, available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0664.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews, August
2011. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156-0154.
    \23\ E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA Regulations, September
2013. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-2013-09-30.pdf.
    \24\ Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to
Better Serve the American People, May 2012. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digital-government.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Performance Testing
    The Taconite Iron Ore Processing NESHAP performance testing
requirements specify that stack tests conducted for ore crushing and
handling, finished pellet handling, ore drying, and indurating furnace
affected sources must consist of three separate runs of a minimum of 2
hours for each run. Industry representatives have stated that 2-hour
test runs are unnecessary because an adequate sample volume can be
obtained when conducting a 1-hour test. Industry representatives also
pointed out that Minnesota state rules for performance testing only
require that test runs be 1 hour in duration. They claim longer run
time increases the cost of testing without any improvement in the data
collected. With the time needed for test contractors to set up and
break down their sampling equipment, perform the necessary QA/QC
checks, and conduct a minimum of 6 hours of testing for a three-run
test on a single stack, testing can take 9 to 10 hours to complete.
    The EPA has previously concluded that the representative method
detection limit for EPA Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3, is 2
milligrams for a sample volume of 1 dry standard cubic meter.\25\ This
is the approximate sample volume for a 1-hour test run. This detection
limit is equivalent to 0.0026 gr/dscf, which is well below the emission
limits in this rule. Additionally, we reviewed a number of test reports
submitted during the development of this action. After examining those
PM test results, we did not find any of the test results to be below
the method detection limit, even when the test run was only 1 hour
long.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ U.S. EPA. Memorandum from Conniesue Oldham to Bob Schell.
Revision of Estimated Method 5 Detection Limit. June 15, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based upon our review of available information, we agree that a
test run time of 1 hour should provide an adequate sample volume to
determine compliance with the emission limits if good testing practices
are followed. Therefore, we are proposing to revise the minimum time
for test runs for performance tests conducted on ore crushing and
handling, finished pellet handling, ore drying, and indurating furnace
affected sources from a minimum of 2 hours for each test run to a
minimum of 1 hour for each test run. While we agree that this change
should not cause an issue with determining compliance, as the number of
samples below the method detection limit should not increase as long as
good testing practices are followed, we are also proposing that if the
measurement result is reported as below the method detection limit, the
method detection limit will be used for that value when calculating the
average particulate concentration.
    Performance testing of indurating furnaces is required no less
frequently than twice per 5-year permit term. Industry has requested
that the EPA revise the frequency to once every 5 years if the
performance test results are less than 80 percent of the emissions
limit. We currently do not have sufficient justification or data to
support this change. Therefore, we are not proposing this change.
However, we solicit comments, data, and information as to whether this
change would be appropriate or if other possible alternatives to the
current requirement should be considered that would provide the
industry more flexibility while ensuring that emissions would remain
below the PM limits. In particular, we are interested in emissions data
or other information that would support a margin of 80 percent, or some
other margin, as sufficient to ensure that emissions would not exceed
the emission limits for the 5-year period.
4. Baghouse Monitoring
    Under the current rule, baghouses that are used on affected sources
to comply with the emission limits for PM are required to be equipped
with a bag leak detection system in order to monitor the relative
change in PM loadings. The current rule contains installation,
operation, and maintenance requirements that apply to bag leak
detection systems to ensure their proper performance. The Taconite Iron
Ore Processing NESHAP also requires that the owner or operator monitor
the daily pressure drop across each baghouse in addition to conducting
physical inspections of several baghouse components on a daily, weekly,
or monthly basis depending on the baghouse component. Then, the
interior of the baghouse must be inspected on a quarterly basis to
determine if there are air leaks. In view of the requirement for
baghouses to be equipped with a bag leak detection system, the
requirements to monitor baghouse pressure drop and to conduct baghouse
inspections are redundant and, therefore unnecessary. Therefore, we are
proposing to remove the requirements for conducting quarterly internal
baghouse inspections whenever the baghouse is equipped with a bag leak
detection system that is installed, operated, and maintained in
compliance with the requirements in the Taconite Iron Ore Processing
NESHAP. The use of bag leak detection systems is superior to older
methods of monitoring baghouse performance (such as visual inspections)
and is more consistent with monitoring

requirements for baghouses required in other EPA regulations.
    Industry has also requested that the EPA revise the requirement at
40 CFR 63.9600(b)(2) to initiate corrective action to determine the
cause of a bag leak detection system alarm within 1 hour of its
occurrence. We currently do not have sufficient justification or data
to support this change. Therefore, we are not proposing this change.
However, we solicit comments, data, and information as to whether a
longer time frame within which industry is required to initiate
corrective action would be appropriate, or if other possible
alternatives to the current requirement should be considered that would
provide the industry more flexibility while ensuring that emissions
would remain below the PM limits.
5. Dynamic Wet Scrubbers
    The current rule requires that where dynamic wet scrubbers, also
known as low energy scrubbers, are used to comply with PM emission
limits, the owner or operator must establish site-specific operating
limits for scrubber water flow rate and either fan amperage or pressure
drop during the PM performance testing for each dynamic wet scrubber.
Compliance with the operating limits is determined by monitoring the
daily average scrubber water flow rate and either the daily average fan
amperage or the daily average pressure drop. Since the MACT rule was
promulgated, we have determined that pressure drop is not adequate for
monitoring dynamic scrubbers as the pressure drop for these scrubbers
is very low and does not vary greatly. Furthermore, the operator is not
able to adjust or control the differential pressure in order to remain
in compliance. Therefore, we are proposing to remove pressure drop as a
monitoring option for dynamic wet scrubbers. Under the proposed
amendments, dynamic wet scrubbers used to comply with the Taconite Iron
Ore Processing NESHAP emission limits for PM would be required to
establish and monitor the scrubber water flow rate and fan amperage.
While we maintain that scrubber water flow is an appropriate operating
parameter for these scrubbers, we request comment on whether an
operating parameter other than fan amperage or pressure drop would be
as effective or more appropriate to monitor in conjunction with
scrubber water flow to ensure the continued removal efficiency of the
scrubber.
6. Performance Testing of Similar Sources
    Under the current rule, the owner/operator may elect to group up to
six similar ore crushing and handling operations and finished pellet
handling operations sources and conduct a compliance test on a single
representative unit. The rule establishes the criteria that emission
units must meet to be considered similar. This provision has the
benefit of reducing testing costs for those facilities that can take
advantage of it. Industry representatives requested that the EPA modify
the rule language to allow up to 10 emission units in a group of
similar sources. However, we currently do not have sufficient
justification or data to support this change. Therefore, we are not
proposing revisions to this requirement at this time. However, we
request comments and information from companies and other stakeholders
on the positive and/or negative aspects of increasing the number of
similar sources that can be grouped for testing purposes, including the
potential economic benefits for companies and potential environmental
impacts, and whether the EPA should allow such an increase in the
number of units in a group of similar sources for testing, and if so,
why.
7. Elongated Mineral Particulate
    In 2004, after promulgation of the original Taconite Iron Ore
Processing NESHAP, the National Wildlife Federation filed a petition
for review of that rule with the Court (Case No. 03-1458). In that
petition, the National Wildlife Federation alleged that the EPA had
failed to set standards for what they believed to be emissions of
asbestos, or asbestos-like fibers, from taconite iron ore processing
plants. We are referring to these compounds as amphibole ``elongated
mineral particulate (EMP).'' The EPA subsequently requested, and was
granted, a partial voluntary remand to further investigate this issue
and consider possible options to address the issue, as appropriate. As
part of the development of this RTR proposed rulemaking, we gathered
and reviewed available information on the amphibole EMP. Based on
available information, amphibole EMP emissions only occur from the
operations at one of the taconite iron ore processing plants, due to
the effects of the Duluth Gabbro Complex on the associated taconite
iron ore mine--specifically, the Peter Mitchell Mine associated with
the Northshore Mining Company processing plant located in Silver Bay,
Minnesota.
    After reviewing and evaluating available information, we have
determined that the EMP do not meet the definition of ``asbestos''
found in current EPA regulations and technical documents. This is
because asbestos is always defined as the asbestiform varieties of
certain minerals (see 40 CFR 61.141, 763.83, and 763.163), whereas the
EMP in question developed in the non-asbestiform geologic form. Also, a
study by Ross et al. (The search for asbestos within the Peter Mitchell
Taconite iron ore mine, near Babbitt, Minnesota, which is available in
the docket, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0664) found no asbestos in
the Peter Mitchell Mine. Ross et al. analyzed 53 samples from 30 sites
within the mine where fibrous minerals were thought to potentially
occur. Samples were analyzed using transmission electron microscopes
and other state-of-the-art equipment. No asbestos of any type was found
in the mine pit samples. In another study by Wilson et al., ambient air
samples from monitors at the taconite mill and in a nearby town were
analyzed. It was found that the fibers collected by the ambient air
monitors were non-asbestiform ferroactinolite and grunerite, not
asbestos. (Risk assessment due to environmental exposures to fibrous
particulates associated with taconite ore, which is available in the
docket, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0664.)
    We also evaluated the EMP to determine if they might meet the
definition of ``fine mineral fibers'' (the other HAP listed in CAA
section 112(b) which we initially thought might be interpreted to
include EMP). Footnote 3 after the list of HAP found in CAA section
112(b)(1) explains that ``[f]ine mineral fibers includes mineral fiber
emissions from facilities manufacturing or processing glass, rock or
slag fibers (or other mineral derived fibers) of average diameter 1
micrometer or less.'' The EPA Health Effects Notebook (available at
https://www.epa.gov/haps/health-effects-notebook-hazardous-air-pollutants) further explains that the term ``fine mineral fibers'' was
intended to apply to the synthetic vitreous fibers glasswool, rockwool,
slagwool, glass filaments, and refractory ceramic fibers. Based on the
CAA definition, and further interpretation provided in the EPA Health
Effects Notebook, we conclude that EMP do not meet the definition of
``fine mineral fibers'' because the taconite iron ore processing
facilities are not manufacturing or processing synthetic vitreous
fibers such as rockwool, glasswool, slagwool, glass filaments, and
refractory ceramic fibers.
    Since the EMP do not meet the definition of HAP pursuant to CAA

section 112(b), the EPA did not review the EMP for regulation under CAA
section 112. Nevertheless, we note that the EMP are a component of PM
which are subject to control by the NESHAP as a surrogate for metal HAP
and acid gases. We also note that the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency requires this facility to monitor the EMP and ensure ambient
levels of EMP near the facility are no higher than levels found in a
non-affected location (i.e., St. Paul, Minnesota). Also, EMP are the
subject of an exposure study being conducted in taconite communities in
Minnesota by the EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) and the
EPA's Region 5 office. More information on the EPA's review of the EMP
and EPA's proposed determination is available in the memorandum, EPA's
Analysis of Elongated Mineral Particulate, which is available in Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0664.

E. What compliance dates are we proposing?

    We are proposing that existing facilities must comply with all
changes proposed in this action 180 days after promulgation of the
final rule. All new or reconstructed facilities must comply with all
requirements in the final rule upon startup. Our experience with
similar industries that are required to convert reporting mechanisms,
install necessary hardware and software, become familiar with the
process of submitting performance test results electronically through
the EPA's CEDRI, test these new electronic submission capabilities,
reliably employ electronic reporting, and convert logistics of
reporting processes to different time-reporting parameters, shows that
a time period of a minimum of 90 days, and more typically, 180 days, is
generally necessary to successfully complete these changes. Our
experience with similar industries further shows that this sort of
regulated facility generally requires a time period of 180 days to read
and understand the amended rule requirements; evaluate their operations
to ensure that they can meet the standards during periods of startup
and shutdown as defined in the rule and make any necessary adjustments;
adjust parameter monitoring and recording systems to accommodate
revisions; and update their operations to reflect the revised
requirements. The EPA recognizes the confusion that multiple different
compliance dates for individual requirements would create and the
additional burden such an assortment of dates would impose. From our
assessment of the time frame needed for compliance with the entirety of
the revised requirements, the EPA considers a period of 180 days to be
the most expeditious compliance period practicable, and, thus, is
proposing that existing affected sources be in compliance with all of
this regulation's revised requirements within 180 days of the
regulation's effective date.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected sources?

    The Taconite Iron Ore Processing source category consists of eight
facilities. One facility (Empire Mine) that is currently in a state of
indefinite idle, is expected to resume operations once market
conditions become more favorable. Also, a new facility is under
construction near Nashwauk, Minnesota. The date that this new facility
will begin operations is unknown, but not expected until after
completion of this rulemaking. The affected sources at a taconite iron
ore processing plant include ore crushing and handling operations, ore
dryers, indurating furnaces, and finished pellet handling operations.
The owner/operator of a taconite iron ore processing plant must also
prepare and operate according to a fugitive dust emissions control plan
to minimize emissions from sources of fugitive emissions (e.g.,
stockpiles, tailings basins, roadways, pellet loading areas, material
transfer points, and yard areas).

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    In this action, we are proposing no new emission limits and no
additional controls; therefore, no air quality impacts are expected as
a result of the proposed amendments.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    The proposed amendments include no changes to emission standards or
add-on controls. As described in section IV.C.3 of this preamble, the
proposed amendments would reduce emissions performance test run times
from 2 hours to 1 hour and remove the unnecessary requirement to
conduct quarterly internal visual inspections of baghouses that are
equipped with a bag leak detection system. The proposed amendments
would replace the current reporting requirements with electronic
reporting. Electronic reporting eliminates paper-based, manual
processes, thereby saving time and resources, simplifying data entry,
eliminating redundancies, and minimizing data reporting errors,
ultimately reducing the burden on regulated facilities. Therefore, the
proposed amendments impose no additional costs. In fact, the amendments
and clarifications to rule language are expected to result in a
reduction of current costs because compliance will be more
straightforward. As described in the cost memorandum, we estimate the
proposed amendments will result in an overall cost savings of $190,000
per year mainly due to the reduced testing duration and elimination of
need for internal visual baghouse inspections.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    Economic impact analyses focus on changes in market prices and
output levels. If changes in market prices and output levels in the
primary markets are significant enough, impacts on other markets may
also be examined. Both the magnitude of costs associated with the
proposed requirements and the distribution of these costs among
affected facilities can have a role in determining how the market will
change in response to a proposed rule. Because the overall costs and
savings associated with the proposed revisions are relatively small, no
significant economic impacts from the proposed amendments are
anticipated.

E. What are the benefits?

    While the proposed amendments would not result in reductions in
emissions of HAP, this action, if finalized, would result in improved
monitoring, compliance, and implementation of the rule. Also, the
electronic reporting requirements will enhance transparency by making
performance test results and compliance reports more readily available
to the public.

VI. Request for Comments

    We solicit comments on this proposed action. In addition to general
comments on this proposed action, we are also interested in additional
data that may improve the risk assessments and other analyses. We are
specifically interested in receiving any improvements to the data used
in the site-specific emissions profiles used for risk modeling. Such
data should include supporting documentation in sufficient detail to
allow characterization of the quality and representativeness of the
data or information. Section VII of this preamble provides more
information on submitting data.

VII. Submitting Data Corrections

    The site-specific emissions profiles used in the source category
risk and demographic analyses and instructions are available for
download on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/

stationary-sources-air-pollution/taconite-iron-ore-processing-national-
emission-standards-hazardous. The data files include detailed
information for each HAP emissions release point for the facilities in
the source category.
    If you believe that the data are not representative or are
inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your reason
for concern, and provide any ``improved'' data that you have, if
available. When you submit data, we request that you provide
documentation of the basis for the revised values to support your
suggested changes. To submit comments on the data downloaded from the
RTR website, complete the following steps:
    1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the
data fields appropriate for that information.
    2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested
revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter organization, commenter email
address, commenter phone number, and revision comments).
    3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions
(e.g., performance test reports, material balance calculations).
    4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in
Microsoft[supreg] Access format and all accompanying documentation to
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0664 (through the method described in the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
    5. If you are providing comments on a single facility or multiple
facilities, you need only submit one file for all facilities. The file
should contain all suggested changes for all sources at that facility
(or facilities). We request that all data revision comments be
submitted in the form of updated Microsoft[supreg] Excel files that are
generated by the Microsoft[supreg] Access file. These files are
provided on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/taconite-iron-ore-processing-national-emission-standards-hazardous.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

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

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to OMB for review.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs

    This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771
regulatory action because this action is not significant under
Executive Order 12866.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The information
collection request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been
assigned EPA ICR number 2050.08. You can find a copy of the ICR in the
docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here.
    We are proposing amendments that require electronic reporting,
remove the malfunction exemption, and impose other revisions that
affect reporting and recordkeeping for taconite iron ore processing
facilities. This information would be collected to assure compliance
with 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRRR.
    Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of taconite iron
ore processing facilities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart LLLLL).
    Estimated number of respondents: Eight (total).
    Frequency of response: Initial, semiannual, and annual.
    Total estimated burden: The annual recordkeeping and reporting
burden for facilities to comply with all of the requirements in the
NESHAP is estimated to be 1,000 hours (per year). Burden is defined at
5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: The annual recordkeeping and reporting burden
for facilities to comply with all of the requirements in the NESHAP is
estimated to be $550,000 (per year). The only costs associated with the
information collection activity is labor cost. There are no capital/
startup or operation and maintenance costs for this ICR.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods
for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified
at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related
comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention: Desk Officer for the
EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR
between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no
later than October 25, 2019. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related
comments in the final rule.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. Based on the
Small Business Administration size category for this source category,
no small entities are subject to this action.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state,
local, or tribal governments or the private sector.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. No tribal governments own facilities subject to
this proposed action. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this action. However, since tribal officials expressed significant
interest in this rulemaking, consistent with the EPA Policy on
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes, a tribal consultation
is planned for this rulemaking.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children. This action, if finalized, would result in improved
monitoring,

compliance, and implementation of the rule, which could lower the risk
to all people affected by emissions from these facilities, including
children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in
section IV of this preamble and in the Taconite Risk Report, which is
available in the docket.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This action involves technical standards. The EPA proposes to use
ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 Part 10 (2010), ``Flue and Exhaust Gas
Analyses,'' manual portion only, as an alternative to EPA Method 3B and
incorporates the alternative method by reference. The ANSI/ASME PTC
19.10-1981 Part 10 (2010) method incorporates both manual and
instrumental methodologies for the determination of oxygen content of
the exhaust gas. The manual method segment of the oxygen determination
is performed through the absorption of oxygen. The method is acceptable
as an alternative to EPA Method 3B and is available from the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) at http://www.asme.org; by mail
at Three Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990; or by telephone at (800)
843-2763.

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

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). To
the extent that this action, if finalized, would result in improved
monitoring, compliance, and implementation of the rule, we believe that
it could decrease the risks posed by taconite iron ore processing
facilities for these populations. This action's health and risk
assessments are contained in section IV of this action. The
documentation for this decision is contained in section IV.A.1 of this
preamble and in the Taconite Risk Report, which is available in Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0664.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: August 28, 2019.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA proposes to
amend 40 CFR part 63 as follows:

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

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

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

0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraphs (e)(1) and (n)(3) to
read as follows:

Sec.  63.14   Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part
10, Instruments and Apparatus], issued August 31, 1981, IBR approved
for Sec. Sec.  63.309(k), 63.457(k), 63.772(e) and (h), 63.865(b),
63.1282(d) and (g), 63.1625(b), 63.3166(a), 63.3360(e), 63.3545(a),
63.3555(a), 63.4166(a), 63.4362(a), 63.4766(a), 63.4965(a), 63.5160(d),
table 4 to subpart UUUU, 63.9307(c), 63.9323(a), 63.9621(b) and (c),
63.11148(e), 63.11155(e), 63.11162(f), 63.11163(g), 63.11410(j),
63.11551(a), 63.11646(a), and 63.11945, table 5 to subpart DDDDD, table
4 to subpart JJJJJ, table 4 to subpart KKKKK, tables 4 and 5 of subpart
UUUUU, table 1 to subpart ZZZZZ, and table 4 to subpart JJJJJJ.
* * * * *
    (n) * * *
    (3) EPA-454/R-98-015, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(OAQPS), Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, September 1997,
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=2000D5T6.PDF, IBR approved
for Sec. Sec.  63.548(e), 63.864(e), 63.7525(j), 63.8450(e),
63.8600(e), 63.9632(a)(5), and 63.11224(f).
* * * * *

Subpart RRRRR--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for the Taconite Iron Ore Processing

0
3. Section 63.9583 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  63.9583   When do I have to comply with this subpart?

    (a) If you have an affected source the construction or
reconstruction of which is commenced before December 18, 2002, you must
comply with each emission limitation, work practice standard, and
operation and maintenance requirement in this subpart that applies to
you no later than October 30, 2006, except as provided in paragraphs
(f)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (b) If you have an affected source the construction or
reconstruction of which is commenced on or after December 18, 2002, and
its initial startup date is on or before October 30, 2003, you must
comply with each emission limitation, work practice standard, and
operation and maintenance requirement in this subpart that applies to
you by October 30, 2003, except as noted in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2)
of this section.
    (c) If you have an affected source and its initial startup date is
after October 30, 2003, you must comply with each emission limitation,
work practice standard, and operation and maintenance requirement in
this subpart that applies to you upon initial startup, except as noted
in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (d) If your taconite iron ore processing plant is an area source
that becomes a major source of HAP, the compliance dates in paragraphs
(d)(1) and (2) of this section apply to you.
    (1) Any portion of the taconite iron ore processing plant that is a
new affected source or a new reconstructed source must be in compliance
with this subpart upon startup, except as noted in paragraphs (f)(1)
and (2) of this section.
    (2) All other parts of the taconite iron ore processing plant must
be in compliance with this subpart no later than 3 years after the
plant becomes a major source, except as noted in paragraphs (f)(1) and
(2) of this section.
    (e) You must meet the notification and schedule requirements in
Sec.  63.9640. Several of these notifications must be submitted before
the compliance date for your affected source.
    (f)(1) If you have an affected source the construction or
reconstruction of which is commenced before September 25, 2019, you
must comply with the following requirements of this subpart by [DATE
180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER]: Sec.  63.9590(b)(2); Sec.  63.9600(a); Sec.  63.9610(a)
introductory text; Sec.  63.9621(a); Sec.  63.9622(b) introductory
text, (b)(1) and (2) and (d)(2); Sec.  63.9623(b)(2); Sec.  63.9631(c);
Sec.  63.9632(a)(3); Sec.  63.9634(b)(3), (f) introductory text, and
(f)(1), (3), and (4);

Sec.  63.9637; Sec.  63.9641(b)(7)(ii), (b)(8)(ii) and (iv), (c), (e),
(g), (h), (i), and (j); Sec.  63.9642(a)(4), (5), and (6) and (b)(3);
Sec.  63.9643(d); Table 2 to this subpart.
    (2) If you have an affected source the construction or
reconstruction of which is commenced on or after September 25, 2019,
you must comply with all the requirements of this subpart by [DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] or the date of
startup, whichever is later.
0
4. Section 63.9590 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.9590  What emission limitations must I meet?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) For each dynamic wet scrubber applied to meet any particulate
matter emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart, you must maintain the
daily average scrubber water flow rate and the daily average fan
amperage (a surrogate for fan speed as revolutions per minute) at or
above the minimum levels established during the initial performance
test.
* * * * *
0
5. Section 63.9600 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(2)
introductory text to read as follows:

Sec.  63.9600  What are my operation and maintenance requirements?

    (a) You must always operate and maintain any affected source,
including associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring
equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution
control practices for minimizing emissions. The general duty to
minimize emissions does not require the owner or operator to make any
further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by the
applicable standard have been achieved. Determination of whether such
operation and maintenance procedures are being used will be based on
information available to the Administrator which may include, but is
not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance
procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection
of the source.
    (b) * * *
    (2) Corrective action procedures for bag leak detection systems. In
the event a bag leak detection system alarm is triggered, you must
initiate corrective action to determine the cause of the alarm within 1
hour of the alarm, initiate corrective action to correct the cause of
the problem within 24 hours of the alarm, and complete the corrective
action as soon as practicable. If the alarm sounds more than 5 percent
of the operating time during a 6-month period as determined according
to Sec.  63.9634(d)(3), it is considered an operating parameter
deviation. Corrective actions may include, but are not limited to, the
actions listed in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (vi) of this section.
* * * * *
0
6. Section 63.9610 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory
text and removing and reserving paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.9610  What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?

    (a) You must be in compliance with the requirements in paragraphs
(a)(1) through (6) of this section at all times.
* * * * *
0
7. Section 63.9620 is amended by revising paragraph (f) introductory
text and removing paragraph (f)(3) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.9620  On which units and by what date must I conduct
performance tests or other initial compliance demonstrations?

* * * * *
    (f) If you elect to test representative emission units as provided
in paragraph (e) of this section, the units that are grouped together
as similar units must meet the criteria in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of
this section.
* * * * *
0
8. Section 63.9621 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b)(1) and
(2), and (c)(1) and (2) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.9621  What test methods and other procedures must I use to
demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits for particulate
matter?

    (a) You must conduct each performance test that applies to your
affected source under normal maximum operating conditions of the
affected source. The owner or operator may not conduct performance
tests during periods of malfunction. The owner or operator must record
the process information that is necessary to document operating
conditions during the test and include in such record an explanation to
support that such conditions represent normal operation. Upon request,
the owner or operator shall make available to the Administrator such
records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance
tests. You must also conduct each performance test that applies to your
affected source according to the requirements in paragraphs (b) and (c)
of this section.
    (b) * * *
    (1) Except as provided in Sec.  63.9620(e), determine the
concentration of particulate matter in the stack gas for each emission
unit according to the test methods listed in paragraphs (b)(1)(i)
through (v) of this section.
    (i) Method 1 or 1A in appendix A-1 to part 60 of this chapter to
select sampling port locations and the number of traverse points.
Sampling ports must be located at the outlet of the control device and
prior to any releases to the atmosphere.
    (ii) Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, or 2F in appendix A-1 to part 60 of this
chapter or Method 2G in appendix A-2 to part 60 of this chapter, as
applicable, to determine the volumetric flow rate of the stack gas.
    (iii) Method 3A or 3B in appendix A-2 to part 60 of this chapter to
determine the dry molecular weight of the stack gas. The voluntary
consensus standard ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981--Part 10 (incorporated by
reference--see Sec.  63.14) may be used as an alternative to the manual
procedures (but not instrumental procedures) in Method 3B.
    (iv) Method 4 in appendix A-3 to part 60 of this chapter to
determine the moisture content of the stack gas.
    (v) Method 5 or 5D in appendix A-3 to part 60 of this chapter or
Method 17 in appendix A-6 to part 60 of this chapter to determine the
concentration of particulate matter.
    (2) Each Method 5, 5D, or 17 performance test must consist of three
separate runs. Each run must be conducted for a minimum of 1 hour. If
any measurement result is reported as below the method detection limit,
use the method detection limit for that value when calculating the
average particulate matter concentration. The average particulate
matter concentration from the three runs will be used to determine
compliance, as shown in Equation 1 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25SE19.004

Where:

Ci = Average particulate matter concentration for
emission unit, grains per dry standard cubic foot, (gr/dscf);
C1 = Particulate matter concentration for run 1
corresponding to emission unit, gr/dscf;
C2 = Particulate matter concentration for run 2
corresponding to emission unit, gr/dscf; and
C3 = Particulate matter concentration for run 3
corresponding to emission unit, gr/dscf.
* * * * *

    (c) * * *
    (1) Determine the concentration of particulate matter for each
stack according to the test methods listed in paragraphs (c)(1)(i)
through (v) of this section.
    (i) Method 1 or 1A in appendix A-1 to part 60 of this chapter to
select sampling port locations and the number of traverse points.
Sampling ports must be located at the outlet of the control device and
prior to any releases to the atmosphere.
    (ii) Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, or 2F in appendix A-1 to part 60 of this
chapter or Method 2G in appendix A-2 to part 60 of this chapter, as
applicable, to determine the volumetric flow rate of the stack gas.
    (iii) Method 3A or 3B in appendix A-2 to part 60 of this chapter to
determine the dry molecular weight of the stack gas. The voluntary
consensus standard ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981--Part 10 (incorporated by
reference--see Sec.  63.14) may be used as an alternative to the manual
procedures (but not instrumental procedures) in Method 3B.
    (iv) Method 4 in appendix A-3 to part 60 of this chapter to
determine the moisture content of the stack gas.
    (v) Method 5 or 5D in appendix A-3 to part 60 of this chapter to
determine the concentration of particulate matter.
    (2) Each Method 5 or 5D performance test must consist of three
separate runs. Each run must be conducted for a minimum of 1 hour. If
any measurement result is reported as below the method detection limit,
use the method detection limit for that value when calculating the
average particulate matter concentration. The average particulate
matter concentration from the three runs will be used to determine
compliance, as shown in Equation 1 of this section.
* * * * *
0
9. Section 63.9622 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (d)(2) to
read as follows:

Sec.  63.9622  What test methods and other procedures must I use to
establish and demonstrate initial compliance with the operating limits?

* * * * *
    (b) For dynamic wet scrubbers subject to performance testing in
Sec.  63.9620 and operating limits for scrubber water flow rate and fan
amperage in Sec.  63.9590(b)(2), you must establish site-specific
operating limits according to the procedures in paragraphs (b)(1) and
(2) of this section.
    (1) Using the CPMS required in Sec.  63.9631(b), measure and record
the scrubber water flow rate and the fan amperage every 15 minutes
during each run of the particulate matter performance test.
    (2) Calculate and record the average scrubber water flow rate and
the average fan amperage for each individual test run. Your operating
limits are established as the lowest average scrubber water flow rate
and the lowest average fan amperage value corresponding to any of the
three test runs.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) For each individual test run, calculate and record the average
value for each operating parameter in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through
(iii) of this section for each wet electrostatic precipitator field.
Your operating limits are established as the lowest average value for
each operating parameter of secondary voltage and water flow rate
corresponding to any of the three test runs, and the highest average
value for each stack outlet temperature corresponding to any of the
three test runs.
* * * * *
0
10. Section 63.9623 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.9623  How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
emission limitations that apply to me?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) For each dynamic wet scrubber subject to performance testing in
Sec.  63.9620 and operating limits for scrubber water flow rate and fan
amperage in Sec.  63.9590(b)(2), you have established appropriate site-
specific operating limits and have a record of the scrubber water flow
rate and the fan amperage value, measured during the performance test
in accordance with Sec.  63.9622(b).
* * * * *
0
11. Section 63.9625 is amended by revising the introductory text to
read as follows:

Sec.  63.9625  How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
operation and maintenance requirements that apply to me?

    For each air pollution control device subject to operating limits
in Sec.  63.9590(b), you have demonstrated initial compliance with the
operation and maintenance requirements if you meet all of the
requirements in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section.
* * * * *
0
12. Section 63.9631 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) introductory
text and (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.9631  What are my monitoring requirements?

    (a) For each baghouse applied to meet any particulate matter
emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart, you must install, operate,
and maintain a bag leak detection system to monitor the relative change
in particulate matter loadings according to the requirements in Sec.
63.9632(a), and conduct inspections at their specified frequencies
according to the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) and (8)
of this section. For each baghouse applied to meet any particulate
matter emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart that is not required
by Sec.  63.9632(a) to be equipped with a bag leak detection system,
you must conduct inspections at their specified frequencies according
to the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (8) of this section.
* * * * *
    (c) For each dynamic wet scrubber subject to the scrubber water
flow rate and the fan amperage operating limits in Sec.  63.9590(b)(2),
you must install, operate, and maintain a CPMS according to the
requirements in Sec.  63.9632(b) through (e) and monitor the daily
average scrubber water flow rate and the daily average fan amperage
according to the requirements in Sec.  63.9633.
* * * * *
0
13. Section 63.9632 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a) introductory text and (a)(1).
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(3) through (8) as paragraphs (a)(4)
through (9).
0
c. Adding new paragraph (a)(3).
0
d. Revising newly redesignated paragraphs (a)(4), (a)(5) introductory
text, (a)(7) introductory text, and (a)(7)(i).
0
e. Revising paragraphs (b)(3) through (6) and (f)(2) and (4).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:

Sec.  63.9632  What are the installation, operation, and maintenance
requirements for my monitoring equipment?

    (a) For each negative pressure baghouse or positive pressure
baghouse equipped with a stack, applied to meet any particulate
emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart, you must install, operate,
and maintain a bag leak detection system for each exhaust stack
according to the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (9) of this
section.
    (1) A bag leak detection system installed before September 25,
2019, must be certified by the manufacturer to be capable of detecting
emissions of particulate matter at concentrations of 10 milligrams per
actual cubic meter (0.0044 grains per actual cubic foot) or less. A bag
leak detection system installed after September 25, 2019, must be
certified by the manufacturer to be capable of detecting emissions of
particulate matter at concentrations of 1 milligram per actual cubic
meter (0.00044 grains per actual cubic foot) or less.
* * * * *
    (3) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with a device to
continuously record the output signal from the sensor.
    (4) The system must be equipped with an alarm that will sound when
an increase in relative particulate loadings is detected over the alarm
level set point established according to paragraph (a)(5) of this
section. The alarm must be located such that it can be heard by the
appropriate plant personnel.
    (5) For each bag leak detection system, you must develop and submit
to the Administrator for approval, a site-specific monitoring plan that
addresses the items identified in paragraphs (a)(5)(i) through (v) of
this section. The monitoring plan shall be consistent with the
manufacturer's specifications and recommendations contained in the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) guidance document, ``Fabric
Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance'' (EPA-454/R-98-015) (incorporated
by reference--see Sec.  63.14). You must operate and maintain the bag
leak detection system according to the site-specific monitoring plan at
all times. The plan shall describe all of the items in paragraphs
(a)(5)(i) through (v) of this section.
* * * * *
    (7) Following initial adjustment, do not adjust sensitivity or
range, averaging period, alarm set point, or alarm delay time, without
approval from the Administrator except as provided for in paragraph
(a)(7)(i) of this section. In no event may the sensitivity be increased
more than 100 percent or decreased by more than 50 percent over a 365-
day period unless such adjustment follows a complete baghouse
inspection that demonstrates the baghouse is in good operating
condition.
    (i) Once per quarter, you may adjust the sensitivity or range of
the bag leak detection system to account for seasonal effects,
including temperature and humidity, according to the procedures
identified in the site-specific monitoring plan required under
paragraph (a)(5) of this section.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) Performance evaluation procedures, a schedule for performing
such procedures, and acceptance criteria (e.g., calibrations), as well
as corrective action to be taken if a performance evaluation does not
meet the acceptance criteria. If a CPMS calibration fails, the CPMS is
considered to be inoperative until you take corrective action and the
system passes calibration.
    (4) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures and a schedule for
preventative maintenance procedures, in a manner consistent with good
air pollution control practices and in accordance with the general
requirements of Sec.  63.8(c)(1)(ii), (c)(3), (c)(4)(ii), and (c)(7)
and (8).
    (5) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with
the general requirements of Sec.  63.8(d)(1) and (2). The owner or
operator shall keep these written procedures on record for the life of
the affected source or until the affected source is no longer subject
to the provisions of this part, to be made available for inspection,
upon request, by the Administrator. If the performance evaluation plan
is revised, the owner or operator shall keep previous (i.e.,
superseded) versions of the performance evaluation plan on record to be
made available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator, for
a period of 5 years after each revision to the plan.
    (6) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance
with the general requirements of Sec.  63.10(c)(1) through (14),
(e)(1), and (e)(2)(i).
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (2) You must develop and implement a quality control program for
operating and maintaining each COMS according to Sec.  63.8(a) and (b),
(c)(1)(ii), (c)(2) through (8), (d)(1) and (2), and (e) through (g) and
Procedure 3 in appendix F to 40 CFR part 60. At a minimum, the quality
control program must include a daily calibration drift assessment,
quarterly performance audit, and annual zero alignment of each COMS.
* * * * *
    (4) You must determine and record the 6-minute average opacity for
periods during which the COMS is not out of control. All COMS must
complete a minimum of one cycle of sampling and analyzing for each
successive 10-second period and one cycle of data recording for each
successive 6-minute period.
0
14. Section 63.9633 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to
read as follows:

Sec.  63.9633  How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate
continuous compliance?

    (a) Except for monitoring malfunctions, out of control periods,
associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control
activities (including as applicable, calibration checks and required
zero and span adjustments), you must monitor continuously (or collect
data at all required intervals) at all times an affected source is
operating.
    (b) You may not use data recorded during monitoring malfunctions,
out of control periods, associated repairs, and required quality
assurance or control activities in data averages and calculations used
to report emission or operating levels, or to fulfill a minimum data
availability requirement. You must use all the data collected during
all other periods in assessing compliance.
* * * * *
0
15. Section 63.9634 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b)(3), (d) introductory text, and (d)(2).
0
b. Adding paragraph (d)(3).
0
c. Revising paragraphs (f) introductory text, (f)(1), (3), and (4),
(h)(1), and (j)(1) and (2).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:

Sec.  63.9634  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limitations that apply to me?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) For ore crushing and handling and finished pellet handling
emission units not selected for initial performance testing and defined
within a group of similar emission units in accordance with Sec.
63.9620(e), the site-specific operating limits established for the
emission unit selected as representative of a group of similar emission
units will be used as the operating limit for each emission unit within
the group. The operating limit established for the representative unit
must be met by each emission unit within the group.
* * * * *

    (d) For each baghouse applied to meet any particulate emission
limit in Table 1 to this subpart, you must demonstrate continuous
compliance by completing the requirements in paragraphs (d)(1) through
(3) of this section.
* * * * *
    (2) Inspecting and maintaining each baghouse according to the
requirements in Sec.  63.9631(a) and recording all information needed
to document conformance with the requirements in Sec.  63.9631(a). If
you increase or decrease the sensitivity of the bag leak detection
system beyond the limits specified in your site-specific monitoring
plan, you must include a copy of the required written certification by
a responsible official in the next semiannual compliance report.
    (3) Each bag leak detection system must be operated and maintained
such that the alarm does not sound more than 5 percent of the operating
time during a 6-month period. Calculate the alarm time as specified in
paragraphs (d)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) If inspection of the fabric filter demonstrates that no
corrective action is required, no alarm time is counted.
    (ii) If corrective action is required, each alarm time (i.e., time
that the alarm sounds) is counted as a minimum of 1 hour.
    (iii) If it takes longer than 1 hour to initiate corrective action,
each alarm time is counted as the actual amount of time taken to
initiate corrective action.
* * * * *
    (f) For each dynamic wet scrubber subject to the operating limits
for scrubber water flow rate and the fan amperage in Sec.
63.9590(b)(2), you must demonstrate continuous compliance by completing
the requirements of paragraphs (f)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) Maintaining the daily average scrubber water flow rate and the
daily average fan amperage at or above the minimum levels established
during the initial or subsequent performance test.
* * * * *
    (3) Collecting and reducing monitoring data for scrubber water flow
rate and fan amperage according to Sec.  63.9632(c) and recording all
information needed to document conformance with the requirements in
Sec.  63.9632(c).
    (4) If the daily average scrubber water flow rate or daily average
fan amperage, is below the operating limits established for a
corresponding emission unit or group of similar emission units, you
must then follow the corrective action procedures in paragraph (j) of
this section.
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (1) Maintaining the daily average secondary voltage and daily
average scrubber water flow rate for each field at or above the minimum
levels established during the initial or subsequent performance test.
Maintaining the daily average stack outlet temperature at or below the
maximum levels established during the initial or subsequent performance
test.
* * * * *
    (j) * * *
    (1) You must initiate and complete initial corrective action within
10 calendar days and demonstrate that the initial corrective action was
successful. During any period of corrective action, you must continue
to monitor and record all required operating parameters for equipment
that remains in operation. After the initial corrective action, if the
daily average operating parameter value for the emission unit or group
of similar emission units meets the operating limit established for the
corresponding unit or group, then the corrective action was successful
and the emission unit or group of similar emission units is in
compliance with the established operating limits.
    (2) If the initial corrective action required in paragraph (j)(1)
of this section was not successful, then you must complete additional
corrective action within 10 calendar days and demonstrate that the
subsequent corrective action was successful. During any period of
corrective action, you must continue to monitor and record all required
operating parameters for equipment that remains in operation. If the
daily average operating parameter value for the emission unit or group
of similar emission units meets the operating limit established for the
corresponding unit or group, then the corrective action was successful
and the emission unit or group of similar emission units is in
compliance with the established operating limits.
* * * * *
0
16. Section 63.9637 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  63.9637  What other requirements must I meet to demonstrate
continuous compliance?

    (a) Deviations. You must report each instance in which you did not
meet each emission limitation in Table 1 to this subpart that applies
to you. You also must report each instance in which you did not meet
the work practice standards in Sec.  63.9591 and each instance in which
you did not meet each operation and maintenance requirement in Sec.
63.9600 that applies to you. These instances are deviations from the
emission limitations, work practice standards, and operation and
maintenance requirements in this subpart. These deviations must be
reported in accordance with the requirements in Sec.  63.9641.
    (b) [Reserved]
0
17. Section 63.9640 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(2) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.9640   What notifications must I submit and when?

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) For each initial compliance demonstration that does include a
performance test, you must submit the notification of compliance
status, including the performance test results, before the close of
business on the 60th calendar day following the completion of the
performance test according to Sec.  63.10(d)(2). If the performance
test results have been submitted electronically in accordance with
Sec.  63.9641(f), the process unit(s) tested, the pollutant(s) tested,
and the date that such performance test was conducted may be submitted
in the notification of compliance status report in lieu of the
performance test results. The performance test results must be
submitted to the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
(CEDRI) by the date the notification of compliance status report is
submitted.
0
18. Section 63.9641 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (4), (b) introductory text, and
(b)(2) and (3).
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (b)(4).
0
c. Revising paragraphs (b)(7), (b)(8) introductory text, (b)(8)(ii)
through (vii) and (b)(8)(ix), and (c).
0
d. Adding paragraphs (f), (g), and (h).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.9641  What reports must I submit and when?

    (a) * * *
    (2) The first compliance report must be electronically submitted,
postmarked or delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever
date comes first after your first compliance report is due.
* * * * *
    (4) Each subsequent compliance report must be electronically
submitted, postmarked or delivered no later than July 31 or January 31,
whichever date comes first after the end of the semiannual reporting
period.
* * * * *

    (b) Compliance report contents. Each compliance report must include
the information in paragraphs (b)(1) through (8) of this section, as
applicable.
* * * * *
    (2) 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. If your report is submitted via CEDRI,
the certifier's electronic signature during the submission process
replaces the requirement in this paragraph (b)(2).
    (3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting
period. You are no longer required to provide the date of report when
the report is submitted via CEDRI.
* * * * *
    (7) For each deviation from an emission limitation in Table 1 to
this subpart that occurs at an affected source where you are not using
a continuous monitoring system (including a CPMS or COMS) to comply
with an emission limitation in this subpart, the compliance report must
contain the information in paragraphs (b)(7)(i) and (ii) of this
section.
    (i) The total operating time in hours of each affected source
during the reporting period.
    (ii) Information on the affected sources or equipment, the emission
limited deviation from, the start date, start time, duration in hours,
and cause of each deviation (including unknown cause) as applicable, an
estimate of the quantity in pounds of each regulated pollutant emitted
over an emission limit and a description of the method used to estimate
the emissions, and the corrective action taken.
    (8) For each deviation from an emission limitation occurring at an
affected source where you are using a continuous monitoring system
(including a CPMS or COMS) to comply with the emission limitation in
this subpart, you must include the information in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (4) of this section and the information in paragraphs (b)(8)(i)
through (xi) of this section.
* * * * *
    (ii) The start date, start time, and duration in hours (or minutes
for COMS) that each continuous monitoring system was inoperative,
except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
    (iii) The start date, start time, and duration in hours (or minutes
for COMS) that each continuous monitoring system was out-of-control,
including the information in Sec.  63.8(c)(8).
    (iv) For each affected source or equipment, the date, the time that
each deviation started and stopped, the cause of the deviation, and
whether each deviation occurred during a period of malfunction or
during another period.
    (v) The total duration in hours (or minutes for COMS) of all
deviations for each CMS during the reporting period, the total
operating time in hours of the affected source during the reporting
period, and the total duration as a percent of the total source
operating time during that reporting period.
    (vi) A breakdown of the total duration in hours (or minutes for
COMS) of the deviations during the reporting period including those
that are due to control equipment problems, process problems, other
known causes, and other unknown causes.
    (vii) The total duration in hours (or minutes for COMS) of
continuous monitoring system downtime for each continuous monitoring
system during the reporting period, the total operating time in hours
of the affected source during the reporting period, and the total
duration of continuous monitoring system downtime as a percent of the
total source operating time during the reporting period.
* * * * *
    (ix) The monitoring equipment manufacturer and model number and the
pollutant or parameter monitored.
* * * * *
    (c) Submitting compliance reports electronically. Beginning on
[DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER], submit all subsequent compliance reports to the EPA via
CEDRI, which can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange
(CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). You must use the appropriate electronic
report template on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri) for this subpart. The report must be submitted by the
deadline specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in which
the report is submitted. If you claim some of the information required
to be submitted via CEDRI is confidential business information (CBI),
submit a complete report, including information claimed to be CBI, to
the EPA. The report must be generated using the appropriate form on the
CEDRI website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other
commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as
CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/CORE CBI Office,
Attention: Taconite Iron Ore Processing Sector Lead, MD C404-02, 4930
Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must
be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described earlier in this
paragraph (c).
* * * * *
    (f) Performance tests. Within 60 days after the date of completing
each performance test required by this subpart, you must submit the
results of the performance test following the procedures specified in
paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website
(https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test. Submit the results of the
performance test to the EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed through
the EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be submitted in a
file format generated through the use of the EPA's ERT. Alternatively,
you may submit an electronic file consistent with the extensible markup
language (XML) schema listed on the EPA's ERT website.
    (2) Data collected using test methods that are not supported by the
EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the test.
The results of the performance test must be included as an attachment
in the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the ERT generated
package or alternative file to the EPA via CEDRI.
    (3) Confidential business information (CBI). If you claim some of
the information submitted under paragraph (f)(1) or (2) of this section
is CBI, you must submit a complete file, including information claimed
to be CBI, to the EPA. The file must be generated through the use of
the EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the file on a compact
disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and
clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/
OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy
Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file
with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as
described in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (g) Claims of EPA system outage. If you are required to
electronically submit a report through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may
assert a claim of

EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with the reporting
requirement. To assert a claim of EPA system outage, you must meet the
requirements outlined in paragraphs (g)(1) through (7) of this section.
    (1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI
and submitting a required report within the time prescribed due to an
outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
    (2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time
beginning five business days prior to the date that the submission is
due.
    (3) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
    (4) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a
delay in reporting.
    (5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description
identifying:
    (i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the
system was unavailable;
    (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
    (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in
reporting; and
    (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification,
the date you reported.
    (6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow
an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion
of the Administrator.
    (7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
    (h) Claims of force majeure. If you are required to electronically
submit a report through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim
of force majeure for failure to timely comply with the reporting
requirement. To assert a claim of force majeure, you must meet the
requirements outlined in paragraphs (h)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to
occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such
an event within the period of time beginning five business days prior
to the date the submission is due. For the purposes of this section, a
force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been
caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility,
its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that
prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report
electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such
events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods),
acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond
the control of the affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage).
    (2) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a
delay in reporting.
    (3) You must provide to the Administrator:
    (i) A written description of the force majeure event;
    (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
    (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in
reporting; and
    (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification,
the date you reported.
    (4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of
the Administrator.
    (5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as
possible after the force majeure event occurs.
0
19. Section 63.9642 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text.
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (a)(2).
0
c. Adding paragraphs (a)(4) through (6).
0
d. Revising paragraph (b)(3).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.9642  What records must I keep?

    (a) You must keep the records listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through
(6) of this section.
* * * * *
    (4) In the event that an affected unit fails to meet an applicable
standard, record the number of failures. For each failure record the
date, time, the cause and duration of each failure.
    (5) For each failure to meet an applicable standard, record and
retain a list of the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the
quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit
and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
    (6) Record actions taken in accordance with the general duty
requirements to minimize emissions in Sec.  63.9600(a) and any
corrective actions taken to return the affected unit to its normal or
usual manner of operation.
    (b) * * *
    (3) Previous (that is, superseded) versions of the performance
evaluation plan as required in Sec.  63.9632(b)(5), with the program of
corrective action included in the plan required under Sec.  63.8(d)(2).
* * * * *
0
20. Section 63.9650 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  63.9650  What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?

    Table 2 to this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions
in Sec. Sec.  63.1 through 63.16 apply to you.
0
21. Section 63.9651 is amended by revising paragraph (c) introductory
text and adding paragraph (c)(5) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.9651  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

* * * * *
    (c) The authorities that will not be delegated to State, local, or
tribal agencies are specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) of this
section.
* * * * *
    (5) Approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the
EPA required by this subpart.
0
22. Section 63.9652 is amended by:
0
a. Removing the definition of ``Conveyor belt transfer point''.
0
b. Revising the definition of ``Deviation''.
0
c. Removing the definition of ``Wet grinding and milling''.
0
d. Adding the definition of ``Wet scrubber''.
    The revision and addition read as follows:

Sec.  63.9652  What definitions apply to this subpart?

* * * * *
    Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
    (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart, including but not limited to any emission limitation
(including operating limits) or operation and maintenance requirement;
or
    (2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to
obtain such a permit.
* * * * *
    Wet scrubber means an air pollution control device that removes
particulate matter and acid gases from the waste gas stream of
stationary sources. The pollutants are removed primarily

through the impaction, diffusion, interception and/or absorption of the
pollutant onto droplets of liquid. Wet scrubbers include venturi
scrubbers, marble bed scrubbers, or impingement scrubbers. For purposes
of this subpart, wet scrubbers do not include dynamic wet scrubbers.
0
23. Table 2 to subpart RRRRR of part 63 is revised to read as follows:
    As required in Sec.  63.9650, you must comply with the requirements
of the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) shown in
the following table:

      Table 2 to Subpart RRRRR of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart RRRRR of Part 63
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Applies to subpart
              Citation                       Subject                  RRRRR                  Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.1(a)(1)-(4)..............  Applicability.........  Yes.                    ...........................
Sec.   63.1(a)(5)..................  [Reserved]............  No.                     ...........................
Sec.   63.1(a)(6)..................  Applicability.........  Yes.                    ...........................
Sec.   63.1(a)(7)-(9)..............  [Reserved]............  No.                     ...........................
Sec.   63.1(a)(10)-(12)............  Applicability.........  Yes.                    ...........................
Sec.   63.1(b)(1)..................  Initial Applicability   Yes.                    ...........................
                                      Determination.
Sec.   63.1(b)(2)..................  [Reserved]............  No.                     ...........................
Sec.   63.1(b)(3)..................  Initial Applicability   Yes.                    ...........................
                                      Determination.
Sec.   63.1(c)(1)-(2)..............  Applicability After     Yes.                    ...........................
                                      Standard Established,
                                      Permit Requirements.
Sec.   63.1(c)(3)-(4)..............  [Reserved]............  No.                     ...........................
Sec.   63.1(c)(5)..................  Area Source Becomes     Yes.                    ...........................
                                      Major.
Sec.   63.1(d).....................  [Reserved]............  No.                     ...........................
Sec.   63.1(e).....................  Equivalency of Permit   Yes.                    ...........................
                                      Limits.
Sec.   63.2........................  Definitions...........  Yes.                    ...........................
Sec.   63.3(a)-(c).................  Units and               Yes.                    ...........................
                                      Abbreviations.
Sec.   63.4(a)(1)-(2)..............  Prohibited Activities.  Yes.                    ...........................
Sec.   63.4(a)(3)-(5)..............  [Reserved]............  No.                     ...........................
Sec.   63.4(b)-(c).................  Circumvention,          Yes.                    ...........................
                                      Fragmentation.
Sec.   63.5(a)(1)-(2)..............  Construction/           Yes.                    ...........................
                                      Reconstruction,
                                      Applicability.
Sec.   63.5(b)(1)..................  Construction/           Yes.                    ...........................
                                      Reconstruction,
                                      Applicability.
Sec.   63.5(b)(2)..................  [Reserved]............  No.                     ...........................
Sec.   63.5(b)(3)-(4)..............  Construction/           Yes.                    ...........................
                                      Reconstruction,
                                      Applicability.
Sec.   63.5(b)(5)..................  [Reserved]............  No.                     ...........................
Sec.   63.5(b)(6)..................  Applicability.........  Yes.                    ...........................
Sec.   63.5(c).....................  [Reserved]............  No.                     ...........................
Sec.   63.5(d)(1)-(4)..............  Application for         Yes.                    ...........................
                                      Approval of
                                      Construction or
                                      Reconstruction.
Sec.   63.5(e).....................  Approval of             Yes.                    ...........................
                                      Construction or
                                      Reconstruction.
Sec.   63.5(f).....................  Approval Based on       Yes.                    ...........................
                                      State Review.
Sec.   63.6(a).....................  Compliance with         Yes.                    ...........................
                                      Standards and
                                      Maintenance
                                      Requirements.
Sec.   63.6(b)(1)-(5)..............  Compliance Dates for    Yes.                    ...........................
                                      New/Reconstructed
                                      Sources.
Sec.   63.6(b)(6)..................  [Reserved]............  No.                     ...........................
Sec.   63.6(b)(7)..................  Compliance Dates for    Yes.                    ...........................
                                      New/Reconstructed
                                      Sources.
Sec.   63.6(c)(1)-(2)..............  Compliance Dates for    Yes.                    ...........................
                                      Existing Sources.
Sec.   63.6(c)(3)-(4)..............  [Reserved]............  No.                     ...........................
Sec.   63.6(c)(5)..................  Compliance Dates for    Yes.                    ...........................
                                      Existing Sources.
Sec.   63.6(d).....................  [Reserved]............  No.                     ...........................
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(i)...............  Operation and           No....................  See Sec.   63.9600(a) for
                                      Maintenance                                     general duty requirement.
                                      Requirements--General
                                      Duty to Minimize
                                      Emissions.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(ii)..............  Operation and           No.                     ...........................
                                      Maintenance
                                      Requirements--Require
                                      ment to Correct
                                      Malfunction as Soon
                                      as Possible.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(iii).............  Operation and           Yes.                    ...........................
                                      Maintenance
                                      Requirements--Enforce
                                      ability.
Sec.   63.6(e)(2)..................  [Reserved]............  No.                     ...........................
Sec.   63.6(e)(3)..................  Startup, Shutdown,      No.                     ...........................
                                      Malfunction (SSM)
                                      Plan.
Sec.   63.6(f)(1)..................  SSM Exemption.........  No.                     ...........................
Sec.   63.6(f)(2)-(3)..............  Methods for             Yes.                    ...........................
                                      Determining
                                      Compliance.
Sec.   63.6(g)(1)-(3)..............  Alternative Nonopacity  Yes.                    ...........................
                                      Standard.
Sec.   63.6(h).....................  Compliance with         No....................  Opacity limits in subpart
                                      Opacity and Visible                             RRRRR are established as
                                      Emission (VE)                                   part of performance
                                      Standards.                                      testing in order to set