[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 210 (Thursday, October 30, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61868-61903]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-22309]



[[Page 61867]]

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

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 63



National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Taconite Iron 
Ore Processing; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 210 / Thursday, October 30, 2003 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 61868]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[OAR 2002-0039; FRL-7551-2]
RIN 2060-AJ02


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 
Taconite Iron Ore Processing

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action promulgates national emission standards for 
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for taconite iron ore processing 
facilities. The final standards establish emission limitations for 
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emitted from new and existing ore 
crushing and handling operations, ore dryers, indurating furnaces, and 
finished pellet handling operations. The final standards will implement 
section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) by requiring all major 
sources to meet HAP emission standards reflecting application of the 
maximum achievable control technology (MACT).
    The HAP emitted by taconite iron ore processing facilities include 
metal compounds (such as manganese, arsenic, lead, nickel, chromium, 
and mercury), products of incomplete combustion (including 
formaldehyde), and the acid gases hydrogen chloride (HCl) and hydrogen 
fluoride (HF). Exposure to these substances has been demonstrated to 
cause adverse health effects, including chronic and acute disorders of 
the blood, heart, kidneys, reproductive system, respiratory system and 
central nervous system. Some of these substances are considered 
carcinogens. However, it should be noted that the extent and degree to 
which the health effects may be experienced depend on:
    Pollutant-specific characteristics (e.g., toxicity, half-life in 
the environment, bioaccumulation, and persistence); The ambient 
concentrations observed in the area (e.g., as influenced by emission 
rates, meteorological conditions, and terrain); The frequency and 
duration of exposures; and Characteristics of exposed individuals 
(e.g., genetics, age, pre-existing health conditions, and lifestyle), 
which vary significantly within the general population.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 30, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Docket. The official public docket is the collection of 
materials used in developing the final rule and is available for public 
viewing at the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 
Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Conrad Chin, Metals Group (C439-02), 
Emission Standards Division, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 
27711, telephone number (919) 541-1512, electronic mail (e-mail) 
address, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated 
by this action include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             NAICS code
                         Category                                \1\           Example of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry..................................................        21221   Taconite Iron Ore Processing
                                                                           Facilities [taconite ore crushing and
                                                                           handling operations, indurating
                                                                           furnaces, finished pellet handling
                                                                           operations, and ore dryers].
Federal government........................................  ............  Not affected.
State/local/tribal government.............................  ............  Not affected.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, 
you should examine the applicability criteria in Sec.  63.9581 of the 
final rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of 
this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the 
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Docket. The EPA has established an official public docket for this 
action including both Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0039 and Docket ID No. A-
2001-14. The official public docket consists of the documents 
specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, 
and other information related to this action. All items may not be 
listed under both docket numbers, so interested parties should inspect 
both docket numbers to ensure that they have received all materials 
relevant to the final rule. Although a part of the official docket, the 
public docket does not include Confidential Business Information or 
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The 
official public docket is available for public viewing at the EPA 
Docket Center (Air Docket), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution 
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is 
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 
legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-
1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.
    Electronic Docket Access. You may access the final rule 
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register'' 
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through 
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may 
use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to view public comments, 
access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, 
and to access those documents in the public docket that are available 
electronically. Once in the system, select ``search,'' then key in the 
appropriate docket identification number. Although not all docket 
materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of 
the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility in 
the above paragraph entitled ``Docket.''
    Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, 
an electronic copy of the final rule will also be available on the WWW 
through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a 
copy of the final rule will be placed on the TTN's policy and guidance 
page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various 
areas of air pollution control. If more information regarding the TTN 
is needed, call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
    Judicial Review. This action constitutes final administrative 
action on the proposed NESHAP for taconite iron ore processing 
facilities (67 FR 77562, December 18, 2002). Under CAA section 
307(b)(1), judicial review of the final rule is available only by 
filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit by December 29, 2003. Under

[[Page 61869]]

CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements that are the subject of this 
document may not be challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings 
brought by the EPA to enforce these requirements.
    Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as 
follows:

I. Background
II. Summary of Final Rule
    A. Who must comply with the final rule?
    B. What are the affected sources and emission points?
    C. What are the emission limitations?
    D. What are the operation and maintenance requirements?
    E. What are the general compliance requirements?
    F. What are the initial compliance requirements?
    G. What are the continuous compliance requirements?
    H. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements?
    I. What are the compliance deadlines?
III. Summary of Responses to Major Comments
    A. How did we revise the cost estimates and economic analysis?
    B. How did we revise the performance testing requirements?
    C. How did we revise the emission limitations?
    D. How did we revise the continuous compliance requirements?
    E. How did we revise the baseline emissions?
    F. How did we select the pollutants?
IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts
    A. What are the air emission impacts?
    B. What are the cost impacts?
    C. What are the economic impacts?
    D. What are the non-air health, environmental and energy 
impacts?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health & Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Congressional Review Act

I. Background

    Section 112(d) of the CAA requires us (the EPA) to establish 
national emission standards for all categories and subcategories of 
major sources of HAP and for area sources listed for regulation under 
section 112(c). Major sources are those that emit or have the potential 
to emit at least 10 tons per year (tpy) of any single HAP or at least 
25 tpy of any combination of HAP. Area sources are stationary sources 
of HAP that are not major sources. Additional information on the NESHAP 
development process can be found in the preamble to the proposed rule 
(67 FR 77562).
    We received a total of 29 comment letters on the proposed NESHAP 
from industry, State agencies, Federal agencies, environmental groups, 
and private citizens. We offered to provide interested individuals the 
opportunity for oral presentations of data, views, or arguments 
concerning the proposed rule, but a public hearing was not requested.
    Today's final rule reflects our full consideration of all the 
comments we received. Major public comments on the proposed rule along 
with our responses to these comments are summarized in section III of 
this document. A detailed response to all the comments is included in 
the Background Information Document (BID) for the promulgated standards 
(Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0039).

II. Summary of Final Rule

A. Who Must Comply With the Final Rule?

    Each owner or operator of an affected source at a taconite iron ore 
processing plant that is (or is part of) a major source of HAP 
emissions must comply with the final rule. A taconite iron ore 
processing plant is a major source of HAP if it emits or has the 
potential to emit any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons or more per year 
or any combination of HAP at a rate of 25 tons or more per year.

B. What Are the Affected Sources and Emission Points?

    The affected sources are each new or existing ore crushing and 
handling operation, ore dryer, indurating furnace, and finished pellet 
handling operation at a taconite iron ore processing facility that is 
(or is part of) a major source of HAP emissions. Emission limitations 
apply to each ore crushing and handling operation, each ore dryer, each 
indurating furnace, and each finished pellet handling operation. These 
processes, as well as their emissions and controls, are described in 
the preamble to the proposed rule (67 FR 77564-77566).

C. What Are the Emission Limitations?

    The final rule includes particulate matter (PM) emission limits, 
operating limits for control devices, and work practice standards. 
Particulate matter emissions serve as a surrogate measure of HAP 
emissions.
Ore Crushing and Handling
    The PM emissions limits for ore crushing and handling are 0.008 
grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf) for existing sources and 
0.005 gr/dscf for new sources. Compliance with the PM emissions limits 
for ore crushing and handling is determined based on the flow-weighted 
mean concentration of emissions for all ore crushing and handling units 
at the plant.
Ore Dryers
    The PM emission limits for each individual ore dryer are 0.052 gr/
dscf for existing dryers and 0.025 gr/dscf for new dryers. Ore dryers 
with multiple stacks calculate their PM emissions as a flow-weighted 
mean concentration of PM emissions from all stacks.
Indurating Furnaces
    For each straight grate indurating furnace processing magnetite, 
the PM emissions limits are 0.01 gr/dscf for existing straight grate 
furnaces and 0.006 gr/dscf for new straight grate furnaces. For each 
grate kiln indurating furnace processing magnetite, the PM emissions 
limits are 0.01 gr/dscf for existing grate kiln furnaces and 0.006 gr/
dscf for new grate kiln furnaces. For each grate kiln indurating 
furnace processing hematite, the PM emissions limits are 0.03 gr/dscf 
for existing grate kiln furnaces and 0.018 gr/dscf for new grate kiln 
furnaces. Indurating furnaces with multiple stacks calculate their PM 
emissions as a flow-weighted mean concentration of PM emissions from 
all stacks.
Finished Pellet Handling
    The PM emissions limits for finished pellet handling operations are 
0.008 gr/dscf for existing sources and 0.005 gr/dscf for new sources. 
Compliance with the PM emissions limits for finished pellet handling is 
determined based on the flow-weighted mean concentration of PM 
emissions for all pellet handling units at the plant.
Operating Limits
    For bag leak detection systems, we require that corrective actions 
be initiated within 1 hour of a bag leak detection system alarm. For 
dynamic wet scrubbers, the daily average scrubber water flow rate and 
either the daily average fan amperage or the daily average pressure 
drop must remain at or above the minimum levels established during the 
initial performance test. For all other wet scrubbers, the daily 
average pressure drop and daily average scrubber water flow rate must 
remain at or above the level established during the initial performance 
test. Plants using a

[[Page 61870]]

dry electrostatic precipitator (ESP) must either install and operate a 
continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) or maintain the daily 
average secondary voltage and daily average secondary current for each 
field at or above the minimum levels established during the initial 
performance test. If demonstrating compliance using COMS, the average 
opacity for each 6-minute period must remain at or below the level 
established during the initial performance test. Plants using a wet ESP 
must maintain the daily average secondary voltage for each field at or 
above the minimum levels established during the initial performance 
test; maintain the daily average stack outlet temperature at or below 
the maximum levels established during the initial performance test; and 
maintain the daily average water flow rate at or above the minimum 
levels established during the initial performance test.
    You must submit information on monitoring parameters if another 
type of control device is used or if alternative monitoring parameters 
are desired.
Work Practices
    All plants subject to the final rule are required to prepare and 
implement a written fugitive dust emissions control plan. The plan 
describes in detail the measures that will be put in place to control 
fugitive dust emissions from the following sources at a plant, as 
applicable: stockpiles, material transfer points, plant roadways, 
tailings basin, pellet loading areas, and yard areas. Existing fugitive 
dust emission control plans that describe current measures to control 
fugitive dust emission sources that have been approved as part of a 
State implementation plan or title V permit would be acceptable, 
provided they address the prior-listed fugitive dust emission sources.

D. What Are the Operation and Maintenance Requirements?

    All plants subject to the final rule must prepare and implement a 
written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan according to the 
requirements in 40 CFR 63.6(e). A written operation and maintenance 
plan is also required for control devices subject to an operating limit 
and indurating furnaces subject to good combustion practices (GCP). 
This plan must describe the following: procedures for preventative 
maintenance requirements for control devices, corrective action 
requirements for baghouses and continuous parameter monitoring systems 
(CPMS), and GCP for indurating furnaces. In the event of a bag leak 
detection system alarm, the plan must include specific requirements for 
initiating corrective action to determine the cause of the problem 
within 1 hour, initiating corrective action to fix the problem within 
24 hours, and completing all corrective actions needed to fix the 
problem as soon as practicable. In the event you exceed an established 
operating limit for an air pollution control device other than a 
baghouse, you must initiate corrective action to determine the cause of 
the operating limit exceedance and complete the corrective action 
within 10 calendar days. Corrective action procedures you take must be 
consistent with the installation, operation, and maintenance procedures 
listed in your site-specific CPMS monitoring plan. For indurating 
furnaces, you must maintain a proper and efficient combustion process 
through the implementation of GCP.

E. What Are the General Compliance Requirements?

    The final rule requires compliance with the emission limitations, 
work practice standards, and operation and maintenance requirements at 
all times, except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction 
as defined in 40 CFR 63.2. The owner or operator must develop and 
implement a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan according 
to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3).
    The final rule also requires keeping a log detailing the operation 
and maintenance of the process and emission control equipment. This 
requirement applies during the period between the compliance date and 
the date that continuous monitoring systems are installed and any 
operating limits set.

F. What Are the Initial Compliance Requirements?

    The final rule requires performance tests to demonstrate that each 
affected source meets all applicable PM emission limits. The PM 
concentration (front-half filterable catch only) is to be measured 
using EPA Method 5, 5D, or 17 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. All 
initial compliance tests must be completed no later than 180 days 
following the compliance date.
    To demonstrate initial compliance with the PM emission limit for 
the ore crushing and handling affected source, the flow-weighted mean 
concentration of PM emissions of all units within the affected source 
must not exceed the applicable PM emission limit. Similarly, for the 
finished pellet handling affected source, the flow-weighted mean 
concentration of PM emissions of all units within the affected source 
must not exceed the applicable PM emission limit. In lieu of conducting 
performance tests for all ore crushing and handling and finished pellet 
handling emission units, the plant may elect to form groups of up to 
six similar emission units and conduct initial performance tests on a 
representative unit within each group. Each plant must submit a testing 
plan to the permitting authority for approval. The testing plan must 
identify the emission units that will be grouped as similar, identify 
the representative unit that will be tested for each group, and present 
the proposed schedule for testing.
    To demonstrate initial compliance with the PM emission limit for 
each indurating furnace and each ore dryer, the flow-weighted mean 
concentration of PM emissions of all stacks associated with each 
furnace or each ore dryer must not exceed the applicable PM emission 
limit.
    The final rule also includes procedures for establishing site-
specific operating limits for control devices during the initial 
performance test. To demonstrate initial compliance with the work 
practice standards, plants must prepare, submit, and implement a 
fugitive dust emission control plan on or before the compliance date. 
To demonstrate initial compliance with the operation and maintenance 
requirements, plants must prepare the operation and maintenance plan 
and certify in their notification of compliance status that they have 
prepared the written plans and will operate control devices and 
indurating furnaces according to the procedures in the plan.

G. What Are the Continuous Compliance Requirements?

    For ore crushing and handling, ore dryers, and finished pellet 
handling units, you must conduct subsequent performance tests to 
demonstrate continued compliance with the PM emission limits following 
the schedule established in the title V permit for each plant. If a 
title V permit has not been issued, you must submit a testing plan and 
schedule to the permitting authority for approval.
    For each indurating furnace, you must conduct subsequent 
performance testing of all stacks based on the schedule established in 
each plant's title V operating permit, but no less frequently than 
twice per 5-year permit term. If a title V permit has not been issued, 
then you must submit a testing plan and schedule to the permitting 
authority for approval. The testing frequency in the testing plan must 
provide for tests to be

[[Page 61871]]

conducted at least twice per 5-year period.
    You are required to monitor operating parameters for control 
devices subject to operating limits and carry out the procedures in 
their fugitive dust emissions control plan and their operation and 
maintenance plan. To demonstrate continuous compliance, you must keep 
records documenting compliance with the rule requirements for 
monitoring, the fugitive dust emissions control plan, the operation and 
maintenance plan, and installation, operation, and maintenance of a 
CPMS.
    For baghouses, owners or operators are required to monitor the 
relative change in PM loading using a bag leak detection system and to 
make inspections at specified intervals. The bag leak detection system 
must be installed and operated according to the EPA guidance document 
``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,'' EPA 454/R-98-015, 
September 1997. The document is available on the TTN at http://www.epa.gov/ttnemc01/cem/tribo.pdf. If the system does not work based 
on the triboelectric effect, it must be installed and operated 
consistent with the manufacturer's written specifications and 
recommendations. The basic inspection requirements include daily, 
weekly, monthly, or quarterly inspections of specified parameters or 
mechanisms with monitoring of bag cleaning cycles by an appropriate 
method. To demonstrate continuous compliance, the final rule requires 
records documenting conformance with the operation and maintenance 
plan, as well as the inspection and maintenance procedures.
    For dynamic wet scrubbers, you must use CPMS to measure and record 
the daily average scrubber water flow rate and either the daily average 
fan amperage or the daily average pressure drop. For all other wet 
scrubbers, you must use CPMS to measure and record the daily average 
pressure drop and daily average scrubber water flow rate.
    For dry ESP, you must either use a COMS to measure and record the 
average opacity of emissions exiting each stack of the control device 
for each 6-minute period, or use CPMS to measure and record the daily 
average secondary voltage and daily average secondary current for each 
field. You must operate and maintain the COMS according to the 
requirements in 40 CFR 63.8 and Performance Specification 1 in 40 CFR 
part 60, appendix B. These requirements include a quality control 
program including a daily calibration drift assessment, quarterly 
performance audit, and annual zero alignment.
    For wet ESP, you must use CPMS to measure and record the daily 
average secondary voltage for each field, the daily average stack 
outlet temperature, and the daily average water flow rate.
    The final rule requires you to prepare a site-specific monitoring 
plan for CPMS that addresses installation, performance, operation and 
maintenance, quality assurance, and recordkeeping and reporting 
procedures. These requirements replace the more detailed performance 
specifications contained in the proposed rule.
    To demonstrate continuous compliance, you must keep records 
documenting compliance with the monitoring requirements (including 
installation, operation, and maintenance requirements for monitoring 
systems) and the operation and maintenance plan.

H. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting 
Requirements?

    The notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements are 
based on the NESHAP General Provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A. 
Table 2 to subpart RRRRR of 40 CFR part 63 lists each of the 
requirements in the General Provisions (Sec. Sec.  63.2 through 63.15) 
with an indication of whether they apply.
    You are required to submit each initial notification required in 
the NESHAP General Provisions that applies to your plant. These include 
an initial notification of applicability with general information about 
the plant and notifications of performance tests and compliance status.
    You are required to maintain the records required by the NESHAP 
General Provisions that are necessary to document compliance, such as 
performance test results; copies of startup, shutdown, and malfunction 
plans and associated corrective action records; monitoring data; and 
inspection records. Except for the operation and maintenance plan, the 
fugitive dust emissions control plan, and the testing plan, all records 
must be kept for a total of 5 years, with the records from the most 
recent 2 years kept onsite. The final rule requires that the operation 
and maintenance plan, the fugitive dust emissions control plan, and the 
testing plan, be kept onsite and available for inspection upon request 
for the life of the affected source or until the affected source is no 
longer subject to the final rule requirements.
    Semiannual reports are required for any deviation from an emission 
limitation (including an operating limit), or operation and maintenance 
requirement. Each report is due no later than 30 days after the end of 
the reporting period. If no deviation occurred, only a summary report 
is required. If a deviation did occur, more detailed information is 
required.
    An immediate report is required if actions taken during a startup, 
shutdown, or malfunction are not consistent with the startup, shutdown, 
and malfunction plan. Deviations that occur during a period of startup, 
shutdown, or malfunction are not violations if you demonstrate to the 
authority with delegation for enforcement that the source was operating 
in accordance with the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan.
    An immediate report is required after the third consecutive and 
unsuccessful attempt at corrective action for determining the cause of 
exceedance of an operating limit for an air pollution control device 
except for baghouses. The report must be submitted within 5 calendar 
days after the third unsuccessful attempt at corrective action. This 
report must notify the Administrator that a deviation has occurred and 
document the types of corrective measures taken to address the problem 
that resulted in the deviation of established operating parameters and 
the resulting operating limits.
    You must also submit the fugitive dust emissions control plan, 
testing plan, and all operation and maintenance plans to the 
Administrator on or before the applicable compliance date.

I. What Are the Compliance Deadlines?

    The owner or operator of an existing affected source must comply by 
October 30, 2006. An existing affected source is one constructed or 
reconstructed before December 18, 2002. New or reconstructed sources 
that startup on or before October 30, 2003 must comply by October 30, 
2003. New or reconstructed sources that startup after October 30, 2003 
must comply upon initial startup.

III. Summary of Responses to Major Comments

A. How Did We Revise the Cost Estimates and Economic Analysis?

    Comment: Three commenters stated that the estimated total capital 
cost impact of $47.3 million underestimates the cost to the industry. 
One of the commenters stated that the costs for their plant were 
underestimated.
    Response: The capital equipment costs used in the cost analysis 
conducted prior to proposal were based largely on historical industry 
costs provided by industry and vendor estimates obtained by the EPA. 
All of

[[Page 61872]]

the indurating furnace capital equipment replacement costs were based 
on equipment and installation costs incurred by Minntac in 1991 to 
install two new venturi scrubbers for furnace lines 4 and 5. For ore 
crushing and handling and pellet handling units, the capital equipment 
replacement costs were based on equipment costs obtained from two wet 
scrubber vendors.
    In follow-up discussions with the industry, industry 
representatives indicated that the costs of purchasing and installing a 
new wet scrubber were underestimated. For example, based on the cost 
estimates provided by one plant, the installation of two new wet 
scrubbers on their furnace would cost $18 million, not the $9.4 million 
estimated by EPA. We asked each plant to provide an estimate of the 
cost impact the limits in the final rule will have on their plant. 
Overall, industry estimated a capital equipment and installation cost 
of $57 million. The costs provided by industry are based on a 
combination of costs estimated by plant engineers, previous equipment 
replacement costs, and vendor cost estimates.
    The EPA asserts that the impact estimate of $57 million provided by 
the industry is a conservatively high estimate based on the fact that 
some plants did not account for the averaging of the emissions for 
those units within the ore crushing and handling and finished pellet 
handling affected sources. However, in order to ensure that we fully 
account for the cost impact to the industry, we used the conservatively 
high estimates provided by the industry. Therefore, the capital cost 
impact of the emission limits in the final rule was estimated to be 
approximately $57 million, including emission control capital costs and 
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting (MRR) capital costs. The 
annual costs of the final rule are estimated to be $9 million per year, 
including annualized capital and annual operational and MRR costs. For 
more information on the industry provided costs and the revised cost 
analysis, see the revised cost analysis memorandum in the docket.
    Comment: Two commenters stated that the costs of the rule as 
proposed are disproportionate to the reduction in HAP.
    Response: The revised estimate of annual compliance costs for the 
final rule is $9 million per year, and this expenditure is estimated to 
result in the reduction of 270 tpy of HAP and 10,538 tpy of PM. The 
corresponding cost per ton of HAP reduced is $33,333; the corresponding 
cost per ton of PM reduced is $854. These values are similar to or 
lower than those in other MACT standards. In addition, the emission 
limits in the final rule are based on the MACT floor level of control. 
The CAA does not give the EPA the discretion to consider costs for the 
MACT floor level of control.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the costs and resources 
associated with the administrative requirements (e.g., continuous 
monitoring, stack testing) of the final rule will pose a significant 
additional burden on their operations. The commenter cited estimated 
costs of $515,000 for the installation of additional instrumentation 
and monitoring equipment, an additional cost of $100,000 for dust 
collector monitoring maintenance, and an additional cost of $45,000 for 
stack testing. The commenter stated that their plant is already 
operating under a title V permit and already has a well-controlled dust 
control system in place. The commenter asserted that the increased 
continuous monitoring and increased stack testing is not necessary to 
protect human health or the environment and adds unnecessary costs.
    Response: In the proposed rule, we included only those monitoring 
and testing requirements that were necessary to ensure the continued 
compliance with the PM emission limits. However, following a review of 
the public comments and follow-up discussions with the industry and 
States, we have written the final rule to reduce the monitoring and 
testing burden:
    [sbull] To reduce the monitoring burden, we have deleted the 
requirements to conduct monthly transducer checks, quarterly gauge 
calibration checks, semiannual flow sensor calibration checks, daily 
pressure tap pluggage checks, and monthly electrical connection 
continuity checks.
    [sbull] We have reduced the indurating furnace stack testing burden 
by removing the requirement to conduct simultaneous tests of all the 
stacks on one furnace. The final rule allows plants to conduct 
sequential testing of the stacks for a furnace, provided the tests are 
completed ``within a reasonable period of time, such that the 
indurating furnace operating characteristics remain representative for 
the duration of the stack tests.''
    [sbull] We have removed the volumetric flow rate and process 
throughput rate criteria for grouping similar ore crushing and handling 
and pellet handling emission units. This will allow more of these 
emission units to be grouped together, and thus, will result in fewer 
initial compliance tests being required for them.
    [sbull] For dry ESP, we have allowed plants to monitor daily 
average secondary voltage and daily average secondary current in lieu 
of using a COMS.
    Comment: According to one commenter, it is confusing that in one 
section of the Economic Impact Assessment (EIA), the Agency concludes 
that the final rule alone is unlikely to lead to mine closure, but 
clearly states that it's possible that two or three firms may close or 
sell some or all of their operations. The only consistent statement in 
the EIA, according to the commenter, is that the proposed rule will add 
to existing financial stresses in the industry.
    Response: The empirical literature on steel mill capacity and 
closure suggests that import and mini-mill competition are more 
important explanatory variables for capacity and closure decisions than 
are pollution abatement cost expenditures. The EPA's market and 
facility impact analysis did not explicitly model mine closure 
decisions because of limited mine-level data and because the costs of 
compliance are relatively small. The EPA's data indicate that the 
compliance costs alone are generally too low to result in facility 
closure. However, we recognized that several companies that owned 
taconite mines in 2000 were already under significant financial 
hardship; four firms experienced operating losses in 2000, and several 
were also operating under Chapter 11 protection. As a result, EPA 
collected financial data and considered several criteria to determine 
whether companies would be able to obtain financing for capital 
investments associated with compliance, or might have to close or sell 
individual mine operations. The EPA examined the following company 
financial data:
    [sbull] Change in profits projected by the economic model;
    [sbull] Altman Z-scores;
    [sbull] Current ratios; and
    [sbull] Recent environmental compliance expenditures.
    Based on our review, EPA concluded that two or three companies may 
close or sell operations. A review of recent data from the U.S. 
Geological Survey (USGS) and company financial reports confirms this 
pattern. In 2001, financially-strapped steel companies sold assets. 
Cleveland-Cliffs raised its total ownership of Tilden mine to 85 
percent by acquiring an additional 45 percent share from Algoma Steel 
Inc. Cleveland-Cliffs and Minnesota Power purchased LTV Steel Co. in 
late 2001. Cleveland-Cliffs then acquired all the mining and processing 
facilities, including 25 percent share of the

[[Page 61873]]

Empire mine. In the face of continuing financial pressures from mini-
mills and imports, steel companies may close or sell taconite 
facilities if they cannot obtain financing for compliance. A USGS iron 
ore expert contacted by EPA, however, stated that 2002 financial and 
market conditions were somewhat better than 2001. This was confirmed by 
reviewing financial statements for these firms; while still 
experiencing difficult conditions, in 2002 conditions improved somewhat 
compared to 2001.
    Comment: One commenter from National Steel stated that it will 
likely be forced to shut down because it will be unable to make the 
upgrades necessary to comply with the rule as proposed. National 
currently employs nearly 500 people. The rule as proposed is 
anticipated to put these people out of work for a reduction of less 
than 5 tons of HAP. In addition to the anticipated closure of 
National's operations, the EPA analysis concluded that another one or 
two taconite ore processing plants may also close.
    Response: As noted in the previous response, EPA's analysis 
suggests that the costs of achieving compliance are not sufficient 
alone to result in taconite plants becoming unprofitable. However, EPA 
recognizes that there are long-standing trends in the industry, such as 
increased imports of iron and steel and increasing use of mini-mill 
technology, that have resulted in decreasing demand for U.S.-produced 
taconite pellets over time. Due to these trends, four companies owning 
taconite facilities were unprofitable in 2000, and three of them 
(including National Steel) were operating under the protection of 
Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code. The EPA's analysis recognizes that 
firms that are unprofitable or in bankruptcy may have difficulty 
obtaining financing for the capital investments needed to comply. Such 
firms may choose to sell or shut down their taconite plants. The EPA 
does not feel that such a decision should be entirely attributed to the 
final rule. However, note that recent industry data seem to show that 
in 2002, prices and profits improved somewhat due in part to the 
decrease in taconite supply (due in part to LTV's closing of the Hoyt 
Lakes facility) and in part due to tariff protection of several steel 
products.
    Comment: According to one commenter, the statement in the EIA that 
two or three mines may close implies that Minnesota would see an 
additional loss of approximately 900 direct employees and $20 million 
in local taxes. The loss of 900 jobs equates to $67.5 million in wages 
and benefits. These figures represent a realistic social impact and 
create a different scenario than the one represented by the EPA in the 
EIA. These economic impacts will be ``devastating'' to an area heavily 
dependent on the mining industry.
    Response: Chapter 4 of the EIA contains a regional impact analysis 
carried out by EPA. The analysis is carried out using IMPLAN, a 
regional-level input-output model. The total direct impact on each 
region (a State in this analysis) is defined in the EIA as the change 
in local expenditures resulting from final rule implementation. The 
direct impact of the final rule is estimated based on the results of 
the market model, and includes expenditures for compliance (in this 
case, positive) and adjustments in outputs in response to price changes 
(in this case, negative or positive). Generally, the direct impact 
includes the net effect of reduction in local spending because of 
output declines and the increase in local spending to implement the 
controls. For the State of Minnesota, the EIA shows a net reduction in 
local spending of $2.7 million. This is due to a loss of government 
revenues since a portion of state revenues comes from taxes on the 
total production from taconite iron ore. With the value of changes in 
total output included, the total impact to Minnesota is a reduction of 
$3.9 million in local spending.
    Minnesota is estimated to experience a reduction of 30 full-time 
employees as a result of the reduction in taconite production. Thus, 
EPA estimates do show a reduction in local spending and employment in 
Minnesota from final rule implementation, but not anywhere close to the 
amounts asserted by the commenter.
    A separate financial assessment examined the financial condition of 
companies that own taconite facilities. Because of long-standing trends 
in the iron and steel industry (including increasing use of electric 
arc furnace mini-mill technology and increasing imports of iron and 
steel), several of the owner companies have experienced financial 
stress, and three are operating under Chapter 11 protection. For these 
reasons, EPA concluded that at least those three firms may have some 
difficulty obtaining the financing needed to make capital equipment 
investments at their plants, including investments associated with 
environmental compliance. The EPA stated that as many as two or three 
additional taconite facilities were in danger of closing or selling 
their taconite plants at the time of the analysis, due mainly to 
factors unrelated to the rule as proposed. However, the additional 
costs associated with the final rule will put additional stress on 
these already stressed companies. Recent USGS data indicate that in 
2001, financially-strapped taconite firms did sell assets to Cleveland 
Cliffs. Since the original EIA, however, conditions have improved 
somewhat in the industry. The reduced output due to the closure of Hoyt 
Lakes, and the tariff, which has increased the effective price of 
imported iron and steel commodities, have resulted in increased prices 
and profits for iron and steel companies over the past year. Thus, the 
companies are somewhat less vulnerable than they were at the time of 
EPA's earlier analysis.

B. How Did We Revise the Performance Testing Requirements?

    Comment: Two commenters stated that language should be included in 
the final rule either authorizing some discretion on behalf of State 
agencies or otherwise allowing testing completed between the 
promulgation date and the compliance date to be counted as initial 
compliance testing. The commenters stated that this will allow 
additional time to spread out the compliance testing requirements.
    Response: At proposal, plants were given 2 years after the 
compliance date to conduct their initial compliance tests for ore 
crushing and handling and pellet handling units, and 180 days after the 
compliance date to conduct their initial compliance tests for 
indurating furnaces. However, since the time of proposal, EPA has 
determined that allowing more than 180 days for initial compliance is 
not consistent with the 40 CFR part 63 General Provisions. Therefore, 
we have written the initial compliance testing deadline for ore 
crushing and handling and pellet handling units at 180 days after the 
compliance date.
    More than 180 days are needed to conduct compliance testing and to 
reduce the burden of the final rule on the industry. Therefore, the EPA 
has written the final rule to allow source tests conducted between the 
promulgation date and the compliance date to be used for compliance 
demonstration, as long as the tests are performed in accordance with 
the requirements of the final rule. Since the compliance period is 3 
years, plants will have a total of 3\1/2\ years to conduct the initial 
compliance tests for all of their units.
    Comment: Two commenters supported the part of the proposed standard 
that allows plants to conduct initial performance tests by testing a 
representative sample of units within a group of similar units. 
However, in a

[[Page 61874]]

redline/strike-out version of the proposed rule submitted by the 
commenters, they removed the specific criteria defining similar units 
in Sec.  63.9620(f) and the criteria indicating the number of units 
that must be tested per similar group in Sec.  63.9620(g). In the place 
of these specific criteria, the commenters inserted a statement that 
refers to criteria established by the State agency or in the title V 
permit.
    Response: In follow-up discussions with the commenters, EPA asked 
the commenters to clarify their specific concerns regarding the 
criteria for the testing of representative units. The commenters 
indicated that their primary concern was with the criteria in 
paragraphs (3) and (4) of Sec.  63.9620(f), which require the 
volumetric flow rates of the emission units to be within plus or minus 
10 percent of the representative emission unit, and the actual process 
throughput rate to be within plus or minus 10 percent of the 
representative emission unit. The commenters stated that these criteria 
were so restrictive that they would not be able to group very many 
units.
    The EPA also conducted follow-up discussions with the Minnesota 
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) regarding the criteria they use for 
grouping similar units. The MPCA staff indicated that the primary 
reason they group emission units is to reduce the number of permitted 
emission units, although the same groupings are used for testing 
purposes. The grouping of emission units by MPCA was conducted 
primarily on the basis of control type, installation date, and, to a 
certain degree, process type. However, in some cases they do group 
emission units from different processes. They do not group emission 
units on the basis of flow rate or process throughput.
    Based on these discussions with the commenter and MPCA, EPA has 
determined that the criteria in Sec.  63.9620(f)(3) and (4) are too 
restrictive and, therefore, do not achieve EPA's true intent--the 
reduction of the initial compliance test burden for ore crushing and 
handling and pellet handling emission units. As a result, EPA has not 
included the criteria in Sec.  63.9620(f)(3) and (4) as proposed. The 
criteria in Sec.  63.9620(f)(1) and (2) as proposed have been retained 
in the final rule. In addition, we have included the following new 
criteria: The representative unit must have parametric monitoring 
values that encompass the characteristics of all the emission units 
within the group.
    Comment: Three commenters stated that the simultaneous testing of 
multiple indurating furnace stacks is costly. Two of the commenters 
stated that simultaneous testing is also impractical and possibly not 
even feasible.
    Response: In follow-up discussions with the commenters, they 
stressed that some furnaces have as many as five stacks. In order to 
test these stacks simultaneously, they would need to have five source 
testing teams on site at the same time. The commenters stated that this 
would be very expensive. The commenters stated that for their current 
title V permits, they are not required to conduct simultaneous tests of 
all stacks for a furnace. In our discussions with MPCA, they confirmed 
that, although they require all plants with permits to test all furnace 
stacks, they do not require that the plants test all the stacks on a 
furnace simultaneously. Also, in these discussions, it was noted that 
the operating conditions are consistent enough that emissions should 
not vary significantly over a short period of time. Based on these 
discussions, EPA agrees that the simultaneous testing of indurating 
furnace stacks would be costly and would provide no additional 
compliance assurance. Therefore, in order to reduce the source testing 
burden of the final rule on the industry and to maintain consistency 
with current testing requirements, EPA has not included the requirement 
for simultaneous testing in the final rule.
    Comment: Two commenters stated that any requirements for sample 
volume or sample time should be removed from the initial and continuous 
compliance testing requirements. The commenters stated that the final 
rule should not include provisions that are different from already 
established EPA test methods.
    Response: In the proposed rule, we specified a minimum sample 
volume of 60 dscf for EPA Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, Appendix A) tests 
to ensure that enough PM is collected to provide accurate results. The 
EPA Method 5 does not contain specifications for sample volume or 
sample time (i.e., sampling duration). Therefore, it is not uncommon 
for the EPA to specify a minimum sample volume or sample time 
corresponding to emission characteristics of an industry for EPA Method 
5 tests. For example, the Integrated Iron and Steel NESHAP specifies a 
minimum sample volume (60 dscf) for EPA Method 5 tests.
    Based on historical Method 5 tests from taconite plants, most 1-
hour tests sampled about 30 to 50 dscf and obtained a dry catch of 2 to 
20 milligrams (mg). The EPA's Emissions Measurement and Assessment 
Division recommends a dry particulate catch of approximately 20 mg for 
an accurate Method 5 test. At the same historical particulate 
concentrations, a sample volume of 60 dscf or a test of 2 hours in 
duration will obtain a dry catch of approximately 20 to 30 mg. In the 
proposed rule, we specified a minimum sample volume of at least 60 dscf 
for each run of a Method 5 test to ensure that an adequate amount of 
dry catch is obtained. However, since proposal we have determined that 
specifying a 2-hour sampling time will provide a greater assurance that 
an adequate catch is obtained. For example, with a sample volume of 60 
dscf, a 20-mg dry catch is obtained for units with emissions of 0.005 
gr/dscf or greater. By comparison, given the typical sampling rates of 
0.75 to 1 dscf per minute from the historical tests, specifying a 2-
hour test provides a 20-mg dry catch for units with emissions as low as 
0.003 gr/dscf. In addition, specifying the sampling time is consistent 
with other recently published rules, such as the Portland Cement 
NESHAP. Therefore, we have modified the testing requirements in the 
final rule by removing the requirement for a sample volume of 60 dscf 
and adding the requirement that the duration of each test run be at 
least 2 hours.

C. How Did We Revise the Emission Limitations?

    Comment: Two commenters stated that the emission limits should be 
set at two significant figures and not three significant figures. The 
commenters asserted that using three significant figures implies more 
precision than exists in reality and establishes limits that are 
unrealistically stringent and that do not allow for natural variations.
    Response: In the proposed rule, we numerically expressed the 
emission limits for all affected sources, new and existing, to three 
digits (e.g., 0.011 gr/dscf, 0.025 gr/dscf, and 0.008 gr/dscf). Thus, 
the proposed emission limits were already expressed as one or two 
significant figures. However, the intent of the commenters is for the 
EPA to consider rounding the proposed emission limits to two digits to 
account for normal variability in the taconite iron ore processing 
operations, performance of air pollution control equipment, and source 
testing procedures.
    We have reevaluated how natural variations were accounted for in 
the proposed emission limits for existing sources. The PM emission 
limits for existing sources in the ore crushing and handling affected 
source and the finished pellet handling affected source remain at 0.008 
gr/dscf. In the final rule, you have the option to determine an

[[Page 61875]]

overall, flow-weighted average PM concentration for all emission units 
within each of these two affected sources. One purpose for the flow-
weighted average PM concentration procedure is to account for natural 
variability in the various types of emission units within each affected 
source, the processing operations, the performance of air pollution 
control equipment, and source testing procedures.
    The PM emission limits for existing sources in the indurating 
furnace affected source will be rounded to two digits. For both 
existing straight grate and grate kiln indurating furnaces processing 
magnetite, the PM emission limit is 0.01 gr/dscf. For existing grate 
kiln indurating furnaces processing hematite, the PM emission limit is 
0.03 gr/dscf. After we considered the amount of PM source test data 
available in establishing the MACT floor, observed variability in 
measured PM concentrations from the furnace exhaust stacks, and noted 
fluctuations in the taconite iron ore process, we determined that it is 
appropriate to round the PM emission limits for existing indurating 
furnaces to two decimal places in order to fully account for natural 
variability. Even after rounding the PM emission limits for existing 
indurating furnaces, we will still achieve nearly the same level of 
emission reduction, while offering increased flexibility to the 
industry to comply with the emission standards of the final rule.
    The PM emission limit for existing ore dryers was determined to be 
the level of control indicated by the existing State limit of 0.052 gr/
dscf. Therefore, it is not appropriate to round the PM emission limit 
for existing ore dryers. The PM emission limit for existing ore dryers 
is 0.052 gr/dscf in the final rule.
    The PM emission limits for all new affected sources represent an 
actual performance level achieved by the best performing source in each 
affected source. Thus, the new source emission limits can be achieved 
through the proper design and construction/reconstruction of a new 
affected source.
    Comment: Three commenters stated that the final rule should more 
clearly describe how to calculate the flow-weighted mean PM emissions 
concentration for the material handling operations.
    Response: We agree with the commenters and have written Sec. Sec.  
63.9621 and 63.9622 to provide additional clarification for calculating 
the flow-weighted mean PM emissions concentration for ore crushing and 
handling and finished pellet handling. Specifically, the final rule 
clarifies that when calculating the flow-weighted mean PM emissions for 
ore crushing and handling and finished pellet handling, the ``average'' 
PM concentration corresponding to each emission unit in an affected 
source is multiplied by the maximum design volumetric flow rate of the 
corresponding emission unit. The ``average'' PM concentration from an 
emission unit is derived as the arithmetic mean of a PM source test 
comprised of three valid sampling runs on the emission unit. If the 
affected source elects to conduct representative compliance testing for 
a group of similar emission units, the PM concentration determined for 
the tested emission unit will be assigned to the other emission units 
identified as similar within the group.

D. How Did We Revise the Continuous Compliance Requirements?

Operating Limits
    Comment: Two commenters objected to using operating limits 
established during the performance test to determine continuous 
compliance. The commenters stated that a performance test is only a 
snapshot of an operation at a point in time and may not encompass the 
full operational variability that occurs. The commenters stated that 
this approach effectively sets a new more stringent NESHAP emission 
limit at the emissions level actually emitted during the performance 
test. Therefore, the commenters stated that any operation outside of 
the operating parameter range should not be classified as a deviation. 
The commenters stated that the D.C. Circuit Court has made it clear 
that MACT standards are to represent the best performing source on its 
worst day (see National Lime v. EPA, 233 F.3d 625, 51 ERC 1737 (D.C. 
Cir. 2000), and Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA, 255 F.3d 855, 
52 ERC 1865 (D.C. Cir 2001)). The commenters asserted that as long as a 
source is operating properly, follows procedures in the malfunction 
plan, and proceeds appropriately to corrective action, then variations 
within the range of proper operation should not constitute deviations. 
The commenters stated that the EPA may require plants to log such 
information and even report it, but not necessarily as a deviation 
under title V.
    Response: In follow-up discussions with the industry, we were able 
to determine that the taconite industry's primary concern regarding the 
operating limits was being able to maintain the equipment so that they 
did not exceed the established operating limit. Specifically, their 
concerns included their ability to maintain the pressure drop above the 
operating limit for venturi-rod deck units with a fixed throat and/or a 
volumetric flow dependent of process conditions; and, their ability to 
operate and obtain meaningful readings of opacity from dry ESP using a 
COMS in conditions of high moisture and low opacity.
    Regarding the measurement of the pressure drop, we have increased 
the averaging time from hourly to daily. The daily averaging period 
addresses industry's concerns about their ability to control pressure 
drop during short periods of time when the scrubber may experience a 
pressure drop lower than the operating limit. In addition, for dynamic 
wet scrubbers, we have provided the flexibility of monitoring either 
the daily average pressure drop or the daily average fan amperage, in 
addition to the daily average scrubber water flow rate. This addresses 
industry's concern that for dynamic wet scrubbers, both pressure drop 
and fan amperage are good indicators of proper performance.
    Regarding the measurement of opacity using COMS, we have verified 
with equipment vendors that COMS are available that will provide 
accurate readings under the moisture and low opacity conditions present 
at taconite facilities. However, we understand that currently there are 
no COMS in operation at taconite plants and that due to costs or site-
specific operating conditions a COMS may not be the best option. 
Therefore, in the final rule have provided plants the flexibility to 
establish their operating limit either as the 6-minute average opacity 
or as the daily average secondary voltage and the daily average 
secondary current for each field.
    In addition, we have included language in the final rule to clarify 
when not meeting an operating limit becomes an exceedance. 
Specifically, after the first two times that you do not meet the 
operating limit, you must take corrective action. After the third time 
that you do not meet the operating limit, you must submit a written 
report within 5 calendar days and report the third unsuccessful attempt 
of corrective action as a deviation and continue corrective action.
Bag Leak Detection Systems
    Comment: Two commenters stated that the requirement in Sec.  
63.9634(d)(1) of the proposed rule that requires that the bag leak 
detection system not alarm for more than 5 percent of the time should 
be deleted from the final rule.

[[Page 61876]]

    Two commenters pointed out that Sec.  63.7833(d)(1)(iii) of the 
proposed rule specifies that 1 hour of alarm be logged even if 
procedures are implemented to determine the cause of the alarm and 
corrective action is taken in less than 1 hour. The commenters 
contended that the requirement artificially and unfairly inflates the 
semiannual percentage of alarm time and does not provide an incentive 
for sources to initiate procedures as quickly as may be possible. The 
commenters suggested that the final rule should require the plant to 
``count the actual amount of time it took to initiate procedures to 
determine the cause of the alarm.''
    Three commenters stated that in the requirement in Sec.  
63.9634(d)(1)(v) that the bag leak detection system not alarm for more 
than 5 percent of the ``total operating time,'' it is unclear if the 
``total operating time'' refers to the operating time of the affected 
source or the time the baghouse is actually evacuating emissions 
generated by the affected source. The commenters pointed out that some 
baghouses, by design, evacuate emissions for only a few minutes each 
hour. The commenters recommended that EPA clarify its intent that the 
``total operating time'' refers to the total operating time of the 
affected source.
    Response: We agree with the commenters and have not included the 5 
percent operating limit requirement for baghouse leak detectors in 
Sec.  63.9634(d)(1) of the final rule. As a result, the requirements to 
log alarm time and to determine the ratio of the sum of the alarm times 
to the total operating time have also not been included. However, it is 
important that corrective action be initiated promptly, so we are 
retaining the requirement in Sec.  63.9600(b)(2) that you ``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.''
Wet Scrubber CPMS
    Comment: Three commenters stated that the labor hours required for 
the monthly transducer checks and the quarterly gauge calibration 
checks for the pressure drop sensor (Sec.  63.9632(b)(1)(iv)), and the 
semiannual flow sensor calibration checks (Sec.  63.9632(b)(2)(iii)) 
are excessive compared to the potential emissions control improvement. 
Two of the commenters suggested that rather than mandatory monthly, 
quarterly, or semiannual calibration checks, any control unit which 
emits less than 5 percent of the total annual PM emissions at the plant 
should be allowed to reduce the periodic checks required by each of the 
cited provisions to once annually. The other commenter suggested that 
the EPA should allow each source to propose an alternative method to 
the proposed calibration checks to the appropriate permitting agency.
    Three commenters stated that the daily pressure tap pluggage check 
(Sec.  63.9632(b)(1)(iii)) and monthly electrical connection continuity 
checks (Sec.  63.9632(b)(1)(vi)) are overly burdensome and costly to 
implement. The commenters argued that the manual labor and clock hours 
required for such continuity checks would be so large that the 
monitoring systems would have to be shut down so frequently and for 
such a length of time that they would have virtually no operating time. 
According to the commenters, these provisions should be modified so as 
to provide ``a program within the CPMS to alarm the process unit 
operator and to record the alarm for a zero value indication and for a 
static value indication that satisfies the requirement of this 
provision.'' In addition, one commenter stated that, if no change is 
made, the labor costs for the continuity checks must be factored into 
the economic analysis.
    Response: The specific installation, operation, and maintenance 
requirements for wet scrubber CPMS have not been included in the final 
rule. Therefore, the requirements for monthly transducer checks, 
quarterly gauge calibration checks, semiannual flow sensor calibration 
checks, daily pressure tap pluggage checks, and monthly electrical 
connector continuity checks have not been included in the final rule. 
In place of the specific requirements, we have included the requirement 
that, for each CPMS, you must develop and make available a site-
specific monitoring plan that addresses the following:
    [sbull] Installation of CPMS sampling probe so that measurement is 
representative of control of the exhaust emissions.
    [sbull] Performance and equipment specifications for the sample 
interface, the parametric signal analyzer, and the data collection and 
reduction system.
    [sbull] Performance evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria 
(e.g., calibrations).
    [sbull] Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance 
with the general requirements of Sec.  63.8(c)(1), (3), (4)(ii), (7), 
and (8).
    [sbull] Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance 
with the general requirements of Sec.  63.8(d).
    [sbull] Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in 
accordance with the general requirements of Sec.  63.10(c), (e)(1), and 
(e)(2)(i).
    Comment: Three commenters stated that it is inappropriate to set a 
single (pressure drop) point for operating wet scrubbers and 
recommended that EPA remove the pressure drop requirement and rely on 
the operation and maintenance plan for compliance. The commenters 
pointed out that venturi-rod deck scrubbers operate over a range of 
pressure drop that is affected by scrubbing water flow rate, scrubber 
water flow distribution, water temperature, gas temperature, and the 
square of the process gas flow rate. The commenters stated that 
operators cannot directly control the pressure drop in a venturi-rod 
deck scrubber. By setting the average pressure drop at the minimum 
level established during the performance test, the commenters stated 
that the rule effectively forces a source to operate well below the 
emission limit.
    Response: In follow-up discussions with the commenters, it was 
clarified that their comments referred only to venturi-rod deck 
scrubbers installed on indurating furnaces. These venturi-rod deck 
scrubbers are fixed-throat scrubbers for which the pressure drop can be 
measured, but not directly controlled. Two commenters stated that they 
cannot directly control the pressure drop across the venturi-rod deck 
scrubbers because of the following factors:
    [sbull] The scrubbers are of a fixed-throat design;
    [sbull] The fan drawing or pushing air through the scrubber 
operates at a fixed speed and fixed diameter; and
    [sbull] The damper prior to the scrubber is used to control the 
overall flow of air through the system; therefore, it cannot be used to 
control the pressure drop to the scrubber without affecting the entire 
process. The damper is opened more or closed more, as necessary, to 
modulate the air flow as changes occur in the process. As production 
rate increases, the damper is opened more and, therefore, the pressure 
drop across the scrubber increases. Due to these factors, the pressure 
drop across the venturi-rod deck scrubbers on the furnaces is more 
variable than other controls and is difficult to regulate.
    The commenters presented data showing the variability of the 
pressure drop for their venturi-rod deck scrubbers. One commenter 
presented pressure drop readings taken every 20 minutes that ranged 
from 12 to 4 inches of pressure drop, with very few points below 4 
inches of pressure drop.

[[Page 61877]]

However, after excluding periods of malfunction and looking at the 
daily average pressure drop instead of instantaneous readings, the data 
showed that the daily average pressure drop for each scrubber fell 
within a narrow range. The difference between the lowest daily average 
pressure drop and the highest daily average pressure drop was only 
about 2 or 3 inches of pressure drop. Based on these data, the 
commenter stated that they were confident that they could maintain a 
pressure drop at or above the operating limit based on a daily average.
    The other commenter provided daily average pressure drop for their 
venturi-rod deck scrubbers. The data showed that on a daily average 
basis, the pressure drop for each venturi-rod deck scrubber varied by 1 
to 3.6 inches over a period of 2 months. The commenter requested that 
they be allowed to use historical pressure drop data to establish the 
pressure drop operating limit for venturi-rod deck scrubbers on 
indurating furnaces. In addition, the commenter requested that 
compliance with the pressure drop operating limit for venturi-rod deck 
scrubbers on indurating furnaces be determined on a daily average 
basis.
    To address the technical issues raised by the commenters, we have 
written the final rule to allow the use of pressure drop data from PM 
tests conducted on or after December 18, 2002 (the proposal date) to 
establish the operating limit for venturi-rod deck scrubbers 
controlling emissions from indurating furnaces. The historical pressure 
drop data must be from a certified test for which the PM emission 
concentration was at or below the applicable indurating furnace limit 
in Table 1 to the final rule. In addition, the basis for compliance 
with the pressure drop operating limit for venturi-rod deck scrubbers 
on indurating furnaces has been written as an hourly average not a 
daily average.
COMS
    Comment: Two commenters stated that there should not be any 
requirement to install or operate a COMS. The commenters do not support 
setting an opacity limit on a case-by-case and site-by-site basis. In 
addition, the commenters asserted that the opacity will be low enough 
to be outside of the range of error for the test method (the COMS), and 
sources could create a reportable deviation without truly exceeding the 
actual opacity limit. Instead, the commenters stated that there should 
be a requirement for a visible emission check, as is required in the 
Portland Cement NESHAP.
    Response: We have verified with equipment vendors that COMS are 
available that will provide accurate readings at low opacity 
conditions. Certain models of COMS can measure opacity as low as 0.1 
percent with an accuracy of +/- 0.3 percent. In addition, the COMS 
vendors indicated that the COMS will provide accurate readings under 
the moisture conditions present at taconite facilities (typically 9 
percent moisture). However, we understand that currently there are no 
COMS in operation at taconite plants (one facility has scheduled a 
trial installation for later this year) and that due to equipment and 
installation costs or site-specific operating conditions, a COMS may 
not be the best option for each plant. Therefore, in the final rule we 
have provided two options for the operating limits for dry ESP: the 6-
minute average opacity, as monitored using a COMS; or the daily average 
secondary voltage and the daily average secondary current for each 
field, as monitored using a CPMS.
    During our dry ESP discussions with industry, it was requested that 
we add specific monitoring requirements for wet ESP. After discussion 
with the industry and State agencies, we established the following 
monitoring parameters for wet ESP:
    [sbull] Daily average secondary voltage for each field;
    [sbull] Daily average stack outlet temperature; and
    [sbull] Daily average water flow rate.
    Therefore, the final rule contains requirements to establish 
operating limits for these parameters during the initial performance 
test. Plants must also monitor these parameters such that they are 
maintained at or above the operating limits (for secondary voltage and 
water flow rate), or below the operating limits (for stack outlet 
temperature).

E. How Did We Revise the Baseline Emissions?

    Comment: Two commenters stated that the HAP emission values in the 
preamble need to be updated to accurately reflect what is currently 
being emitted. Specifically, one of the commenters stated that U.S. 
Steel has more recent testing data that can be used to update the 
estimates. Another one of the commenters asserted that HAP emissions 
from taconite ore plants are inaccurately characterized. The commenter 
stated that several companies have more recent test data and EPA can 
revise the HAP emissions accordingly. The commenter stated that a more 
accurate depiction of the emissions will alter the economic analysis.
    Response: In follow-up discussions with the industry, we asked them 
to submit any test data that were not reflected in the proposal 
analyses. We received the following additional emission tests:
    [sbull] Engineering Emissions Test Report for Tilden conducted the 
week of November 4, 1999. Tested PM, nitrogen oxides (NOX), 
HCl, HF, benzene, hexane, toluene, formaldehyde, metals, and asbestos.
    [sbull] Particulate and Metals Emission Study for Tilden conducted 
May 7 to 11, 2002. Tested total PM and metals.
    [sbull] MPCA spreadsheet incorporating Minntac emissions tests for 
December 2002 and August 2001. Tested formaldehyde, HCl, HF, chlorine, 
and fluorine.
    [sbull] Northshore formaldehyde emissions tests conducted on March 
6, 2003. We have reviewed the test data listed above and have revised 
the baseline HAP emissions as appropriate. The baseline HAP emissions 
have been modified as follows:
    [sbull] Baseline formaldehyde emissions were updated for Minntac, 
Northshore, and Tilden. The baseline formaldehyde emissions for EVTAC 
and Inland were also updated, since their formaldehyde emission factors 
were based on Northshore estimates. This resulted in a decrease in 
baseline formaldehyde emissions from 180.7 to 30.1 tpy. This had no 
effect on the HAP emission reduction estimate since we assumed that 
there would be no formaldehyde emission reductions.
    [sbull] Baseline HCl and HF emissions were updated for Minntac and 
Tilden. This resulted in a decrease in baseline HCl emissions from 
349.1 to 274 tpy and a decrease in baseline HF emissions from 308 to 
229 tpy. As a result, the emission reduction from acid gases decreased 
from 356.1 to 256 tpy.

F. How Did We Select the Pollutants?

Mercury
    Comment: Seventeen commenters stated that EPA has a statutory 
obligation to set emission standards for mercury. Several commenters 
specifically cited National Lime. One commenter stated that the fact 
that no specific type of control technology has yet proven effective 
and affordable for taconite processing cannot legally excuse the 
industry from regulation. Thirteen commenters asserted that EPA's 
practice of not setting standards for industries that do not yet 
control their emissions is illegal and encourages the industry to do as 
little as possible to control mercury.

[[Page 61878]]

    One commenter encouraged EPA to consult with the Minnesota 
Department of Natural Resources, Division of Lands and Minerals, to get 
the most up-to-date information on potential mercury control strategies 
for taconite facilities before promulgation. The commenter stated that 
viable mercury control technologies or strategies may be identified in 
the very near future. The commenter asserted that the best strategies 
to control mercury may be operational modifications such as different 
handling practices for captured dust from indurating furnaces.
    Two commenters stated that the EPA must set an emission standard 
for mercury based on the statute's ``minimum stringency requirement'' 
(i.e., the MACT floor) even if specific technologies or operating 
practices to achieve it have not been identified. One commenter stated 
that if no such controls or practices are being used, EPA must find 
some other factor on which to base the standard. Three commenters 
suggested that EPA determine the floor based on the average mercury 
emission level of the five plants (or furnaces) with the lowest 
emissions, and then set the mercury emission limit there. One commenter 
stated that if certain plants will not be able to meet such a standard 
within 4 years, the statute provides relief through a Presidential 
exemption for a period of not more than 2 years. The commenter also 
contends that the CAA allows relief for a company that makes a 
significant effort to identify and implement effective controls but is 
still unable to meet the standard by the 4-year deadline. The commenter 
stated that EPA included a similar provision in the Portland Cement 
NESHAP. The commenter believes that setting a standard would induce the 
industry to invest in research and development to meet it. The 
commenter stated that promising mercury control technologies for the 
taconite industry are on the horizon. The commenter stated that the EPA 
should investigate the COHPAC-TOXECON system, corona discharge, and 
catalytic oxidation, as well as an iron oxide sorbent system being 
tested in Minnesota.
    One commenter stated that EPA recognized in the proposed rule that 
the mercury content of the taconite ore is the ``key factor'' affecting 
mercury emissions. The commenter reasoned that by setting a mercury 
standard, plants that use ore with high mercury content will have to 
find ways to reduce mercury emissions, including switching to cleaner 
raw materials or installing pollution controls.
    One commenter stated that the final rule should consider precluding 
the use of coal, even as a secondary fuel, to control mercury 
emissions.
    Thirteen commenters recommended that EPA establish a reasonable 
limit for mercury and allow relief for a company that is unable to meet 
the limit after making appropriate technological or research 
investments.
    Two commenters requested more information supporting EPA's finding 
that ``we were unable to find any viable control technologies or 
operating procedures for achieving reduction in mercury emissions from 
indurating furnaces at taconite iron ore plants.'' One of the 
commenters requested the cost of control per ton of mercury control 
that was estimated in EPA's analysis. Both commenters stated that 
control technologies being developed for coal-fired power plants could 
be used to control mercury emissions from taconite facilities. Two 
commenters mentioned activated carbon injection as a potential mercury 
control for taconite plants.
    One commenter stated that, both within the binational program and 
in national policy documents, the EPA insinuates that the NESHAP 
program is the means by which the Agency will achieve mercury reduction 
goals. The commenter asserted that an emission limit for mercury should 
be set that pushes the industry to research and develop control 
technology but also allows for relief if a company is unable to meet 
the standard after diligently pursuing such technology. The standard 
should also include mercury monitoring requirements.
    Three commenters stated that if mercury emissions from the taconite 
industry are not reduced, the goals of the binational program to 
protect the Lake Superior Basin cannot be met. One commenter stated 
that, if EPA does not intend to set standards for mercury emissions 
from industries that currently do nothing to control their emissions 
and that do not develop control technology on a voluntary basis, its 
regulations (if not its authority) are inadequate to protect the Great 
Lakes and other Great Waters from mercury deposition. The commenter 
stated that EPA's refusal to take action under CAA section 112(m) 
because authority is available under CAA section 112(d), and then 
failing to use the CAA section 112(d) authority is unacceptable. 
Furthermore, the commenter stated that Congress directed the EPA to 
take action to protect the Great Waters by 1995. The commenter stated 
that postponing regulations until residual risk standards are required 
violates the spirit (if not the letter) of the congressional mandate.
    One commenter stated that beyond-the-floor standards are warranted 
for mercury. The commenter stated that a mercury standard based on 
developing technologies is ``achievable.'' The commenter stated that 
EPA could base beyond-the-floor mercury standards on the reductions 
that could be achieved through raw material change (low-mercury ore), 
fuel change (natural gas), or control technologies (wet scrubbers, 
carbon beds, or activated carbon injection). The commenter recommended 
that EPA investigate the COHPAC-TOXECON system, whereby a pulse-jet 
baghouse is installed downstream from existing ESP controls, and a 
sorbent injection system is installed between the existing ESP and the 
baghouse. The commenter also suggested that EPA look at developing 
multipollutant technologies, such as corona discharge, catalytic 
oxidation, and iron oxide sorbent systems being tested in Minnesota.
    One commenter cited estimated costs for activated carbon systems 
that were developed for coal-fired boilers that ranged from $4,940 to 
$70,000 per pound ($9.9 to $140 million/ton) of mercury removed at 90 
percent control (USDOE, September 2002; NESCAUM, June 2000). The 
commenter also provided costs for carbon filter beds used in European 
waste incinerators of $513 to $1,083 per pound ($1.0 to $2.2 million/
ton) of mercury removed at 99 percent control. The commenter stated 
that the control costs for indurating furnaces should lie somewhere 
between the two cost ranges. The commenter also provided estimated 
costs for enhanced wet scrubbing systems for coal-fired boilers of 
$76,000 to $174,000 per pound ($152 to $348 million/ton) of mercury 
removed (NESCAUM, June 2000).
    Response: There is no way to set a floor standard for mercury that 
is ``achievable,'' as required by CAA section 112(d)(2), because there 
is no standard that can be duplicated by different sources or 
replicable by the same source. The opinion in National Lime did not 
deal with a situation where an emission standard was unachievable for 
these reasons. Mercury emitted from taconite iron ore processing plants 
originates primarily from the ore itself and to a much lesser extent 
the fuels powering the process. None of the taconite iron ore 
processing plants control mercury emissions by using at-the-stack 
controls. Thus, any differences in mercury emissions from existing 
indurating furnaces reflect different mercury levels in raw materials 
or fossil

[[Page 61879]]

fuels used at the individual plants. Attempting to base a mercury 
standard (either a floor standard, or a beyond-the-floor standard) on 
raw material substitution (i.e., ore substitution), however, would lead 
to unachievable standards for all sources, because this means of 
control is not duplicable or even replicable.
    A study by the Coleraine Minerals Research Laboratory in 1997 
stated that ``the mercury volatilized during pellet induration is not 
the same for every taconite operation. There is a correlation between 
the amount of mercury volatilized during induration and the location of 
the taconite operation. The taconite operations that are located on the 
west end of the Mesabi Iron Range volatilize more mercury during pellet 
induration than those on the east end of the range.'' This correlation 
was confirmed in a report by the Minnesota Department of Natural 
Resources (Berndt, 2002) with the mercury concentrations present in the 
ore varying from 21 parts per billion (ppb) at the west end of the 
range to 0.6 ppb for facilities located on the east end of the range. 
Each taconite iron ore processing plant is located directly proximate 
to its own mining source. Transportation costs of procuring raw 
materials from other locations are prohibitive. A plant has no access 
to the raw ore used by another plant and, consequently, could not 
duplicate the mercury emissions performance of the other plant. The ore 
processing operations at a given plant are dependent on the type of ore 
mined. The east range ores are typically finer and harder requiring 
different processing steps in crushing, grinding, and flotation. 
Because of the differences in processing for each type of ore, it is 
not feasible for any one facility to process different ores mined from 
multiple locations in the range. Moreover, because iron ore deposits 
are variable in mercury content, there is no way to assure that even a 
source processing its own ore could replicate its own performance, 
since the next ore batch could contain higher concentrations of 
mercury. Based on the above justifications, we have determined that it 
is infeasible for taconite plants to reduce mercury emissions by 
switching to ``cleaner'' ores.
    Natural gas is the primary fuel used by the taconite industry to 
fuel the process. From the period of 1995 to 1997, the burning of coal 
constituted only between 9 and 18 percent of the overall energy input 
for taconite indurating furnaces. During the same period, natural gas 
constituted between 73 and 83 percent of the overall energy input for 
taconite indurating furnaces. Although very little coal is used overall 
by the industry, it is critical for certain plants to have coal 
available to them as a backup fuel when natural gas may not be 
available or when seasonal fluctuations in the price of natural gas 
make its use uneconomical. Therefore, based on the negligible impact of 
coal on mercury emissions in the industry and the importance of 
maintaining backup fuel options, fuel switching is not a feasible means 
of controlling HAP metal emissions (including mercury) for the taconite 
industry.
    Based on these facts, EPA cannot accept the comment that it must 
establish a floor standard by averaging the lowest mercury emission 
values of the so-called best-performing 12 percent of sources. In the 
next performance test, all of these mercury values could be higher (no 
matter what method would be used to establish ``best performing''), 
because there are no means of controlling ore concentrations or 
feasibly using fuel substitution. Such a standard simply could not be 
achieved by any source. Not only is this not the intent of a 
technology-based standard, but would result in sources being out-of-
compliance and, thus, possibly shutting them down. This is not how MACT 
was intended to function. ``MACT is not intended * * * to drive sources 
to the brink of shutdown * * *'' (H.R. Rep. No. 101-490, 101st Cong. 2d 
sess. 328).
    We note further that the mercury in the ore and the fuel is present 
in trace amounts. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources stated 
that ``mercury present in taconite occurs as a trace element, and 
cannot be eliminated by simply using a different fuel source or by 
eliminating mercury-bearing components from material to be combusted.'' 
(Berndt, 2002) This supports the Agency's technical determinations that 
control via substitutions of feed or fuel is neither feasible nor 
likely to be effective since random variability in the feed will likely 
result in equal amounts of mercury being emitted in any case. Indeed, 
as stated above, it is not clear that even a single source could 
reliably duplicate its own performance for mercury emissions due to the 
small amounts emitted and random variabilities in the mercury content 
of the iron ore.
    The commenters themselves acknowledge that viable controls for 
mercury are not currently available for the taconite industry:
    [sbull] One commenter stated that ``viable mercury control 
technologies or strategies may be identified in the very near future.''
    [sbull] One commenter stated that ``setting a standard would induce 
the industry to invest in research and development to meet it.'' The 
commenter also stated that ``promising mercury control technologies for 
the taconite industry are on the horizon.''
    [sbull] Two commenters stated that ``control technologies being 
developed for coal-fired plants could be used to control mercury 
emissions from taconite facilities.'' Section 112(d) of the CAA 
requires that the EPA establish emission standards that are 
``achievable for new or existing sources.'' Since we have not been able 
to identify any currently employed operating practices that effectively 
reduce mercury emissions which are duplicable or replicable, we cannot 
develop an achievable floor standard.
    Some commenters also suggested extended compliance periods (beyond 
the 3 years provided by section 112(i)(3) of the CAA). The problem, 
however, is not one of time but of the lack of existence of any means 
of floor control. Control of emissions via raw material or fuel 
substitution will not be available regardless of time allowed for 
compliance.
    Several commenters also noted that EPA's action here could 
undermine efforts to control mercury deposition in the Great Lakes and 
questioned the adequacy of EPA's action in light of the Agency's 
obligation under section 112(m)(6) of the CAA to ``determine whether 
the other provisions of this section 112 are adequate to prevent 
serious adverse effect to public health and serious or widespread 
environmental effects'' in the Great Lakes. The EPA, however, is not 
reopening its existing determination that the section 112(d) and (f) 
standards are adequate for this purpose. See generally 63 FR 14090 
(March 24, 1998); ``Deposition of Air Pollutants to the Great Waters: 
First Report to Congress (EPA-453/R-93-055, 1994); ``Deposition of Air 
Pollutants to the Great Waters: Second Report to Congress'' (EPA-453/R-
97-011, 1997). The EPA notes further that the section 112(f) residual 
risk process must evaluate (among other things) whether a more 
stringent standard for mercury is needed to prevent an adverse 
environmental effect (taking into consideration costs, energy, safety 
and other relevant factors).
    The commenters' statements regarding potential at-the-stack control 
options are legitimate considerations for beyond-the-floor standards, 
but after evaluating the possibility of such

[[Page 61880]]

controls against technical considerations and the section 112(d)(2) 
factors, we do not feel that a beyond-the-floor standard for mercury is 
warranted.
    One commenter indicated that different handling practices for 
captured dust from indurating furnaces, as discussed in a report by the 
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (Berndt, 2002), would be a 
good method for controlling mercury. The control option investigated in 
the report involves placing magnetite dust collected by the wet 
scrubbers, which was found to be high in mercury, into the waste stream 
rather than recycling the dust back to the indurating furnace. A review 
of the report cited by the commenter reveals that, for the two taconite 
plants studied, the costs of this approach ranged from $28 to $254 
million per ton of mercury removed ($14,000 to $127,000 per pound of 
mercury removed). This high cost results from the loss of over $1 
million of magnetite dust product ($25 per long ton) to prevent 
approximately 30 pounds of mercury emissions. The study concludes that 
``due to the high cost of this emission control method, the large 
uncertainty in the cost estimates, and the limited amount of emission 
reduction, it appears that more research is needed before mercury 
emission control methods can be put into practice in taconite 
processing facilities.'' We believe that the high cost, the small 
reduction in HAP emissions, and increased waste disposal do not justify 
this beyond-the-floor alternative at this time.
    Other potential mercury controls cited by the commenters include: 
wet flue gas desulfurization (FGD), baghouses, activated carbon 
injection, activated carbon/baghouse system (COHPAC), corona discharge, 
electro-catalytic oxidation, and injection of copper-coated magnetic 
taconite concentrate.
    Ninety seven percent of the mercury emitted from taconite plants is 
emitted from the indurating furnaces. The mercury emitted from the 
taconite indurating furnaces is primarily elemental mercury. Wet 
scrubbing systems, such as wet FGD, ``are very effective at removing 
soluble ionic mercury, but are not very effective at removing insoluble 
elemental mercury'' (NESCAUM, 2000). Therefore, wet FGD systems were 
not considered to be a technically viable beyond-the-floor option.
    Baghouses and control systems that utilize them, such as the COHPAC 
system, cannot be used on taconite indurating furnace stacks due to the 
high moisture content of the exhaust gas. The high moisture content of 
the exhaust gas causes plugging problems that make the baghouses 
ineffective. Therefore, baghouses and control systems based on baghouse 
technology were not considered to be a technically viable beyond-the-
floor option.
    In pilot scale studies at several electricity generating boilers, 
carbon injection has provided up to a 90 percent reduction in mercury 
emissions. Estimated costs for installing activated carbon injection 
systems on electricity generating boilers range from $10 to $140 
million per ton of mercury removed ($5,000 to $70,000 per pound of 
mercury removed) (NESCAUM, 2000; USDOE, 2002). Activated carbon 
injection has been demonstrated to provide 95 percent control of 
mercury emissions for municipal waste combustors (NESCAUM, 2000). Costs 
for installing activated carbon injection for municipal waste 
combustors range from $0.4 to $1.74 million per ton of mercury reduced 
($211 to $870 per pound of mercury reduced). However, NESCAUM points 
out that ``this working experience with small sources is not directly 
transferable to large coal-fired boilers because of their different 
flue gas characteristics'' (NESCAUM, 2000). The cost per pound of 
mercury removed for this industry with activated carbon injection would 
be considerably higher than the estimated cost for a utility boiler 
because the capital and fixed operating costs would be similar while 
these plants have very low mercury emissions. The high cost, small 
reduction in HAP emissions, increased energy usage, and additional 
waste generation do not justify this beyond-the-floor alternative at 
this time.
    The corona discharge, electro-catalytic oxidation, and copper-
coated magnetic taconite concentrate injection control technologies are 
describe by the commenter as ``emerging technologies * * * that could 
potentially be applied to the taconite sector as they mature and become 
more cost-effective.'' Based on the commenter's own description, these 
technologies are not currently ready for application to the taconite 
industry. Therefore, these technologies were not considered in the 
beyond-the-floor analysis.
    In evaluating these potential beyond-the-floor options, we were 
unable to identify any viable control technologies or operating 
practices for achieving reductions in mercury emissions from taconite 
iron ore plants. Consequently, we chose the floor level of no emissions 
reduction as MACT.
    Since specific controls for mercury are not currently present in 
the industry and operating practices that effectively reduce mercury 
emissions have not been identified, we are selecting no emissions 
reduction as new source MACT.
Asbestos
    Comment: Seventeen commenters stated that EPA should set a limit 
for asbestos emissions from taconite plants as is required by the CAA. 
One commenter stated that asbestos is designated as a HAP by the CAA. 
The commenter reasoned that if asbestos is emitted by the taconite 
industry, the statute requires that EPA set a standard for asbestos 
fibers. Based on the decision in Reserve Mining Co. v. EPA, 514 f.2d 
492, 526 (1975), the commenter contends that the EPA must consider 
asbestos to be a HAP emitted by the taconite industry. One commenter 
contended that ``lack of information'' about asbestos emissions is an 
invalid reason for not setting standards.
    Two commenters asserted that 30 years ago, EPA stated that it 
intended to regulate asbestos emissions from the taconite industry. The 
same commenter stated that the 1973 asbestos NESHAP had excluded 
``mineral processing operations that may contain asbestos as a 
contaminant.'' The commenter further pointed out the Congress rejected 
this approach when it passed the CAA Amendments of 1990.
    One of the commenters pointed out that in a 1975 Reserve Mining 
decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit stated in 
regard to emissions from the Co. plant (now operated by Northshore) 
that ``Reserve discharges fibers substantially identical and in some 
instances identical to fibers of amosite asbestos.'' The trial court 
heard extensive evidence as to the chemistry, crystallography, and 
morphology of the cummingtonite-grunerite present in the mined ore. 
This evidence demonstrated that, at the level of the individual fiber, 
a portion of Reserve's cummingtonite-grunerite cannot be meaningfully 
distinguished from amosite asbestos. Reserve attempted to rebut this 
testimony by showing that the gross morphology of the two minerals 
differed and the characteristics of the two minerals varied when 
considered in crystal aggregations. Since, according to the opinions of 
some experts, the individual fiber probably serves as a carcinogenic 
agent, the district court viewed the variations in mineralogy as 
irrelevant and determined that Reserve discharges fibers substantially 
identical and in some instances identical to amosite asbestos.
    One commenter stated that it should be noted in the proposal 
preamble that only one mine remains operating at the

[[Page 61881]]

eastern end of the Mesabi Range where acicular (needle-like) minerals 
may be present in the ore. The commenter also stated that the proposal 
preamble overstated the efforts of EPA's work group investigation of 
asbestos in taconite ore. The commenter asserted that the work group is 
focused mainly on vermiculite and is unlikely to study or recommend 
``solutions'' for the taconite industry.
    One commenter stated that EPA's refusal to set beyond-the-floor 
standards for asbestos is unlawful.
    Response: Although we are compelled to develop MACT standards for 
HAP from major sources, and ``asbestos'' is listed as a HAP in section 
112(b) of the CAA, ``asbestos'' is not a single chemical substance or 
an easily identified group of chemicals or substances. Our previous 
regulatory experience with asbestos as an air pollutant has been 
limited to those substances commercially used for their properties, 
such as a high resistance to heat and most chemicals. More recently, 
the Agency has become concerned with those and similar substances that 
may occur as a contaminant in other mined materials and then be 
released into the air during processing activities.
    When Congress listed ``asbestos'' as a HAP in section 112(b)(1), it 
did not further explain the term in the statute, and EPA is not aware 
of any legislative history addressing the term asbestos. Currently, EPA 
regulatory definitions for ``asbestos'' are provided in the Asbestos 
NESHAP, as revised in 1990 (40 CFR 61.141, subpart M), and the 
regulations for addressing asbestos-containing materials in schools (40 
CFR 763.83). Both rulemakings, which focus on commercial asbestos, 
define asbestos as the asbestiform varieties of six different minerals: 
chrysotile (serpentinite), crocidolite (riebeckite), amosite 
(cummingtonite-grunerite), anthophyllite, actinolite, and tremolite. As 
some commenters have indicated, it is correct that the ore from the 
eastern end of the Mesabi Range is comprised to some extent of 
cummingtonite-grunerite and ferroactinolite (an iron-based form of 
actinolite), two of the above listed asbestos-like minerals.
    Similarly, other Federal agencies' standards for ``asbestos,'' for 
example, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), were 
developed for commercial asbestos products and not asbestos as a 
contaminant in another material (29 CFR parts 1910, 1915, and 1926). 
Current OSHA workplace air regulations apply only to chrysotile, 
crocidolite, amosite, and the asbestiform varieties of anthophyllite, 
tremolite, and actinolite. The word asbestos is often added after the 
mineral (e.g., tremolite asbestos) to signify that the asbestiform 
variety of the mineral is being referred to. This is not necessary for 
chrysotile, crocidolite, or amosite because these are terms specific to 
the asbestiform varieties of the minerals (which are serpentine, 
riebeckite, and cummintonite-grunerite, respectively).
    Since the EPA first regulated asbestos as a HAP, a distinction has 
been made on applying the term asbestos to commercially manufactured 
products and not as a contaminant in other materials. When the Asbestos 
NESHAP was promulgated in 1973, the EPA Administrator made explicit in 
accompanying comments that the NESHAP only apply to asbestos mines and 
asbestos mills. Approximately 1 year after the rule was promulgated, 
EPA further clarified the rule by stating it does not apply to asbestos 
occurring as a contaminant as distinguished from asbestos as a product 
(39 FR 15397, May 3, 1974). In a 1974 revision to the Asbestos NESHAP, 
the Administrator added a definition of ``commercial asbestos'' to 
distinguish asbestos which is produced as a product from asbestos which 
occurs as a contaminant in other materials.
    Furthermore, when the CAA was amended in 1990, EPA's approach in 
developing NESHAP was significantly altered through the use of the HAP 
list under section 112(b) and the application of technology-based 
standards under section 112(d) instead of a strict risk-based approach. 
However, the CAA amendments in 1990 did not provide any further 
guidance on how the definition of asbestos could be applied beyond its 
use in the Asbestos NESHAP to address asbestos as a contaminant in 
other materials.\1\ Based on EPA's historical use of the term 
``asbestos,'' it has been used in the context for commercially produced 
products and not, as yet, as a contaminant in other products. In 
summary, there is no technical or regulatory consensus on the set of 
minerals pertinent to contaminant asbestos.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ We thus disagree with the commenter who stated, without 
citation, that the 1990 amendments to the CAA were intended to 
compel section 112(d) standards to control the fibers emitted from 
non-commercial sources. The commenter is correct in that section 112 
is not limited to commercial asbestos emissions, but nothing in the 
statute or its legislative history of which EPA is aware indicate 
that Congress intended a particular meaning of ``asbestos'' or that 
particular fiber-emitting sources be regulated under section 112 by 
virtue of the inclusion of ``asbestos'' in the list of HAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notwithstanding the real technical uncertainties as to how to 
classify the fibers in the Northshore emissions, commenters argued that 
the issue had already been decided by virtue of the Eighth Circuit's 
Reserve Mining decision, which found that Reserve Mining (now 
Northshore) emitted asbestos for purposes of ordering injunctive 
relief. First, any suggestion that EPA is now precluded from making a 
different factual determination is not correct. The issue decided in 
Reserve Mining is different from the one involved here: whether the 
Northshore fibers are ``asbestos'' for purposes of section 112 (b) of 
the CAA, a provision not at issue in Reserve Mining since it did not 
even exist at the time of the decision.
    Second, EPA is not acting in the context of a plea for general 
injunctive relief (as in Reserve Mining), but rather to implement a 
limited grant of statutory authority to regulate the HAP ``asbestos.'' 
We have looked for existing, objective means of determining if 
Northshore's fibers are ``asbestos'' and currently find the situation 
uncertain. In light of this uncertainty, we are not establishing MACT 
standards for the fibers emitted by Northshore. Rather, the issue of 
which non-commercial fibers are ``asbestos'' for purposes of section 
112(b) is one that must first be decided in a broader context.
    In response to the events surrounding exposures of residents to 
asbestos that occurred as a contaminant in a vermiculite mine in Libby, 
Montana, EPA is currently studying the complex issues involved with 
asbestos emissions from beneficiation and subsequent processing of 
minerals where asbestos may be present as a contaminant. One component 
of this activity is a comprehensive update to the asbestos entry in the 
Agency's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). In the hazard and 
dose-response assessment pieces of the update, the current information 
on mineralogy, size, bioactivity and chemistry of different asbestos 
fibers is being considered. Within the past 3 years, the Agency has 
sponsored or co-sponsored several technical meetings aimed at bringing 
together the current knowledge on asbestos, its characteristics and 
related health effects. These include, but are not limited to:
    [sbull] May 24-25, 2001, ``Asbestos Health Effects Conference'' in 
Oakland, California;
    [sbull] February 25-27, 2003, ``Asbestos Cancer Risk Peer 
Consultation'' in San Francisco, California; and
    [sbull] June 12-13, 2003, ``Asbestos Mechanisms of Toxicity 
Workshop'' in Chicago, Illinois. Integration of the information 
gathered through these and other mechanisms will compose the

[[Page 61882]]

support documents for the new IRIS file and will assist us in 
decisionmaking regarding contaminant asbestos.
    As part of the response to the findings in Libby, the Agency has 
developed an action plan which identifies steps necessary to gather the 
information needed to decide whether regulations for sources of 
contaminant asbestos emissions are warranted. The action plan specifies 
vermiculite mining and processing operations as the first area of 
focus. Contrary to one commenter's assertion, the action plan also 
includes plans to assess emissions, exposure and risk associated with 
asbestos that occurs as a contaminant from other mining and processing 
operations, including taconite ore mining and processing. That 
assessment will inform decisions on specific risk-based regulation of 
asbestos that occurs as a contaminant in taconite ore mining and 
processing. Specific risk-based emission limitations for asbestos are 
not included in the technology-based final rule.
    In addition, an International Fiber Symposium was held in St. Paul, 
MN in April 2003. The papers presented at the symposium are in a peer-
review process and will then be published. Once the proceedings are 
published, the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) will determine if 
they can conduct a risk assessment for fibers or if they can draw any 
conclusions about the potential health impacts from fibers. Based on 
MDH's findings, the MPCA and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 
may make policy changes with respect to fibers. Until then, MPCA will 
continue to regulate airborne fibers from Northshore as required by the 
court who deemed the fibers a health concern.
    Finally, we note that Northshore is in fact controlling emissions 
of its fibers in part with baghouses, which are the optimum control 
technology for air emission of fibers (a point made, among other 
places, in the Reserve Mining decision itself). Since the Reserve 
Mining decision, ambient air monitoring around the plant has 
demonstrated a significant reduction in fiber emissions through the 
installation of high efficiency baghouses on ore crushing and handling 
emission units and wet ESP on the indurating furnace exhaust stacks. 
Baghouses are not a control option for indurating furnaces due to the 
high moisture content (10 to 15 percent) in the exhaust gases. The high 
moisture content causes PM to cake and plug the filtering material 
causing filters to be ineffective. In addition, further reductions in 
fiber emissions are expected through compliance with the PM emission 
standards in the final rule. Representatives at Northshore have 
indicated that existing emission units equipped with multiclones are 
likely to be replaced with more efficient PM control devices in order 
to comply with the PM emission standards in the final rule. Northshore 
representatives provided us with the estimated costs for such an 
equipment upgrade, and these control costs are reflected in our revised 
cost impacts for the final rule.
Formaldehyde
    Comment: One commenter stated that EPA has a statutory obligation 
to set emission standards for formaldehyde. The commenter asserted that 
the standard for formaldehyde must be at least as stringent as the 
average formaldehyde emission level of the five best performing plants. 
The commenter stated that whether or not there are feasible control 
technologies for formaldehyde is irrelevant.
    Response: As EPA stated at proposal, formaldehyde (and other 
organic HAP) are emitted in very low concentrations by taconite 
processing indurating furnaces, not because these organic HAP are 
contained in feed or fuel input to the process, but rather as products 
of incomplete combustion (PIC) necessarily generated when fossil fuels 
are burned (in any type of process, not just in indurating furnaces) 
(67 FR 77570). Formaldehyde from indurating furnace emissions has been 
measured through stack testing at concentrations that are typically 
less than 1 part per million (ppm).
    The EPA stated somewhat inaccurately at proposal that formaldehyde 
emissions from indurating furnaces are currently uncontrolled. It is 
clear from context that we meant that there are no current ``at-the-
stack'' controls for formaldehyde (and other PIC) emissions from these 
furnaces, although control of the combustion process minimizes PIC 
(including formaldehyde) formation and hence PIC emissions. We 
reiterate that at-the-stack controls in place to control PM emissions 
have no effect on PIC emissions. We also know of no feasible at-the-
stack control technology for reducing formaldehyde emissions at these 
extremely low concentrations and at the exhaust gas temperatures 
typically encountered at indurating furnaces.
    The only known technology for the control of formaldehyde emissions 
at concentrations of less than 1 ppm is thermal catalytic oxidation, in 
which formaldehyde is contacted with a precious metal catalyst in the 
presence of oxygen and high temperature (650 to 1,350 [deg]F) to yield 
carbon dioxide and water. Destruction efficiencies of 85 to 90 percent 
have been demonstrated on formaldehyde emissions contained in the 
exhaust gas from stationary combustion turbines at concentrations in 
the parts per billion range and temperatures of 1,000 [deg]F or higher. 
Destruction efficiencies, however, decrease exponentially at reaction 
temperatures below 650 [deg]F, reaching less than 10 percent at exhaust 
gas temperatures of 300 [deg]F or lower, which is typical of most 
indurating furnaces. Burning large quantities of additional fuel, such 
as natural gas, to heat the exhaust gases to the desired temperature 
would generate large additional quantities of carbon dioxide (a gas 
potentially connected to global climate change) and NOX 
(ozone precursors). As at proposal, given the significant issues of 
technical feasibility and adverse environmental impacts associated with 
use of this technology, it is not the proper basis for MACT standards 
(67 FR 77571).
    We also reiterate that fuel switching is not a justifiable means of 
control. Most indurating furnaces currently utilize natural gas as a 
fuel, and PIC emissions are higher for natural gas than for coal, but 
switching to coal would increase emissions of HAP metals in much larger 
amounts than the minimal PIC emissions attributable to natural gas 
burning. See S. Rep. 101-228, 101st Cong. 1st sess. at 168 (``In cases 
where control strategies for two or more different pollutants are in 
actual conflict, the Administrator shall apply the same principle--
maximum protection of human health shall be the objective test.'')
    Consequently, the only form of control currently used and feasible 
to minimize formaldehyde emissions is the proper and efficient 
operation of an indurating furnace with GCP. It is clear from the low 
measured levels of formaldehyde emitted from these furnaces that this 
means of control is highly effective.
    In general, good efficiency of a combustion device is governed by 
time, temperature, and turbulence, the three ``T's'' of combustion. 
Efficient combustion is achieved when a selected fuel reaches an 
optimum temperature for a minimum residence time with sufficient 
turbulence to allow oxidation of all organic compounds to completely 
react to the products of combustion--water and carbon dioxide. However, 
there are many phenomena associated with combustion that lead to the 
formation of PIC. Examples of possible phenomena include: Unburned 
fuel, quenches or cool zones in the combustion area, fuel rich zones, 
low

[[Page 61883]]

combustion temperatures, insufficient air (oxygen) contact with fuel 
due to limited turbulence, and changes to the combustion process due to 
load swings or feed changes.
    Good combustion practices typically encompass several elements such 
as the proper operation of the combustion process, routine inspection 
and performance analysis of the process, and preventative maintenance. 
More specific examples of GCP indicating the range of existing 
practices are listed below:
    [sbull] Maintain operator logs;
    [sbull] Develop procedures for startup, shutdown, and malfunction;
    [sbull] Perform periodic evaluations or inspections;
    [sbull] Perform burner or control adjustments/tune-ups;
    [sbull] Monitor and maintain concentrations of carbon monoxide 
(CO), oxygen (O2), or carbon dioxide (CO2) in 
compliance with site-specific concentration limits in the combustion 
exhaust;
    [sbull] Monitor and maintain combustion temperatures above a site-
specific minimum value;
    [sbull] Monitor fuel/air metering;
    [sbull] Comply with a CO or total organic carbon (TOC) emission 
limit;
    [sbull] Maintain proper liquid fuel atomization;
    [sbull] Monitor fuel quality and handling procedures;
    [sbull] Maintain combustion air distribution; and
    [sbull] Maintain fuel dispersion.
    Although all indurating furnaces need to use GCP to minimize PIC 
emissions, determining what precisely is GCP involves site-specific 
determinations for each furnace. For example, some indurating furnaces 
have been required to install NOX emission controls such as 
low NOX burners. The basic method used in reducing 
NOX emissions is a reduction in combustion temperature, 
which is the opposite strategy needed for minimizing PIC (i.e., 
increasing combustion temperature). Thus, due to differences in furnace 
design, operation, firing fuel, process controls, and air pollution 
control equipment, one set of GCP established for one type of 
indurating furnace may be different from those needed for another type 
of indurating furnace.
    In addition, State operating permits for the taconite indurating 
furnaces do not require any specific set of GCP. However, based on 
discussions held with industry representatives, all sources already use 
a wide variety of work practices (e.g., existing Standard Operating 
Procedures) to maintain proper and efficient operation of each 
indurating furnace. See the July 11, 2003 memorandum, ``Meeting Minutes 
on Good Combustion Practices with Taconite Industry Representatives.'' 
Sources have a strong and inherent economic incentive to ensure that 
fuel is not wasted, and that the combustion device operates properly 
and is appropriately maintained. The lack of a uniform approach to 
assuring combustion efficiency is not surprising given the differences 
of indurating furnace designs, and the fact that existing Federal/State 
standards do not include GCP requirements for indurating furnaces.
    Thus, we have determined that site-specific GCP are the MACT floor 
for formaldehyde emissions from existing sources. In evaluating 
potential beyond-the-floor options, we considered the only known at-
the-stack technology for the control of formaldehyde emissions at 
concentrations of less than 1 ppm--thermal catalytic oxidation, which 
was described earlier. However, as discussed previously, given the 
significant issues of technical feasibility (e.g., low exhaust gas 
temperatures, high volumetric flow rates of exhaust gas, and low 
concentrations of formaldehyde), adverse environmental impacts in the 
form of increased energy use, and the tremendous additional cost 
associated with use of this technology, we determined that a standard 
based on use of thermal catalytic oxidation was not a viable beyond-
the-floor option. Since there is no other form of emission control or 
work practice to control formaldehyde emissions from indurating 
furnaces, the site-specific GCP documented in the operation and 
maintenance plan were also determined as the MACT floor for 
formaldehyde emissions from new indurating furnace sources.
    We further find that under CAA section 112(h)(1), it is not 
feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard for HAP because 
at-the-stack controls are not feasible (as explained earlier), and 
monitoring parameters related to GCP can only meaningfully result in 
minimization of PIC emissions if such monitoring parameters are 
quantified on a site-specific basis.
    Since it is not possible to identify any uniform requirements or 
set of work practices that would meaningfully reflect the use of GCP, 
the final rule requires each source to identify site-specific work 
practices for each indurating furnace and to document these GCP in an 
operation and maintenance plan in accordance with Sec.  63.9600 of the 
final rule. A GCP control strategy could include a number of combustion 
conditions and work practices which, applied collectively, promote good 
combustion performance and minimize the formation of formaldehyde/PIC 
emissions. Thus, the MACT requirement for these sources is to use GCP, 
and for each source to develop an operation and maintenance plan that 
details appropriate operating parameters for each of the following 
elements of GCP, or explains why such operating parameters are either 
inappropriate or unnecessary for the source (``inappropriate'' or 
``unnecessary'' to be determined by the degree to which PIC formation 
from fuel combustion in the furnace is minimized):
    [sbull] Proper operating conditions for each indurating furnace 
(e.g., minimum combustion temperature, maximum CO concentration in the 
furnace exhaust gases, burner alignment, or proper fuel-air 
distribution/mixing).
    [sbull] Routine inspection and preventative maintenance and 
corresponding schedules of each indurating furnace.
    [sbull] Performance analyses of each indurating furnace.
    [sbull] Keeping applicable operator logs.
    [sbull] Keeping applicable records to document compliance with each 
element.
    A source's compliance with its startup, shutdown, and malfunction 
plan also will contribute to GCP.
    A final determination that the values established in the operation 
and maintenance plan are appropriate GCP for the source would then be 
achieved by submitting the plan to the Administrator on or before the 
compliance date that is specified in Sec.  63.9583 of the final rule 
for the affected source. The operation and maintenance plan must 
explain why the chosen elements and work practices are considered GCP 
for the affected source. The quantified parameters (e.g., furnace 
operating temperature) contained in the plan become enforceable 
operating conditions unless and until the Administrator acts to 
establish new parameters.
    The Administrator will evaluate the demonstration and determine 
whether the chosen elements and work practices minimize the formation 
of formaldehyde (and other PIC) and so constitute GCP for the furnace. 
The Administrator will review the adequacy of the site-specific 
procedures and the records to demonstrate that the plan constitutes 
GCP. If the Administrator determines that any portion of the plan is 
not adequate, we can reject those portions of the plan and request 
additional information addressing the relevant issues.

[[Page 61884]]

    Finally, with respect to the commenter's point that EPA is 
obligated to establish MACT standards for formaldehyde, EPA has 
established such standards, based on GCP implemented by means of an 
operation and maintenance plan and site-specific determinations through 
the permitting process, as explained above.
HCl and HF
    Comment: One commenter stated that EPA has a clear statutory 
obligation to set emission standards for each listed HAP, including HCl 
and HF. The commenter asserted that, just because plants are achieving 
some incidental control of acid gases, it does not free EPA of its 
statutory obligation to set a specific emission limit for HCl and HF. 
Two commenters stated that EPA must set a standard for HCl and HF that 
reflects, at a minimum, the average emission level achieved by the five 
best performing plants. One commenter cited the National Lime opinion 
which states ``The CAA requires EPA to set MACT floors upon the average 
emission limitation achieved; it nowhere suggests that this achievement 
must be the product of specific intent.''
    One commenter stated that EPA's rejection of beyond-the-floor 
standards for HCl and HF is not logical when a technology is available 
and substantially reduces HAP. The commenter contended that available 
acid gas control technology would yield a far greater degree of 
reduction than is required by EPA's proposed standards, which require 
no reduction at all.
    Response: Acid gases (HCl and HF) are formed in the indurating 
furnace due to the presence of chlorides and fluorides in pellet 
additives, such as dolomite and limestone, as well as in the ore 
bodies. The taconite industry has not installed equipment specifically 
for the purpose of controlling acid gases from indurating furnace 
stacks, but, as the commenters correctly note, intent is irrelevant in 
determining HAP control (National Lime). What matters is the extent of 
control, where control in fact occurs. Test data for HCl and HF 
emissions were available from seven indurating furnaces at six taconite 
plants. Since most of the furnaces have multiple stacks, these tests 
represent emissions from fifteen control devices: 8 venturi scrubbers, 
2 multiclones, 3 dry ESP, and 2 wet ESP. These data show that, except 
for emissions from stacks controlled with multiclones, HCl and HF are 
emitted from indurating furnaces at very low concentrations, typically 
less than 3 ppm.
    Of the six plants for which HCl and HF test data were available, 
three plants conducted PM emissions tests concurrently with the HCl and 
HF tests. These tests represent emissions from 3 furnaces and 8 
emission control devices: 4 venturi scrubbers, 2 multiclones, and a dry 
ESP/wet ESP ducted together. An analysis of the HCl and HF emissions 
data and the corresponding PM emissions data indicates that, for this 
industry, there is a correlation between acid gas and PM emissions from 
control devices on indurating furnaces. Specifically, the data indicate 
that stacks with higher PM emissions also have higher acid gas 
emissions, and likewise, stacks with lower PM emissions have lower acid 
gas emissions (``Correlation of Acid Gas Emissions to PM Emissions for 
Taconite Indurating Furnaces,'' July 2003). Consistent with this 
correlation, the best performing sources for PM are also the best 
performing for acid gas emissions.
    There is an engineering basis for this correlation. Due to the 
strong affinity of acid gases for water, PM control equipment that uses 
water, such as wet scrubbers and wet ESP, has the capability of 
reducing HCl and HF emissions substantially. Therefore, wet scrubbers 
and wet ESP control technologies used for the reduction of PM emissions 
from taconite indurating furnaces to achieve the MACT level of control 
for HAP metals are expected to achieve a reduction of acid gas 
emissions as well. Standards requiring good control of PM emissions for 
this industry will also achieve control of acid gas emissions. For the 
taconite industry, PM emissions can be used as a surrogate for the acid 
gases emitted from taconite indurating furnaces. Therefore, we are 
establishing standards for total PM as a surrogate pollutant for the 
acid gases, HCl and HF. This finding is valid only for these taconite 
indurating furnace data; data for other industries may not show a 
correlation between acid gas emissions and PM emissions. Therefore, 
this finding should not be used as a precedent in other rulemakings.
    Establishing separate standards for acid gases would impose costly 
and significantly more-complex compliance and monitoring requirements. 
In addition, establishing separate standards for acid gases would 
achieve little, if any, HAP emissions reductions beyond what would be 
achieved using the total PM surrogate pollutant approach. Consequently, 
EPA has chosen to establish a standard for acid gases using the PM 
surrogate. Therefore, the MACT floor level of control for acid gases is 
equivalent to (and expressed as) the MACT floor level of 0.01 gr/dscf 
for PM.
    We then examined the beyond-the-floor option. The next increment of 
control beyond the floor is the installation of venturi scrubbers or 
dry ESP capable of meeting a PM concentration limit of 0.006 gr/dscf, 
which is equivalent to the level of PM control required for new 
furnaces. We estimate the additional capital cost of going from the 
MACT level of 0.01 gr/dscf for PM to 0.006 gr/dscf to be $99.7 million 
per year. We estimate the corresponding additional reduction in acid 
gases achieved by this PM level to be 112 tons of acid gases. The cost 
per ton of acid gas is $890,000/ton. The energy increase would be 
expected to be 53,436 mega-watt hours per year, primarily due to the 
energy requirements of new wet scrubbers and dry ESP. (Beyond-the-Floor 
Analysis for Acid Gases, July 2003). The high cost, the small reduction 
in HAP emissions, and the additional energy requirements do not justify 
this beyond-the-floor alternative for acid gases. Consequently, we 
chose the MACT floor level of control for PM of 0.01 gr/dscf as the 
existing indurating furnace MACT for acid gases. New source MACT for 
acid gases is equivalent to the PM new source MACT level of 0.006 gr/
dscf.
    By establishing a standard for acid gases, we have addressed the 
commenters' point that the Agency is legally obligated to do so.
PM as a Surrogate for Metallic HAP
    Comment: One commenter asserted that EPA cannot use a surrogate 
when doing so would result in regulations that do not include emission 
standards for each listed HAP or in standards that do not at least 
match the average emission level that the best sources achieve. The 
commenter pointed out that the Court has already held that the use of 
PM as a surrogate for non-mercury metals is not reasonable and, 
therefore, not lawful where factors other than PM control affect 
emissions of such metals (National Lime). The commenter reasoned that, 
since each plant's actual metallic HAP emission levels are influenced 
not just by PM control technology but also to a very large extent by 
the HAP metal content in the ore used, the use of PM as a surrogate for 
non-mercury metals is unlawful.
    The commenter stated that, in the past, EPA has recognized that it 
can set standards for groups of metals that behave similarly (for 
example, in the hazardous waste combustors rule). The commenter 
asserted that EPA has no basis for assuming that its only two options 
are either to set a PM standard for all HAP or to set individual 
emission standards for each HAP. The commenter

[[Page 61885]]

stated that EPA must explain why it cannot set emission standards for 
groupings of metals or for representative surrogate metals rather than 
just a PM standard.
    The commenter explained that the correlation of PM to any given 
metal varies with the volatility of the metal in question; therefore, 
EPA cannot assume that all the metals emitted by taconite plants will 
consistently behave as PM. The commenter stated that different PM 
control devices have different collection efficiencies for different 
metals. Therefore, the commenter stated that, even if all taconite 
plants had identical HAP metal input, EPA could not assume that any two 
plants have identical (or even similar) emission rates for any given 
metal.
    Two commenters supported using PM as a surrogate for total HAP 
emissions. The commenters stated that ``it is far more appropriate to 
use PM for total metal HAP than to attempt to specialty individual 
metal HAP. The earthen material that is processed is not necessarily 
identical in composition in each and every shovelful of material. It 
would be impossible to account for differences in individual HAP metal 
content for each load processed.''
    Response: We disagree with the first commenter; PM is a valid 
surrogate for the HAP metal compounds emitted from taconite iron ore 
processing plants. As indicated in the preamble to the proposed rule, 
metallic HAP are emitted from ore crushing and handling units, 
indurating furnaces, finished pellet handling units, and ore dryers. We 
determined that it is not practical to establish individual standards 
for each metallic HAP that could be present in the various processes 
(e.g., separate standards for manganese compound emissions, separate 
standards for lead compound emissions, and so forth for each metal 
compound group listed as HAP that is potentially present).
    A key parameter for the control of both semi-volatile and non-
volatile metal compounds is the operating temperature of the air 
pollution control device that is applied. At temperatures of 200 to 400 
[deg]F, the range typical of control devices applied to emissions from 
taconite indurating furnaces, any semi-volatile and non-volatile HAP 
metal compounds present, except elemental mercury, would exist in the 
form of fine PM and, therefore, would be controlled in direct 
relationship to PM. As a result, strong correlations exist between PM 
emissions and emissions of the individual metallic HAP compounds. 
Control technologies used for the reduction of PM emissions achieve 
comparable levels of reduction of metallic HAP emissions. Standards 
requiring good control of PM emissions will also achieve a similar 
level of control of metallic HAP emissions. Therefore, we are 
establishing standards for total PM as a surrogate pollutant for the 
individual metallic HAP. Establishing separate standards for each 
metallic HAP would impose costly and significantly more complex 
compliance and monitoring requirements. In addition, establishing 
separate standards for each metallic HAP would achieve little, if any, 
HAP emissions reductions beyond what would be achieved using the total 
PM surrogate pollutant approach.

IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts

    The environmental, energy, and economic impacts of the final rule 
are based on the replacement of poor performing controls at existing 
sources with new controls capable of meeting the emission limits 
established in the final rule. We did not estimate impacts for new 
sources since we do not project any new or reconstructed affected 
sources becoming subject to the new source MACT requirements in the 
foreseeable future. Specifically, we anticipate that two plants will 
install new impingement scrubbers on a total of 33 out of the 264 ore 
crushing and handling emission units to meet the PM emission limit. We 
expect that four plants will install new venturi-rod wet scrubbers or 
will upgrade existing wet scrubbers on at least one of their indurating 
furnaces. In total, we estimate that the existing controls will be 
replaced with new venturi-rod wet scrubbers on three of the 47 
indurating furnace stacks. We estimate that the existing controls will 
be upgraded with new components on eight of the 47 indurating furnace 
stacks. We anticipate that four plants will install new impingement 
scrubbers on a total of 11 out of the 82 finished pellet handling 
emission units to meet the finished pellet handling PM emission limit.

A. What Are the Air Emission Impacts?

    The installation of new controls and upgrades discussed in the 
preceding paragraph will result in reductions in emissions of metal 
HAP, acid gases, and PM. Overall, the final standards are expected to 
reduce HAP emissions by a total of 270 tpy, a reduction of about 43 
percent. Metallic HAP emissions will be reduced by 14 tpy (a 42 percent 
reduction) and acid gas emissions (HCl and HF) will be reduced by 256 
tpy (a 51 percent reduction). In addition, the final standards are 
expected to reduce PM emissions by 10,538 tpy, a reduction of about 62 
percent.

B. What Are the Cost Impacts?

    The total installed capital costs to the industry for the 
installation of control equipment are estimated to be $57 million. 
Total annualized costs are estimated at $9 million/yr, which includes 
$4.5 million/yr in capital recovery costs, $3.2 million/yr in emission 
control device operation and maintenance costs, and $0.9 million/yr for 
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting. These costs are based on the 
installation of new wet scrubbers on 33 ore crushing and handling 
units, three indurating furnace stacks, and 11 finished pellet handling 
units. The costs are also based on upgrading two wet scrubbers and six 
ESP for indurating furnaces. In addition, the estimate includes the 
cost of bag leak detection systems for baghouses, CPMS for scrubbers 
and wet ESP, and COMS for dry ESP.

C. What Are the Economic Impacts?

    We prepared an economic analysis to evaluate the impact the final 
rule will have on the producers and consumers of taconite and society 
as a whole. The taconite industry consists of eight companies owning 
eight mining operations, concentration plants, and pelletizing plants. 
The total annualized social cost of the final rule is $8.6 million (in 
2002 dollars), which is almost the same as the total annualized 
compliance cost. This cost is distributed among consumers (mainly steel 
mills) who may buy less and/or spend more on taconite iron ore as a 
result of the Taconite NESHAP, including merchant taconite producers 
that sell their output on the market, integrated iron and steel plants 
that produce and consume the taconite captively within the company, 
steel producers that use electric arc furnace (EAF) technology to 
produce steel from scrap, and foreign producers. Consumers incur $2.8 
million of the total social costs, merchant producers incur $3.7 
million in costs, and integrated iron and steel producers incur $4.5 
million in costs. The EAF producers and foreign producers enjoy a net 
gain in revenues of $1.1 million and $1.3 million, respectively.
    Our analysis indicates that the taconite iron ore market will 
experience minimal changes in the price and quantity of ore produced, 
and in the prices and quantities of steel mill products (some of which 
are produced using taconite). Prices in the taconite iron ore market 
are estimated to increase by 0.17 percent while production may decrease 
by 0.14 percent. The price of

[[Page 61886]]

steel mill products is projected to increase by less than 4/1000th of 1 
percent and the quantity produced is projected to change by less than 
3/1000th of 1 percent. The EAF steel producers who make steel from 
scrap rather than iron ore are projected to increase their output by 
approximately 15/100th of 1 percent in response to the slight increase 
in the price of steel mill products. While the market overall shows 
minimal impacts associated with the final rule, the financial stability 
of the firms operating in this market is very uncertain. The past few 
years have been a period of tremendous change in the iron and steel 
industry, during which more than 29 companies in the industry have 
declared bankruptcy, several plants have closed, and EAF technology has 
secured a growing share of the market. These changes have occurred due 
to evolving economic conditions, both domestically and abroad, and 
technological developments within the industry. Conditions continue to 
be challenging for iron and steel producers. In an assessment of the 
impacts on the companies owning taconite plants, we find the estimated 
costs of the final rule are uniformly less than 1 percent of baseline 
sales revenues, and typically less than 3 percent of baseline profits. 
However, four of the companies had negative operating income in 2002, a 
period of time during in which the entire Nation experienced lower than 
the historical average for economic activity. A number of companies 
owning taconite plants have filed for protection under Chapter 11 of 
the bankruptcy code since 2001. Thus, there is reason to be concerned 
about the financial condition of companies owning taconite plants. The 
incremental effect of the final rule on firm financial stability, 
however, is projected to be very small.
    We also prepared a sensitivity analysis that examined the regional 
impacts of the final rule. All the taconite production plants are 
located within four counties in Minnesota and one in Michigan. Thus, 
the impacts of the final rule are expected to be concentrated 
geographically. We modeled the supply and demand linkages of the 
various industries and households within each county to estimate 
changes that may occur in the region as the taconite industry complies 
with the final NESHAP. We estimate that as industries that interact 
with the taconite industry (such as construction and earth moving 
equipment industries) react to the changes in the taconite market, and 
as household incomes are reduced as a result of changes in all the 
various industries in the region, the impact of the final rule will add 
approximately $0.4 million in economic cost to the region. This 
represents approximately 2/100ths of 1 percent of total sales in those 
counties. Thus, even though the impacts are concentrated in only five 
counties, we believe that the impacts on those county economies will 
not be very large.
    For more information on these economic impacts, please refer to the 
economic impact analysis that is in the final rule docket (ID No. OAR-
2002-0039).

D. What Are the Non-Air Health, Environmental, and Energy Impacts?

    We project that the implementation of the final rule will increase 
water usage by 8 billion gallons per year industrywide. This increased 
water usage is expected to result from the installation of new wet 
scrubbers needed for compliance. Much of this water will be discharged 
as scrubber blowdown to the tailings basin(s) located at each plant. At 
two or more of the affected facilities, there is the potential that 
this increased wastewater burden will result in new or aggravated 
violations of permitted wastewater discharge limits from the tailings 
basins unless significant measures are taken to install new or upgrade 
existing wastewater treatment systems. The energy increase is expected 
to be 14,309 megawatt-hours per year, primarily due to the energy 
requirements of new wet scrubbers.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA 
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and, 
therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order 
defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to 
result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlement, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    It has been determined that the final rule is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866, and is, 
therefore, not subject to OMB review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in the final rule have been 
submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information requirements are not enforceable 
until OMB approves them.
    The information requirements are based on notification, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General 
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all 
operators subject to NESHAP. These recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements are specifically authorized by section 112 of the CAA (42 
U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA pursuant to the 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of 
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to Agency policies in 
40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    The final rule requires applicable one-time notifications required 
by the General Provisions for each affected source. As required by the 
NESHAP General Provisions, all plants must prepare and operate by a 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. Plants are also required to 
prepare an operation and maintenance plan for control devices subject 
to operating limits, a monitoring plan for baghouses and CPMS, a 
fugitive emissions control plan, and a performance testing plan. 
Records are required to demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
monitoring, operation, and maintenance requirements for control devices 
and monitoring systems. Semiannual compliance reports also are 
required. These reports must describe any deviation from the standards, 
any period a continuous monitoring system was ``out-of-control,'' or 
any startup, shutdown, or malfunction event where actions taken to 
respond were inconsistent with the startup, shutdown, and malfunction 
plan. If no deviation or other event occurred, only a summary report is 
required. Consistent with the General Provisions, if actions taken in 
response to a startup, shutdown, or malfunction event are not 
consistent with the plan, an immediate report must

[[Page 61887]]

be submitted within 2 days of the event with a letter report 7 days 
later.
    The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this 
collection of information (averaged over the first 3 years after 
October 30, 2003 is estimated to total 111 labor hours per year at a 
total annual cost of 920,722, including labor costs, monitoring 
equipment capital costs, and operation and maintenance costs. Total 
capital costs associated with the monitoring equipment is estimated at 
$4,576,955. The total annualized cost of the monitoring equipment is 
estimated at $392,751. This estimate includes the capital, operating, 
and maintenance costs associated with the installation and operation of 
the monitoring equipment.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to respond to a collection of information; search data 
sources; complete and review the collection of information; and 
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When this ICR is approved by 
OMB, the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in 
the Federal Register to display the OMB control number of the approved 
information collection requirements contained in the final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a 
regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with the final rule. The 
EPA has also determined that the final rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For purposes 
of assessing the impacts of today's final rule on small entities, small 
entity is defined as: a small business according to the U.S. Small 
Business Administration (SBA) size standards for NAICS code 21221 
(Taconite Iron Ore Processing Facilities) of 500 or fewer employees; 
(2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, 
county, town, school district or special district with a population of 
less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not 
dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on 
small entities, EPA has concluded that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Based on the SBA size category for this source category, no small 
businesses are subject to the final rule and its requirements.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least-burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the final rule. The provisions of 
section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable 
law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other 
than the least-costly, most cost-effective, or least-burdensome 
alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an 
explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA 
establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it 
must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government 
agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected 
small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to 
have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory 
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and 
informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with 
the regulatory requirements.
    Today's final rule contains no Federal mandate (under the 
regulatory provisions of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal 
governments. The EPA has determined that the final rule does not 
contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 
million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or the private sector of $100 million or more in any 1 year. 
Thus, the final rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 
and 205 of the UMRA. The EPA has also determined that the final rule 
contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments. Thus, today's final rule is not 
subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) requires EPA 
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely 
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have 
federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include 
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on 
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels 
of government.''
    The final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not 
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. None of the affected facilities 
are owned or operated by State governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 
does not apply to the final rule.

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

    Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) requires EPA 
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely 
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies 
that have tribal implications.''
    The final rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on 
tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government 
and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the Federal

[[Page 61888]]

government and Indian tribes. No tribal governments own facilities 
subject to the Taconite NESHAP. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 
apply to the final rule.

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

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant,'' as 
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental 
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety 
effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the planned 
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably 
feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those 
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that 
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has 
the potential to influence the regulation. The final rule is not 
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based on control 
technology and not on health or safety risks.

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Public Law No. 104-113; 15 U.S.C. 272 note) 
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory 
and procurement activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, business practices) developed or adopted by one or 
more voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide 
Congress, through annual reports to OMB, with explanations when an 
agency does not use available and applicable voluntary consensus 
standards.
    The final rule involves technical standards. The EPA cites the 
following standards in the final rule: EPA Methods 1, 2, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 
3B, 4, 5, and 17. Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to 
identify voluntary consensus standards in addition to these EPA 
methods. No applicable voluntary consensus standards were identified 
for EPA Methods 2F and 2G, and none were brought to our attention in 
comments.
    The voluntary consensus standard ASME PTC 19-10-1981--Part 10, 
``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' is cited in the final rule for its 
manual method for measuring the oxygen, carbon dioxide, and carbon 
monoxide content of exhaust gas. This part of ASME PTC 19-10-1981--Part 
10 is an acceptable alternative to Method 3B.
    The search for emissions measurement procedures identified 14 
voluntary consensus standards. The EPA determined that 12 of these 14 
standards identified for measuring emissions of the HAP or surrogates 
subject to emission standards in the final rule were impractical 
alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of the final rule. 
Therefore, EPA does not intend to adopt these standards for this 
purpose. The reasons for this determination for the 12 methods are 
available in the docket.
    Two of the 14 voluntary consensus standards identified in this 
search were not available at the time the review was conducted for the 
purposes of the final rule because they are under development by a 
voluntary consensus body: ASME/BSR MFC 13M, ``Flow Measurement by 
Velocity Traverse,'' for EPA Method 2 (and possibly 1); and ASME/BSR 
MFC 12M, ``Flow in Closed Conduits Using Multiport Averaging Pitot 
Primary Flowmeters,'' for EPA Method 2.
    Sections 63.9621 and 63.9622 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRRR, list 
EPA testing methods included in the final rule. Under Sec. Sec.  
63.7(f) and 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General Provisions, a source 
may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative test methods or 
alternative monitoring requirements in place of any EPA testing 
methods, performance specifications, or procedures.

J. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996, generally provides 
that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule 
must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each 
House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United 
States. The EPA will submit a report containing the final rule and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. The final 
rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: August 25, 2003.
Marianne Lamont Horinko,
Acting Administrator.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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


0
2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart RRRRR to read as follows:

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

Sec.

What This Subpart Covers

63.9580 What is the purpose of this subpart?
63.9581 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.9582 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
63.9583 When do I have to comply with this subpart?

Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards

63.9590 What emission limitations must I meet?
63.9591 What work practice standards must I meet?

Operation and Maintenance Requirements

63.9600 What are my operation and maintenance requirements?

General Compliance Requirements

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

Initial Compliance Requirements

63.9620 On which units and by what date must I conduct performance 
tests or other initial compliance demonstrations?
63.9621 What test methods and other procedures must I use to 
demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits for 
particulate matter?

[[Page 61889]]

63.9622 What test methods and other procedures must I use to 
establish and demonstrate initial compliance with the operating 
limits?
63.9623 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission 
limitations that apply to me?
63.9624 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the work 
practice standards that apply to me?
63.9625 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the operation 
and maintenance requirements that apply to me?

Continuous Compliance Requirements

63.9630 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?
63.9631 What are my monitoring requirements?
63.9632 What are the installation, operation, and maintenance 
requirements for my monitoring equipment?
63.9633 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous 
compliance?
63.9634 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission 
limitations that apply to me?
63.9635 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the work 
practice standards that apply to me?
63.9636 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
operation and maintenance requirements that apply to me?
63.9637 What other requirements must I meet to demonstrate 
continuous compliance?

Notifications, Reports, and Records

63.9640 What notifications must I submit and when?
63.9641 What reports must I submit and when?
63.9642 What records must I keep?
63.9643 In what form and how long must I keep my records?

Other Requirements and Information

63.9650 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
63.9651 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
63.9652 What definitions apply to this subpart?

Tables to Subpart RRRRR of Part 63

Table 1 to Subpart RRRRR of Part 63--Emission Limits
Table 2 to Subpart RRRRR of Part 63--Applicability of General 
Provisions to Subpart RRRRR of Part 63

What This Subpart Covers


Sec.  63.9580  What is the purpose of this subpart?

    This subpart establishes national emission standards for hazardous 
air pollutants (NESHAP) for taconite iron ore processing. This subpart 
also establishes requirements to demonstrate initial and continuous 
compliance with all applicable emission limitations (emission limits 
and operating limits), work practice standards, and operation and 
maintenance requirements in this subpart.


Sec.  63.9581  Am I subject to this subpart?

    You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a taconite 
iron ore processing plant that is (or is part of) a major source of 
hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions on the first compliance date 
that applies to you. Your taconite iron ore processing plant is a major 
source of HAP if it emits or has the potential to emit any single HAP 
at a rate of 10 tons or more per year or any combination of HAP at a 
rate of 25 tons or more per year.


Sec.  63.9582  What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

    (a) This subpart applies to each new and existing affected source 
at your taconite iron ore processing plant.
    (b) The affected sources are each new or existing ore crushing and 
handling operation, ore dryer, indurating furnace, and finished pellet 
handling operation at your taconite iron ore processing plant, as 
defined in Sec.  63.9652.
    (c) This subpart covers emissions from ore crushing and handling 
emission units, ore dryer stacks, indurating furnace stacks, finished 
pellet handling emission units, and fugitive dust emissions.
    (d) An ore crushing and handling operation, ore dryer, indurating 
furnace, or finished pellet handling operation at your taconite iron 
ore processing plant is existing if you commenced construction or 
reconstruction of the affected source before December 18, 2002.
    (e) An ore crushing and handling operation, ore dryer, indurating 
furnace, or finished pellet handling operation at your taconite iron 
ore processing plant is new if you commence construction or 
reconstruction of the affected source on or after December 18, 2002. An 
affected source is reconstructed if it meets the definition of 
reconstruction in Sec.  63.2.


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

    (a) If you have an existing affected source, 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.
    (b) If you have a new affected source 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.
    (c) If you have a new 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.
    (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.
    (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.
    (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.

Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards


Sec.  63.9590  What emission limitations must I meet?

    (a) You must meet each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart 
that applies to you.
    (b) You must meet each operating limit for control devices in 
paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section that applies to you.
    (1) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, for 
each wet scrubber applied to meet any particulate matter emission limit 
in Table 1 to this subpart, you must maintain the daily average 
pressure drop and daily average scrubber water flow rate at or above 
the minimum levels established during the initial performance test.
    (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 either the daily average fan 
amperage (a surrogate for fan speed as revolutions per minute) or the 
daily average pressure drop at or above the minimum levels established 
during the initial performance test.
    (3) For each dry electrostatic precipitator applied to meet any 
particulate matter emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart, you must 
meet the operating limits in paragraph (b)(3)(i) or (ii) of this 
section.
    (i) Maintain the 6-minute average opacity of emissions exiting the 
control device stack at or below the level

[[Page 61890]]

established during the initial performance test.
    (ii) Maintain the daily average secondary voltage and daily average 
secondary current for each field at or above the minimum levels 
established during the initial performance test.
    (4) For each wet electrostatic precipitator applied to meet any 
particulate matter emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart, you must 
meet the operating limits in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) through (iii) of this 
section.
    (i) Maintain the daily average secondary voltage for each field at 
or above the minimum levels established during the initial performance 
test.
    (ii) Maintain the daily average stack outlet temperature at or 
below the maximum levels established during the initial performance 
test.
    (iii) Maintain the daily average water flow rate at or above the 
minimum levels established during the initial performance test.
    (5) If you use any air pollution control device other than a 
baghouse, wet scrubber, dynamic scrubber, dry electrostatic 
precipitator, or wet electrostatic precipitator, you must submit a 
site-specific monitoring plan in accordance with Sec.  63.9631(f).
    (c) You may petition the Administrator for approval of alternatives 
to the monitoring requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this 
section as allowed under Sec.  63.8(f) and as defined in Sec.  63.90.


Sec.  63.9591  What work practice standards must I meet?

    (a) You must prepare, and at all times operate according to, a 
fugitive dust emissions control plan that describes in detail the 
measures that will be put in place to control fugitive dust emissions 
from the locations listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this 
section.
    (1) Stockpiles (includes, but is not limited to, stockpiles of 
uncrushed ore, crushed ore, or finished pellets);
    (2) Material transfer points;
    (3) Plant roadways;
    (4) Tailings basin;
    (5) Pellet loading areas; and
    (6) Yard areas.
    (b) A copy of your fugitive dust emissions control plan must be 
submitted for approval to the Administrator on or before the applicable 
compliance date for the affected source as specified in Sec.  63.9583. 
The requirement for the plant to operate according to the fugitive dust 
emissions control plan must be incorporated by reference in the 
operating permit for the plant that is issued by the designated 
permitting authority under 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71.
    (c) You can use an existing fugitive dust emissions control plan 
provided it meets the requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of 
this section.
    (1) The plan satisfies the requirements of paragraph (a) of this 
section.
    (2) The plan describes the current measures to control fugitive 
dust emission sources.
    (3) The plan has been approved as part of a State implementation 
plan or title V permit.
    (d) You must maintain a current copy of the fugitive dust emissions 
control plan onsite, and it must be available for inspection upon 
request. You must keep the plan for the life of the affected source or 
until the affected source is no longer subject to the requirements of 
this subpart.

Operation and Maintenance Requirements


Sec.  63.9600  What are my operation and maintenance requirements?

    (a) As required by Sec.  63.6(e)(1)(i), you must always operate and 
maintain your affected source, including air pollution control and 
monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with good air pollution 
control practices for minimizing emissions at least to the levels 
required by this subpart.
    (b) You must prepare, and at all times operate according to, a 
written operation and maintenance plan for each control device applied 
to meet any particulate matter emission limit in Table 1 to this 
subpart and to meet the requirement of each indurating furnace subject 
to good combustion practices (GCP). Each site-specific operation and 
maintenance plan must be submitted to the Administrator on or before 
the compliance date that is specified in Sec.  63.9583 for your 
affected source. The plan you submit must explain why the chosen 
practices (i.e., quantified objectives) are effective in performing 
corrective actions or GCP in minimizing the formation of formaldehyde 
(and other products of incomplete combustion). The Administrator will 
review the adequacy of the site-specific practices and objectives you 
will follow and the records you will keep to demonstrate compliance 
with your Plan. If the Administrator determines that any portion of 
your operation and maintenance plan is not adequate, we can reject 
those portions of the plan, and request that you provide additional 
information addressing the relevant issues. In the interim of this 
process, you will continue to follow your current site-specific 
practices and objectives, as submitted, until your revisions are 
accepted as adequate by the Administrator. You must maintain a current 
copy of the operation and maintenance plan onsite, and it must be 
available for inspection upon request. You must keep the plan for the 
life of the affected source or until the affected source is no longer 
subject to the requirements of this subpart. Each operation and 
maintenance plan must address the elements in paragraphs (b)(1) through 
(4) of this section.
    (1) Preventative maintenance for each control device, including a 
preventative maintenance schedule that is consistent with the 
manufacturer's instructions for routine and long-term maintenance.
    (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. Corrective actions may include, but are 
not limited to, the actions listed in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (vi) 
of this section.
    (i) Inspecting the baghouse for air leaks, torn or broken bags or 
filter media, or any other condition that may cause an increase in 
emissions.
    (ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter media.
    (iii) Replacing defective bags or filter media or otherwise 
repairing the control device.
    (iv) Sealing off a defective baghouse compartment.
    (v) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe, or otherwise 
repairing the bag leak detection system.
    (vi) Adjusting the process operation producing the particulate 
emissions.
    (3) Corrective action procedures for continuous parameter 
monitoring systems (CPMS) for all air pollution control devices except 
for baghouses. In the event you exceed an established operating limit 
for an air pollution control device except for a baghouse, you must 
initiate corrective action to determine the cause of the operating 
limit exceedance and complete the corrective action within 10 calendar 
days. The corrective action procedures you take must be consistent with 
the installation, operation, and maintenance procedures listed in your 
site-specific CPMS monitoring plan in accordance with Sec.  63.9632(b).
    (4) Good combustion practices for indurating furnaces. You must 
identify and implement a set of site-specific GCP for each type of 
indurating furnace at your plant. These GCP should correspond to your 
standard operating procedures for maintaining the proper

[[Page 61891]]

and efficient combustion within each indurating furnace. Good 
combustion practices include, but are not limited to, the elements 
listed in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) through (v) of this section.
    (i) Proper operating conditions for each indurating furnace (e.g., 
minimum combustion temperature, maximum carbon monoxide concentration 
in the furnace exhaust gases, burner alignment, or proper fuel-air 
distribution/mixing).
    (ii) Routine inspection and preventative maintenance and 
corresponding schedules of each indurating furnace.
    (iii) Performance analyses of each indurating furnace.
    (iv) Keeping applicable operator logs.
    (v) Keeping applicable records to document compliance with each 
element.

General Compliance Requirements


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) in this section at all times, except during periods 
of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. The terms startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction are defined in Sec.  63.2.
    (1) The emission limitations in Sec.  63.9590.
    (2) The work practice standards in Sec.  63.9591.
    (3) The operation and maintenance requirements in Sec.  63.9600.
    (4) The notification requirements in Sec.  63.9640.
    (5) The reporting requirements in Sec.  63.9641.
    (6) The recordkeeping requirements in Sec.  63.9642.
    (b) During the period between the compliance date specified for 
your affected source in Sec.  63.9583 and the date upon which 
continuous monitoring systems have been installed and certified and any 
applicable operating limits have been set, you must maintain a log 
detailing the operation and maintenance of the process and emissions 
control equipment. This includes the daily monitoring and recordkeeping 
of air pollution control device operating parameters as specified in 
Sec.  63.9590(b).
    (c) You must develop and implement a written startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan according to the provisions in Sec.  63.6(e)(3).

Initial Compliance Requirements


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

    (a) For each ore crushing and handling affected source, you must 
demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits in Table 1 to 
this subpart by conducting an initial performance test for particulate 
matter as specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, an initial 
performance test must be performed on all stacks associated with ore 
crushing and handling.
    (2) Initial performance tests must be completed no later than 180 
calendar days after the compliance date specified in Sec.  63.9583. 
Performance tests conducted between October 30, 2003 and no later than 
180 days after the corresponding compliance date can be used for 
initial compliance demonstration, provided the tests meet the initial 
performance testing requirements of this subpart.
    (b) For each indurating furnace affected source, you must 
demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits in Table 1 to 
this subpart by conducting an initial performance test for particulate 
matter as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) An initial performance test must be performed on all stacks 
associated with each indurating furnace.
    (2) Initial performance tests must be completed no later than 180 
calendar days after the compliance date specified in Sec.  63.9583. 
Performance tests conducted between October 30, 2003 and no later than 
180 days after the corresponding compliance date can be used for 
initial compliance demonstration, provided the tests meet the initial 
performance testing requirements of this subpart. For indurating 
furnaces with multiple stacks, the performance tests for all stacks 
must be completed within a reasonable period of time, such that the 
indurating furnace operating characteristics remain representative for 
the duration of the stack tests.
    (c) For each finished pellet handling affected source, you must 
demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits in Table 1 to 
this subpart by conducting an initial performance test for particulate 
matter as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, an initial 
performance test must be performed on all stacks associated with 
finished pellet handling.
    (2) Initial performance tests must be completed no later than 180 
calendar days after the compliance date specified in Sec.  63.9583. 
Performance tests conducted between October 30, 2003 and no later than 
180 days after the corresponding compliance date can be used for 
initial compliance demonstration, provided the tests meet the initial 
compliance testing requirements of this subpart.
    (d) For each ore dryer affected source, you must demonstrate 
initial compliance with the emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart 
by conducting an initial performance test for particulate matter as 
specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) An initial performance test must be performed on all stacks 
associated with each ore dryer.
    (2) Initial performance tests must be completed no later than 180 
calendar days after the compliance date specified in Sec.  63.9583. 
Performance tests conducted between October 30, 2003 and no later than 
180 days after the corresponding compliance date can be used for 
initial compliance demonstration, provided the tests meet the initial 
compliance testing requirements of this subpart. For ore dryers with 
multiple stacks, the performance tests for all stacks must be completed 
within a reasonable period of time, such that the ore dryer operating 
characteristics remain representative for the duration of the stack 
tests.
    (e) For ore crushing and handling affected sources and finished 
pellet handling affected sources, in lieu of conducting initial 
performance tests for particulate matter on all stacks, you may elect 
to group a maximum of six similar emission units together and conduct 
an initial compliance test on one representative emission unit within 
each group of similar emission units. The determination of whether 
emission units are similar must meet the criteria in paragraph (f) of 
this section. If you decide to test representative emission units, you 
must prepare and submit a testing plan as described in paragraph (g) of 
this section.
    (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) through 
(3) of this section.
    (1) All emission units within a group must be of the same process 
type (e.g., primary crushers, secondary crushers, tertiary crushers, 
fine crushers, ore conveyors, ore bins, ore screens, grate feed, pellet 
loadout, hearth layer, cooling stacks, pellet conveyor, and pellet 
screens). You cannot group

[[Page 61892]]

emission units from different process types together for the purposes 
of this section.
    (2) All emission units within a group must also have the same type 
of air pollution control device (e.g., wet scrubbers, dynamic wet 
scrubbers, rotoclones, multiclones, wet and dry electrostatic 
precipitators, and baghouses). You cannot group emission units with 
different air pollution control device types together for the purposes 
of this section.
    (3) 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.
    (g) If you plan to conduct initial performance tests on 
representative emission units within an ore crushing and handling 
affected source or a finished pellet handling affected source, you must 
submit a testing plan for initial performance tests. This testing plan 
must be submitted to the Administrator or delegated authority no later 
than 90 days prior to the first scheduled initial performance test. The 
testing plan must contain the information specified in paragraphs 
(g)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) A list of all emission units. This list must clearly identify 
all emission units that have been grouped together as similar emission 
units. Within each group of emission units, you must identify the 
emission unit that will be the representative unit for that group and 
subject to initial performance testing.
    (2) A list of the process type and type of air pollution control 
device on each emission unit.
    (3) A schedule indicating when you will conduct an initial 
performance test for particulate matter for each representative 
emission unit.
    (h) For each work practice standard and operation and maintenance 
requirement that applies to you where initial compliance is not 
demonstrated using a performance test, you must demonstrate initial 
compliance within 30 calendar days after the compliance date that is 
specified for your affected source in Sec.  63.9583.
    (i) If you commenced construction or reconstruction of an affected 
source between December 18, 2002 and October 30, 2003 , you must 
demonstrate initial compliance with either the proposed emission limit 
or the promulgated emission limit no later than 180 calendar days after 
October 30, 2003 or no later than 180 calendar days after startup of 
the source, whichever is later, according to Sec.  63.7(a)(2)(ix).
    (j) If you commenced construction or reconstruction of an affected 
source between December 18, 2002 and October 30, 2003, and you chose to 
comply with the proposed emission limit when demonstrating initial 
compliance, you must conduct a second performance test to demonstrate 
compliance with the promulgated emission limit by 3 years and 180 
calendar days after October 30, 2003, or after startup of the source, 
whichever is later, according to Sec.  63.7(a)(2)(ix).


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 according to the requirements in Sec.  63.7(e)(1) and 
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
    (b) For each ore crushing and handling affected source and each 
finished pellet handling affected source, you must determine compliance 
with the applicable emission limit for particulate matter in Table 1 to 
this subpart by following the test methods and procedures in paragraphs 
(b)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (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 in appendix A to part 60 of this 
chapter. The applicable test methods are listed in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) 
through (v) of this section.
    (i) Method 1 or 1A 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, 2F, or 2G, as applicable, to determine 
the volumetric flow rate of the stack gas.
    (iii) Method 3, 3A, or 3B to determine the dry molecular weight of 
the stack gas.
    (iv) Method 4 to determine the moisture content of the stack gas.
    (v) Method 5, 5D, or 17 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 2 hours. 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] TR30OC03.000

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.

    (3) For each ore crushing and handling affected source and each 
finished pellet handling affected source, you must determine the flow-
weighted mean concentration of particulate matter emissions from all 
emission units in each affected source following the procedure in 
paragraph (b)(3)(i) or (ii) of this section.
    (i) If an initial performance test is conducted on all emission 
units within an affected source, calculate the flow-weighted mean 
concentration of particulate matter emissions from the affected source 
using Equation 2 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30OC03.001

Where:

Ca = Flow-weighted mean concentration of particulate 
matter for all emission units within affected source, (gr/dscf);
Ci = Average particulate matter concentration measured 
during the performance test from emission unit ``i'' in affected 
source, as determined using Equation 1 of this section, gr/dscf;
Qi = Average volumetric flow rate of stack gas measured 
during the performance test from emission unit ``i'' in affected 
source, dscf/hr; and
n = Number of emission units in affected source.

    (ii) If you are grouping similar emission units together in 
accordance with Sec.  63.9620(e), you must follow the procedures in 
paragraphs (b)(3)(ii)(A) through (C) of this section.
    (A) Assign the average particulate matter concentration measured 
from the representative unit, as determined from Equation 1 of this 
section, to each emission unit within the corresponding group of 
similar units.
    (B) Establish the maximum operating volumetric flow rate of exhaust 
gas from each emission unit within each group of similar units.
    (C) Using the data from paragraphs (b)(3)(ii)(A) and (B) of this 
section, calculate the flow-weighted mean concentration of particulate 
matter

[[Page 61893]]

emissions from the affected source using Equation 3 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30OC03.002

Where:

Ca = Flow-weighted mean concentration of particulate 
matter for all emission units within affected source, gr/dscf;
Ck = Average particulate matter concentration measured 
during the performance test from the representative emission unit in 
group ``k'' of affected source ``a,'' as determined using Equation 1 
of this section, gr/dscf;
Qk = Sum of the maximum operating volumetric flow rates 
of stack gas from all similar emission units within group ``k'' of 
affected source, dscf/hr; and
m = Number of similar emission unit groups in affected source.

    (c) For each ore dryer affected source and each indurating furnace 
affected source, you must determine compliance with the applicable 
emission limit for particulate matter in Table 1 to this subpart by 
following the test methods and procedures in paragraphs (c)(1) through 
(3) of this section.
    (1) Determine the concentration of particulate matter for each 
stack according to the test methods in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. The 
applicable test methods are listed in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (v) 
of this section.
    (i) Method 1 or 1A 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, 2F, or 2G, as applicable, to determine 
the volumetric flow rate of the stack gas.
    (iii) Method 3, 3A, or 3B to determine the dry molecular weight of 
the stack gas.
    (iv) Method 4 to determine the moisture content of the stack gas.
    (v) Method 5, 5D, or 17 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 2 hours. The 
average particulate matter concentration from the three runs will be 
used to determine compliance, as shown in Equation 1 of this section.
    (3) For each ore dryer and each indurating furnace with multiple 
stacks, calculate the flow-weighted mean concentration of particulate 
matter emissions using Equation 4 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30OC03.003

Where:

Cb = Flow-weighted mean concentration of particulate 
matter for all stacks associated with affected source, gr/dscf;
Cj = Average particulate matter concentration measured 
during the performance test from stack ``j'' in affected source, as 
determined using Equation 1 of this section, gr/dscf;
Qj = Average volumetric flow rate of stack gas measured 
during the performance test from stack ``j'' in affected source, 
dscf/hr;
n = Number of stacks associated with affected source.

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

    (a) For wet scrubbers subject to performance testing in Sec.  
63.9620 and operating limits for pressure drop and scrubber water flow 
rate in Sec.  63.9590(b)(1), you must establish site-specific operating 
limits according to the procedures in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of 
this section.
    (1) Using the CPMS required in Sec.  63.9631(b), measure and record 
the pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate every 15 minutes during 
each run of the particulate matter performance test.
    (2) Calculate and record the average pressure drop and scrubber 
water flow rate for each individual test run. Your operating limits are 
established as the lowest average pressure drop and the lowest average 
scrubber water flow rate corresponding to any of the three test runs.
    (3) If a rod-deck venturi scrubber is applied to an indurating 
furnace to meet any particulate matter emission limit in Table 1 to 
this subpart, you may establish a lower average pressure drop operating 
limit by using historical average pressure drop data from a certified 
performance test completed on or after December 18, 2002 instead of 
using the average pressure drop value determined during the initial 
performance test, as specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. If 
historical average pressure drop data are used to establish an 
operating limit (i.e., using data from a certified performance test 
conducted prior to the promulgation date of the final rule), then the 
average particulate matter concentration corresponding to the 
historical performance test must be at or below the applicable 
indurating furnace emission limit, as listed in Table 1 to this 
subpart.
    (b) For dynamic wet scrubbers subject to performance testing in 
Sec.  63.9620 and operating limits for scrubber water flow rate and 
either fan amperage or pressure drop 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 either the fan amperage or pressure 
drop every 15 minutes during each run of the particulate matter 
performance test.
    (2) Calculate and record the average scrubber water flow rate and 
either the average fan amperage or average pressure drop for each 
individual test run. Your operating limits are established as the 
lowest average scrubber water flow rate and either the lowest average 
fan amperage or pressure drop value corresponding to any of the three 
test runs.
    (c) For a dry electrostatic precipitator subject to performance 
testing in Sec.  63.9620 and operating limits in Sec.  63.9590(b)(3), 
you must establish a site-specific operating limit according to the 
procedures in paragraphs (c)(1) or (2) of this section.
    (1) If the operating limit for your dry electrostatic precipitator 
is a 6-minute average opacity of emissions value, then you must follow 
the requirements in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) Using the continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) required 
in Sec.  63.9631(d)(1), measure and record the opacity of emissions 
from each control device stack during the particulate matter 
performance test.
    (ii) Compute and record the 6-minute opacity averages from 24 or 
more data points equally spaced over each 6-minute period (e.g., at 15-
second intervals) during the test runs.
    (iii) Using the opacity measurements from a performance test that 
meets the emission limit, determine the opacity value corresponding to 
the 99 percent upper confidence level of a normal distribution of the 
6-minute opacity averages.
    (2) If the operating limit for your dry electrostatic precipitator 
is the daily average secondary voltage and daily average secondary 
current for each field, then you must follow the requirements in 
paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section.
    (i) Using the CPMS required in Sec.  63.9631(d)(2), measure and 
record the secondary voltage and secondary current for each dry 
electrostatic precipitator field every 15 minutes during each run of 
the particulate matter performance test.

[[Page 61894]]

    (ii) Calculate and record the average secondary voltage and 
secondary current for each dry electrostatic precipitator field for 
each individual test run. Your operating limits are established as the 
lowest average secondary voltage and secondary current value for each 
dry electrostatic precipitator field corresponding to any of the three 
test runs.
    (d) For a wet electrostatic precipitator subject to performance 
testing in Sec.  63.9620 and operating limit in Sec.  63.9590(b)(4), 
you must establish a site-specific operating limit according to the 
procedures in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) Using the CPMS required in Sec.  63.9631(e), measure and record 
the parametric values in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (iii) of this 
section for each wet electrostatic precipitator field every 15 minutes 
during each run of the particulate matter performance test.
    (i) Secondary voltage;
    (ii) Water flow rate; and
    (iii) Stack outlet temperature.
    (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 corresponding to any of the three test runs.
    (e) If you use an air pollution control device other than a wet 
scrubber, dynamic wet scrubber, dry electrostatic precipitator, wet 
electrostatic precipitator, or baghouse, and it is subject to 
performance testing in Sec.  63.9620, you must submit a site-specific 
monitoring plan in accordance with Sec.  63.9631(f). The site-specific 
monitoring plan must include the site-specific procedures for 
demonstrating initial and continuous compliance with the corresponding 
operating limits.
    (f) You may change the operating limits for any air pollution 
control device as long as you meet the requirements in paragraphs 
(f)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Submit a written notification to the Administrator of your 
request to conduct a new performance test to revise the operating 
limit.
    (2) Conduct a performance test to demonstrate compliance with the 
applicable emission limitation in Table 1 to this subpart.
    (3) Establish revised operating limits according to the applicable 
procedures in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section.


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

    (a) For each affected source subject to an emission limit in Table 
1 to this subpart, you must demonstrate initial compliance by meeting 
the emission limit requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of 
this section.
    (1) For ore crushing and handling, the flow-weighted mean 
concentration of particulate matter, determined according to the 
procedures in Sec. Sec.  63.9620(a) and 63.9621(b), must not exceed the 
emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart.
    (2) For indurating furnaces, the flow-weighted mean concentration 
of particulate matter, determined according to the procedures in 
Sec. Sec.  63.9620(b) and 63.9621(c), must not exceed the emission 
limits in Table 1 to this subpart.
    (3) For finished pellet handling, the flow-weighted mean 
concentration of particulate matter, determined according to the 
procedures in Sec. Sec.  63.9620(c) and 63.9621(b), must not exceed the 
emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart.
    (4) For ore dryers, the flow-weighted mean concentration of 
particulate matter, determined according to the procedures in 
Sec. Sec.  63.9620(d) and 63.9621(c), must not exceed the emission 
limits in Table 1 to this subpart.
    (b) For each affected source subject to an emission limit in Table 
1 to this subpart, you must demonstrate initial compliance by meeting 
the operating limit requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of 
this section.
    (1) For each wet scrubber subject to performance testing in Sec.  
63.9620 and operating limits for pressure drop and scrubber water flow 
rate in Sec.  63.9590(b)(1), you have established appropriate site-
specific operating limits and have a record of the pressure drop and 
scrubber water flow rate measured during the performance test in 
accordance with Sec.  63.9622(a).
    (2) For each dynamic wet scrubber subject to performance testing in 
Sec.  63.9620 and operating limits for scrubber water flow rate and 
either fan amperage or pressure drop 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 either the fan amperage or 
pressure drop value, measured during the performance test in accordance 
with Sec.  63.9622(b).
    (3) For each dry electrostatic precipitator subject to performance 
testing in Sec.  63.9620 and one of the operating limits in Sec.  
63.9590(b)(3), you must meet the requirements in paragraph (b)(3)(i) or 
(ii) of this section.
    (i) If you are subject to the operating limit for opacity in Sec.  
63.9590(b)(3)(i), you have established appropriate site-specific 
operating limits and have a record of the opacity measured during the 
performance test in accordance with Sec.  63.9622(c)(1).
    (ii) If you are subject to the operating limit for secondary 
voltage and secondary current in Sec.  63.9590(b)(3)(ii), you have 
established appropriate site-specific operating limits and have a 
record of the secondary voltage and secondary current measured during 
the performance test in accordance with Sec.  63.9622(c)(2).
    (4) For each wet electrostatic precipitator subject to performance 
testing in Sec.  63.9620 and operating limits for secondary voltage, 
water flow rate, and stack outlet temperature in Sec.  63.9590(b)(4), 
you have established appropriate site-specific operating limits and 
have a record of the secondary voltage, water flow rate, and stack 
outlet temperature measured during the performance test in accordance 
with Sec.  63.9622(d).
    (5) For other air pollution control devices subject to performance 
testing in Sec.  63.9620 and operating limits in accordance with Sec.  
63.9590(b)(5), you have submitted a site-specific monitoring plan in 
accordance with Sec.  63.9631(f) and have a record of the site-specific 
operating limits as measured during the performance test in accordance 
with Sec.  63.9622(e).
    (c) For each emission limitation and operating limit that applies 
to you, you must submit a notification of compliance status according 
to Sec.  63.9640(e).


Sec.  63.9624  How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the work 
practice standards that apply to me?

    You must demonstrate initial compliance with the work practice 
standards by meeting the requirements in paragraphs (a) through (c) of 
this section.
    (a) You must prepare a fugitive dust emissions control plan in 
accordance with the requirements in Sec.  63.9591.
    (b) You must submit to the Administrator the fugitive dust 
emissions control plan in accordance with the requirements in Sec.  
63.9591.
    (c) You must implement each control practice according to the 
procedures specified in your fugitive dust emissions control plan.

[[Page 61895]]

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 if you 
meet all of the requirements in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this 
section.
    (a) You have prepared the operation and maintenance plan for air 
pollution control devices in accordance with Sec.  63.9600(b).
    (b) You have operated each air pollution control device according 
to the procedures in the operation and maintenance plan.
    (c) You have submitted a notification of compliance status 
according to the requirements in Sec.  63.9640(e).
    (d) You have prepared a site-specific monitoring plan in accordance 
with Sec.  63.9632(b).

Continuous Compliance Requirements


Sec.  63.9630  When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?

    (a) You must conduct subsequent performance tests to demonstrate 
continued compliance with the ore crushing and handling emission limits 
in Table 1 to this subpart according to the schedule developed by your 
permitting authority and shown in your title V permit. If a title V 
permit has not been issued, you must submit a testing plan and 
schedule, containing the information specified in paragraph (e) of this 
section, to the permitting authority for approval.
    (b) You must conduct subsequent performance tests on all stacks 
associated with indurating furnaces to demonstrate continued compliance 
with the indurating furnace emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart 
according to the schedule developed by your permitting authority and 
shown in your title V permit, but no less frequent than twice per 5-
year permit term. If a title V permit has not been issued, you must 
submit a testing plan and schedule, containing the information 
specified in paragraph (e) of this section, to the permitting authority 
for approval. For indurating furnaces with multiple stacks, the 
performance tests for all stacks associated with that indurating 
furnace must be conducted within a reasonable period of time, such that 
the indurating furnace operating characteristics remain representative 
for the duration of the stack tests.
    (c) You must conduct subsequent performance tests to demonstrate 
continued compliance with the finished pellet handling emission limits 
in Table 1 to this subpart according to the schedule developed by your 
permitting authority and shown in your title V permit. If a title V 
permit has not been issued, you must submit a testing plan and 
schedule, containing the information specified in paragraph (e) of this 
section, to the permitting authority for approval.
    (d) You must conduct subsequent performance tests on all stacks 
associated with ore dryers to demonstrate continued compliance with the 
ore dryer emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart according to the 
schedule developed by your permitting authority and shown in your title 
V permit. If a title V permit has not been issued, you must submit a 
testing plan and schedule, containing the information specified in 
paragraph (e) of this section, to the permitting authority for 
approval. For ore dryers with multiple stacks, the performance tests 
for all stacks associated with an ore dryer must be conducted within a 
reasonable period of time, such that the ore dryer operating 
characteristics remain representative for the duration of the stack 
tests.
    (e) If your plant does not have a title V permit, you must submit a 
testing plan for subsequent performance tests as required in paragraphs 
(a) through (d) of this section. This testing plan must be submitted to 
the Administrator on or before the compliance date that is specified in 
Sec.  63.9583. The testing plan must contain the information specified 
in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section. You must maintain a 
current copy of the testing plan onsite, and it must be available for 
inspection upon request. You must keep the plan for the life of the 
affected source or until the affected source is no longer subject to 
the requirements of this subpart.
    (1) A list of all emission units.
    (2) A schedule indicating when you will conduct subsequent 
performance tests for particulate matter for each of the emission 
units.


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 (8) of this 
section.
    (1) Monitor the pressure drop across each baghouse cell each day to 
ensure pressure drop is within the normal operating range.
    (2) Confirm that dust is being removed from hoppers through weekly 
visual inspections or other means of ensuring the proper functioning of 
removal mechanisms.
    (3) Check the compressed air supply of pulse-jet baghouses each 
day.
    (4) Monitor cleaning cycles to ensure proper operation using an 
appropriate methodology.
    (5) Check bag cleaning mechanisms for proper functioning through 
monthly visual inspections or equivalent means.
    (6) Make monthly visual checks of bag tension on reverse air and 
shaker-type baghouses to ensure that bags are not kinked (kneed or 
bent) or lying on their sides. You do not have to make this check for 
shaker-type baghouses that have self-tensioning (spring-loaded) 
devices.
    (7) Confirm the physical integrity of the baghouse through 
quarterly visual inspections of the baghouse interior for air leaks.
    (8) Inspect fans for wear, material buildup, and corrosion through 
quarterly visual inspections, vibration detectors, or equivalent means.
    (b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, for each 
wet scrubber subject to the operating limits for pressure drop and 
scrubber water flow rate in Sec.  63.9590(b)(1), you must install, 
operate, and maintain a CPMS according to the requirements in Sec.  
63.9632(b) through (e) and monitor the daily average pressure drop and 
daily average scrubber water flow rate according to the requirements in 
Sec.  63.9633.
    (c) For each dynamic wet scrubber subject to the scrubber water 
flow rate and either the fan amperage or pressure drop 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 either the daily 
average fan amperage or the daily average pressure drop according to 
the requirements in Sec.  63.9633.
    (d) For each dry electrostatic precipitator subject to the 
operating limits in Sec.  63.9590(b)(3), you must follow the monitoring 
requirements in paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this section.
    (1) If the operating limit you choose to monitor is the 6-minute 
average opacity of emissions in accordance with Sec.  63.9590(b)(3)(i), 
you must install, operate, and maintain a COMS according to the 
requirements in Sec.  63.9632(f) and monitor the 6-minute average 
opacity of emissions exiting each control device stack according to the 
requirements in Sec.  63.9633.

[[Page 61896]]

    (2) If the operating limit you choose to monitor is average 
secondary voltage and average secondary current for each dry 
electrostatic precipitator field in accordance with Sec.  
63.9590(b)(3)(ii), you must install, operate, and maintain a CPMS 
according to the requirements in Sec.  63.9632(b) through (e) and 
monitor the daily average secondary voltage and daily average secondary 
current according to the requirements in Sec.  63.9633.
    (e) For each wet electrostatic precipitator subject to the 
operating limits in Sec.  63.9590(b)(4), you must install, operate, and 
maintain a CPMS according to the requirements in Sec.  63.9632(b) 
through (e) and monitor the daily average secondary voltage, daily 
average stack outlet temperature, and daily average water flow rate 
according to the requirements in Sec.  63.9633.
    (f) If you use any air pollution control device other than a 
baghouse, wet scrubber, dry electrostatic precipitator, or wet 
electrostatic precipitator, you must submit a site-specific monitoring 
plan that includes the information in paragraphs (f)(1) through (4) of 
this section. The monitoring plan is subject to approval by the 
Administrator. You must maintain a current copy of the monitoring plan 
onsite, and it must be available for inspection upon request. You must 
keep the plan for the life of the affected source or until the affected 
source is no longer subject to the requirements of this subpart.
    (1) A description of the device.
    (2) Test results collected in accordance with Sec.  63.9621 
verifying the performance of the device for reducing emissions of 
particulate matter to the atmosphere to the levels required by this 
subpart.
    (3) A copy of the operation and maintenance plan required in Sec.  
63.9600(b).
    (4) Appropriate operating parameters that will be monitored to 
maintain continuous compliance with the applicable emission 
limitation(s).


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 according to the requirements 
in paragraphs (a)(1) through (8) of this section.
    (1) The system 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.
    (2) The system must provide output of relative changes in 
particulate matter loadings.
    (3) 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)(4) of this 
section. The alarm must be located such that it can be heard by the 
appropriate plant personnel.
    (4) 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)(4)(i) through (v) of 
this section. For each bag leak detection system that operates based on 
the triboelectric effect, the monitoring plan shall be consistent with 
the 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). This document is available on the EPA's 
Technology Transfer Network at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/cem/tribo.pdf 
(Adobe Acrobat version) or http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/cem/tribo.wpd 
(WordPerfect version). 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)(4)(i) 
through (v) of this section.
    (i) Installation of the bag leak detection system.
    (ii) Initial and periodic adjustment of the bag leak detection 
system including how the alarm set-point will be established.
    (iii) Operation of the bag leak detection system including quality 
assurance procedures.
    (iv) How the bag leak detection system will be maintained including 
a routine maintenance schedule and spare parts inventory list.
    (v) How the bag leak detection system output shall be recorded and 
stored.
    (5) To make the initial adjustment of the system, establish the 
baseline output by adjusting the sensitivity (range) and the averaging 
period of the device. Then, establish the alarm set points and the 
alarm delay time (if applicable).
    (6) Following initial adjustment, do not adjust averaging period, 
alarm set point, or alarm delay time, without approval from the 
Administrator except as provided for in paragraph (a)(6)(i) of this 
section.
    (i) Once per quarter, you may adjust the sensitivity 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)(4) of this 
section.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (7) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's 
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
    (8) The bag leak detector sensor must be installed downstream of 
the baghouse and upstream of any wet scrubber.
    (b) For each CPMS required in Sec.  63.9631, you must develop and 
make available for inspection upon request by the permitting authority 
a site-specific monitoring plan that addresses the requirements in 
paragraphs (b)(1) through (7) of this section.
    (1) Installation of the CPMS sampling probe or other interface at a 
measurement location relative to each affected emission unit such that 
the measurement is representative of control of the exhaust emissions 
(e.g., on or downstream of the last control device).
    (2) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample 
interface, the parametric signal analyzer, and the data collection and 
reduction system.
    (3) Performance evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria 
(e.g., calibrations).
    (4) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance with 
the general requirements of Sec.  63.8(c)(1), (3), (4)(ii), (7), and 
(8).
    (5) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with 
the general requirements of Sec.  63.8(d).
    (6) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance 
with the general requirements of Sec.  63.10(c), (e)(1), and (e)(2)(i).
    (7) Corrective action procedures that you will follow in the event 
an air pollution control device, except for a baghouse, exceeds an 
established operating limit as required in Sec.  63.9600(b)(3).
    (c) Unless otherwise specified, each CPMS must meet the 
requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) Each CPMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation for 
each successive 15-minute period and must have valid data for at least 
95 percent of every daily averaging period.
    (2) Each CPMS must determine and record the daily average of all 
recorded readings.
    (d) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each CPMS in 
accordance with your site-specific monitoring plan.
    (e) You must operate and maintain the CPMS in continuous operation

[[Page 61897]]

according to the site-specific monitoring plan.
    (f) For each dry electrostatic precipitator subject to the opacity 
operating limit in Sec.  63.9590(b)(3)(i), you must install, operate, 
and maintain each COMS according to the requirements in paragraphs 
(f)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) You must install each COMS and conduct a performance evaluation 
of each COMS according to Sec.  63.8 and Performance Specification 1 in 
appendix B to 40 CFR part 60.
    (2) You must develop and implement a quality control program for 
operating and maintaining each COMS according to Sec.  63.8. At a 
minimum, the quality control program must include a daily calibration 
drift assessment, quarterly performance audit, and annual zero 
alignment of each COMS.
    (3) You must operate and maintain each COMS according to Sec.  
63.8(e) and your quality control program. You must also identify 
periods the COMS is out of control, including any periods that the COMS 
fails to pass a daily calibration drift assessment, quarterly 
performance audit, or annual zero alignment audit.
    (4) You must determine and record the 6-minute average opacity for 
periods during which the COMS is not out of control.


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

    (a) Except for monitoring malfunctions, 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, 
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.
    (c) A monitoring malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not 
reasonably preventable failure of the monitoring system to provide 
valid data. Monitoring failures that are caused in part by poor 
maintenance or careless operation are not considered malfunctions.


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

    (a) For each affected source subject to an emission limit in Table 
1 to this subpart, you must demonstrate continuous compliance by 
meeting the requirements in paragraphs (b) through (f) of this section.
    (b) For ore crushing and handling affected sources and finished 
pellet handling affected sources, you must demonstrate continuous 
compliance by meeting the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) 
of this section.
    (1) The flow-weighted mean concentration of particulate matter for 
all ore crushing and handling emission units and for all finished 
pellet handling emission units must be maintained at or below the 
emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart.
    (2) You must conduct subsequent performance tests for emission 
units in the ore crushing and handling and finished pellet handling 
affected sources following the schedule in your title V permit. If a 
title V permit has not been issued, you must conduct subsequent 
performance tests according to a testing plan approved by the 
Administrator or delegated authority.
    (3) For emission units not selected for initial performance testing 
and defined within a group of similar emission units in accordance with 
Sec.  63.9620(e), you must calculate the daily average value of each 
operating parameter for the similar air pollution control device 
applied to each similar emission unit within a defined group using 
Equation 1 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30OC03.004

Where:

Pk = Daily average operating parameter value for all 
emission units within group ``k'';
Pi = Daily average parametric monitoring parameter value 
corresponding to emission unit ``i'' within group ``k''; and
n = Total number of emission units within group, including emission 
units that have been selected for performance tests and those that 
have not been selected for performance tests.

    (c) For ore dryers and indurating furnaces, you must demonstrate 
continuous compliance by meeting the requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) 
and (2) of this section.
    (1) The flow-weighted mean concentration of particulate matter for 
all stacks from the ore dryer or indurating furnace must be maintained 
at or below the emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart.
    (2) For ore dryers, you must conduct subsequent performance tests 
following the schedule in your title V permit. For indurating furnaces, 
you must conduct subsequent performance tests following the schedule in 
your title V permit, but no less frequent than twice per 5-year permit 
term. If a title V permit has not been issued, you must conduct 
subsequent performance tests according to a testing plan approved by 
the Administrator or delegated authority.
    (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) and (2) 
of this section.
    (1) Maintaining records of the time you initiated corrective action 
in the event of a bag leak detection system alarm, the corrective 
action(s) taken, and the date on which corrective action was completed.
    (2) Inspecting and maintaining each baghouse according to the 
requirements in Sec.  63.9631(a)(1) through (8) and recording all 
information needed to document conformance with these requirements. 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.
    (e) Except as provided in paragraph (f) of this section, for each 
wet scrubber subject to the operating limits for pressure drop and 
scrubber water flow rate in Sec.  63.9590(b)(1), you must demonstrate 
continuous compliance by completing the requirements of paragraphs 
(e)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) Maintaining the daily average pressure drop and daily average 
scrubber water flow rate at or above the minimum levels established 
during the initial or subsequent performance test.
    (2) Operating and maintaining each wet scrubber CPMS according to 
Sec.  63.9632(b) and recording all information needed to document 
conformance with these requirements.
    (3) Collecting and reducing monitoring data for pressure drop and 
scrubber water flow rate according to Sec.  63.9632(c) and recording 
all information needed to document conformance with these requirements.
    (4) If the daily average pressure drop or daily average scrubber 
water flow rate is below the operating limits established for a 
corresponding emission unit or group of similar emission units, you 
must then follow the corrective action

[[Page 61898]]

procedures in paragraph (j) of this section.
    (f) For each dynamic wet scrubber subject to the operating limits 
for scrubber water flow rate and either the fan amperage or pressure 
drop 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 
either the daily average fan amperage or the daily average pressure 
drop at or above the minimum levels established during the initial or 
subsequent performance test.
    (2) Operating and maintaining each dynamic wet scrubber CPMS 
according to Sec.  63.9632(b) and recording all information needed to 
document conformance with these requirements.
    (3) Collecting and reducing monitoring data for scrubber water flow 
rate and either fan amperage or pressure drop according to Sec.  
63.9632(c) and recording all information needed to document conformance 
with these requirements.
    (4) If the daily average scrubber water flow rate, daily average 
fan amperage, or daily average pressure drop 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.
    (g) For each dry electrostatic precipitator subject to operating 
limits in Sec.  63.9590(b)(3), you must demonstrate continuous 
compliance by completing the requirements of paragraph (g)(1) or (2) of 
this section.
    (1) If the operating limit for your dry electrostatic precipitator 
is a 6-minute average opacity of emissions value, then you must follow 
the requirements in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) Maintaining the 6-minute average opacity of emissions at or 
below the maximum level established during the initial or subsequent 
performance test.
    (ii) Operating and maintaining each COMS and reducing the COMS data 
according to Sec.  63.9632(f).
    (iii) If the 6-minute average opacity of emissions is above the 
operating limits established for a corresponding emission unit, you 
must then follow the corrective action procedures in paragraph (j) of 
this section.
    (2) If the operating limit for your dry electrostatic precipitator 
is the daily average secondary voltage and daily average secondary 
current for each field, then you must follow the requirements in 
paragraphs (g)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section.
    (i) Maintaining the daily average secondary voltage or daily 
average secondary current for each field at or above the minimum levels 
established during the initial or subsequent performance test.
    (ii) Operating and maintaining each dry electrostatic precipitator 
CPMS according to Sec.  63.9632(b) and recording all information needed 
to document conformance with these requirements.
    (iii) Collecting and reducing monitoring data for secondary voltage 
or secondary current for each field according to Sec.  63.9632(c) and 
recording all information needed to document conformance with these 
requirements.
    (iv) If the daily average secondary voltage or daily average 
secondary current for each field is below the operating limits 
established for a corresponding emission unit, you must then follow the 
corrective action procedures in paragraph (j) of this section.
    (h) For each wet electrostatic precipitator subject to the 
operating limits for secondary voltage, stack outlet temperature, and 
water flow rate in Sec.  63.9590(b)(4), you must demonstrate continuous 
compliance by completing the requirements of paragraphs (h)(1) through 
(4) of this section.
    (1) Maintaining the daily average secondary voltage, daily average 
secondary current, 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.
    (2) Operating and maintaining each wet electrostatic precipitator 
CPMS according to Sec.  63.9632(b) and recording all information needed 
to document conformance with these requirements.
    (3) Collecting and reducing monitoring data for secondary voltage, 
stack outlet temperature, and water flow rate according to Sec.  
63.9632(c) and recording all information needed to document conformance 
with these requirements.
    (4) If the daily average secondary voltage, stack outlet 
temperature, or water flow rate does not meet the operating limits 
established for a corresponding emission unit, you must then follow the 
corrective action procedures in paragraph (j) of this section.
    (i) If you use an air pollution control device other than a wet 
scrubber, dynamic wet scrubber, dry electrostatic precipitator, wet 
electrostatic precipitator, or baghouse, you must submit a site-
specific monitoring plan in accordance with Sec.  63.9631(f). The site-
specific monitoring plan must include the site-specific procedures for 
demonstrating initial and continuous compliance with the corresponding 
operating limits.
    (j) If the daily average operating parameter value for an emission 
unit or group of similar emission units does not meet the corresponding 
established operating limit, you must then follow the procedures in 
paragraphs (j)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (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 10 calendar days, measure and record 
the daily average operating parameter value for the emission unit or 
group of similar emission units on which corrective action was taken. 
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. After the 
second set of 10 calendar days allowed to implement corrective action, 
you must again measure and record the daily average operating parameter 
value for the emission unit or group of similar emission units. 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.
    (3) If the second attempt at corrective action required in 
paragraph (j)(2) of this section was not successful, then you must 
repeat the procedures of paragraph (j)(2) of this section until the 
corrective action is successful. If the

[[Page 61899]]

third attempt at corrective action is unsuccessful, you must conduct 
another performance test in accordance with the procedures in Sec.  
63.9622(f) and report to the Administrator as a deviation the third 
unsuccessful attempt at corrective action.
    (4) After the third unsuccessful attempt at corrective action, you 
must submit to the Administrator the written report required in 
paragraph (j)(3) of this section within 5 calendar days after the third 
unsuccessful attempt at corrective action. This report must notify the 
Administrator that a deviation has occurred and document the types of 
corrective measures taken to address the problem that resulted in the 
deviation of established operating parameters and the resulting 
operating limits.


Sec.  63.9635  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the work 
practice standards that apply to me?

    (a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with the work 
practice standard requirements in Sec.  63.9591 by operating in 
accordance with your fugitive dust emissions control plan at all times.
    (b) You must maintain a current copy of the fugitive dust emissions 
control plan required in Sec.  63.9591 onsite and it must be available 
for inspection upon request. You must keep the plan for the life of the 
affected source or until the affected source is no longer subject to 
the requirements of this subpart.


Sec.  63.9636  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
operation and maintenance requirements that apply to me?

    (a) For each control device subject to an operating limit in Sec.  
63.9590(b), you must demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
operation and maintenance requirements in Sec.  63.9600(b) by 
completing the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this 
section.
    (1) Performing preventative maintenance for each control device in 
accordance with Sec.  63.9600(b)(1) and recording all information 
needed to document conformance with these requirements;
    (2) Initiating and completing corrective action for a bag leak 
detection system alarm in accordance with Sec.  63.9600(b)(2) and 
recording all information needed to document conformance with these 
requirements;
    (3) Initiating and completing corrective action for a CPMS when you 
exceed an established operating limit for an air pollution control 
device except for a baghouse in accordance with Sec.  63.9600(b)(3) and 
recording all information needed to document conformance with these 
requirements; and
    (4) Implementing and maintaining site-specific good combustion 
practices for each indurating furnace in accordance with Sec.  
63.9600(b)(4) and recording all information needed to document 
conformance with these requirements.
    (b) You must maintain a current copy of the operation and 
maintenance plan required in Sec.  63.9600(b) onsite, and it must be 
available for inspection upon request. You must keep the plan for the 
life of the affected source or until the affected source is no longer 
subject to the requirements of this subpart.


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. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction in 
accordance with paragraph (b) of this section. 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) Startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. During periods of 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction, you must operate in accordance with 
your startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan and the requirements in 
paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) Consistent with Sec. Sec.  63.6(e) and 63.7(e)(1), deviations 
that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are not 
violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that 
you were operating in accordance with the startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan.
    (2) The Administrator will determine whether deviations that occur 
during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are violations, 
according to the provisions in Sec.  63.6(e).

Notifications, Reports, and Records


Sec.  63.9640  What notifications must I submit and when?

    (a) You must submit all of the notifications in Sec. Sec.  63.7(b) 
and (c), 63.8(f)(4), and 63.9(b) through (h) that apply to you by the 
specified dates.
    (b) As specified in Sec.  63.9(b)(2), if you start up your affected 
source before October 30, 2003, you must submit your initial 
notification no later than 120 calendar days after October 30, 2003.
    (c) As specified in Sec.  63.9(b)(3), if you start up your new 
affected source on or after October 30, 2003, you must submit your 
initial notification no later than 120 calendar days after you become 
subject to this subpart.
    (d) If you are required to conduct a performance test, you must 
submit a notification of intent to conduct a performance test at least 
60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to begin, as 
required in Sec.  63.7(b)(1).
    (e) If you are required to conduct a performance test or other 
initial compliance demonstration, you must submit a notification of 
compliance status according to Sec.  63.9(h)(2)(ii). The initial 
notification of compliance status must be submitted by the dates 
specified in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) For each initial compliance demonstration that does not include 
a performance test, you must submit the notification of compliance 
status before the close of business on the 30th calendar day following 
completion of the initial compliance demonstration.
    (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).


Sec.  63.9641  What reports must I submit and when?

    (a) Compliance report due dates. Unless the Administrator has 
approved a different schedule, you must submit a semiannual compliance 
report to your permitting authority according to the requirements in 
paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) The first compliance report must cover the period beginning on 
the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in Sec.  
63.9583 and ending on June 30 or December 31, whichever date comes 
first after the compliance date that is specified for your source in 
Sec.  63.9583.
    (2) The first compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no 
later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date comes first after your 
first compliance report is due.
    (3) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the semiannual 
reporting period from January 1 through

[[Page 61900]]

June 30 or the semiannual reporting period from July 1 through December 
31.
    (4) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked or 
delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date comes 
first after the end of the semiannual reporting period.
    (5) For each affected source that is subject to permitting 
regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, and if the 
permitting authority has established dates for submitting semiannual 
reports pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 
71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), you may submit the first and subsequent compliance 
reports according to the dates the permitting authority has established 
instead of according to the dates in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of 
this section.
    (b) Compliance report contents. Each compliance report must include 
the information in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section and, 
as applicable, in paragraphs (b)(4) through (8) of this section.
    (1) Company name and address.
    (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.
    (3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting 
period.
    (4) If you had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the 
reporting period and you took actions consistent with your startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction plan, the compliance report must include the 
information in Sec.  63.10(d)(5)(i).
    (5) If there were no deviations from the continuous compliance 
requirements in Sec. Sec.  63.9634 through 63.9636 that apply to you, 
then provide a statement that there were no deviations from the 
emission limitations, work practice standards, or operation and 
maintenance requirements during the reporting period.
    (6) If there were no periods during which a continuous monitoring 
system (including a CPMS or COMS) was out-of-control as specified in 
Sec.  63.8(c)(7), then provide a statement that there were no periods 
during which a continuous monitoring system was out-of-control during 
the reporting period.
    (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)(1) through (4) of this 
section and the information in paragraphs (b)(7)(i) and (ii) of this 
section. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
    (i) The total operating time of each affected source during the 
reporting period.
    (ii) Information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations 
(including unknown cause) as applicable, 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. This includes periods of startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction.
    (i) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped.
    (ii) The date and time that each continuous monitoring system was 
inoperative, except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
    (iii) The date, time, and duration that each continuous monitoring 
system was out-of-control, including the information in Sec.  
63.8(c)(8).
    (iv) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and 
whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, 
or malfunction or during another period.
    (v) A summary of the total duration of the deviation 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 of the deviations during the 
reporting period including those that are due to startup, shutdown, 
control equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and 
other unknown causes.
    (vii) A summary of the total duration of continuous monitoring 
system downtime 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.
    (viii) A brief description of the process units.
    (ix) A brief description of the continuous monitoring system.
    (x) The date of the latest continuous monitoring system 
certification or audit.
    (xi) A description of any changes in continuous monitoring systems, 
processes, or controls since the last reporting period.
    (c) Immediate startup, shutdown, and malfunction report. If you had 
a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the semiannual reporting 
period that was not consistent with your startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan, you must submit an immediate startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction report according to the requirements in Sec.  
63.10(d)(5)(ii).
    (d) Part 70 monitoring report. If you have obtained a title V 
operating permit for an affected source pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 
40 CFR part 71, you must report all deviations as defined in this 
subpart in the semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR 
70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). If you submit a 
compliance report for an affected source along with, or as part of, the 
semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 
40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), and the compliance report includes all the 
required information concerning deviations from any emission limitation 
or operation and maintenance requirement in this subpart, submission of 
the compliance report satisfies any obligation to report the same 
deviations in the semiannual monitoring report. However, submission of 
a compliance report does not otherwise affect any obligation you may 
have to report deviations from permit requirements for an affected 
source to your permitting authority.
    (e) Immediate corrective action report. If you had three 
unsuccessful attempts of applying corrective action as described in 
Sec.  63.9634(j) on an emission unit or group of emission units, then 
you must submit an immediate corrective action report. Within 5 
calendar days after the third unsuccessful attempt at corrective 
action, you must submit to the Administrator a written report in 
accordance with Sec.  63.9634(j)(3) and (4). This report must notify 
the Administrator that a deviation has occurred and document the types 
of corrective measures taken to address the problem that resulted in 
the deviation of established operating parameters and the resulting 
operating limits.


Sec.  63.9642  What records must I keep?

    (a) You must keep the records listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through 
(3) of this section.
    (1) A copy of each notification and report that you submitted to 
comply with this subpart, including all documentation supporting any 
initial notification or notification of compliance status that you 
submitted, according to the requirements in Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(xiv).

[[Page 61901]]

    (2) The records in Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) related to 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
    (3) Records of performance tests and performance evaluations as 
required in Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(viii).
    (b) For each COMS, you must keep the records specified in 
paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) Records described in Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(vi) through (xi).
    (2) Monitoring data for COMS during a performance evaluation as 
required in Sec.  63.6(h)(7)(i) and (ii).
    (3) Previous (that is, superceded) versions of the performance 
evaluation plan as required in Sec.  63.8(d)(3).
    (4) Records of the date and time that each deviation started and 
stopped, and whether the deviation occurred during a period of startup, 
shutdown, or malfunction or during another period.
    (c) You must keep the records required in Sec. Sec.  63.9634 
through 63.9636 to show continuous compliance with each emission 
limitation, work practice standard, and operation and maintenance 
requirement that applies to you.


Sec.  63.9643  In what form and how long must I keep my records?

    (a) Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available 
for expeditious review, according to Sec.  63.10(b)(1).
    (b) As specified in Sec.  63.10(b)(1), you must keep each record 
for 5 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement, 
maintenance, corrective action, report, or record.
    (c) You must keep each record on site for at least 2 years after 
the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective 
action, report, or record according to Sec.  63.10(b)(1). You can keep 
the records offsite for the remaining 3 years.

Other Requirements and Information


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 63.15 apply to you.


Sec.  63.9651  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

    (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the EPA, or 
a delegated authority such as your State, local, or tribal agency. If 
the EPA Administrator has delegated authority to your State, local, or 
tribal agency, then that agency has the authority to implement and 
enforce this subpart. You should contact your EPA Regional Office to 
find out if this subpart is delegated to your State, local, or tribal 
agency.
    (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this 
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under subpart E of this 
part, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this section are 
retained by the Administrator of the EPA and are not transferred to the 
State, local, or tribal agency.
    (c) The authorities that will not be delegated to State, local, or 
tribal agencies are specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this 
section.
    (1) Approval of non-opacity emission limitations and work practice 
standards under Sec.  63.6(h)(9) and as defined in Sec.  63.90.
    (2) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under Sec.  
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec.  63.90.
    (3) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under Sec.  
63.8(f) and as defined in Sec.  63.90.
    (4) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting 
under Sec.  63.10(f) and as defined in Sec.  63.90.


Sec.  63.9652  What definitions apply to this subpart?

    Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in 
Sec.  63.2, and in this section as follows.
    Affected source means each new or existing ore crushing and 
handling operation, ore dryer, indurating furnace, or finished pellet 
handling operation, at your taconite iron ore processing plant.
    Bag leak detection system means a system that is capable of 
continuously monitoring relative particulate matter (dust) loadings in 
the exhaust of a baghouse to detect bag leaks and other upset 
conditions. A bag leak detection system includes, but is not limited 
to, an instrument that operates on triboelectric, light scattering, 
light transmittance, or other effect to continuously monitor relative 
particulate matter loadings.
    Conveyor belt transfer point means a point in the conveying 
operation where the taconite ore or taconite pellets are transferred to 
or from a conveyor belt, except where the taconite ore or taconite 
pellets are being transferred to a bin or stockpile.
    Crusher means a machine used to crush taconite ore and includes 
feeders or conveyors located immediately below the crushing surfaces. 
Crushers include, but are not limited to, gyratory crushers and cone 
crushers.
    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;
    (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; or
    (3) Fails to meet any emission limitation in this subpart during 
startup, shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such 
failure is permitted by this subpart.
    Dynamic wet scrubber means an air emissions control device which 
utilizes a mechanically powered fan to cause contact between the 
process exhaust gas stream and the scrubbing liquid which are 
introduced concurrently into the fan inlet.
    Emission limitation means any emission limit, opacity limit, or 
operating limit.
    Finished pellet handling means the transfer of fired taconite 
pellets from the indurating furnace to the finished pellet stockpiles 
at the plant. Finished pellet handling includes, but is not limited to, 
furnace discharge or grate discharge, and finished pellet screening, 
transfer, and storage. The atmospheric pellet cooler vent stack and 
gravity conveyor gallery vents designed to remove heat and water vapor 
from the structure are not included as a part of the finished pellet 
handling affected source.
    Fugitive dust emission source means a stationary source from which 
particles are discharged to the atmosphere due to wind or mechanical 
inducement such as vehicle traffic. Fugitive dust sources include, but 
are not limited to:
    (1) Stockpiles (includes, but is not limited to, stockpiles of 
uncrushed ore, crushed ore, or finished pellets);
    (2) Material transfer points;
    (3) Plant roadways;
    (4) Tailings basins;
    (5) Pellet loading areas; and
    (6) Yard areas.
    Grate feed means the transfer of unfired taconite pellets from the 
pelletizer into the indurating furnace.
    Grate kiln indurating furnace means a furnace system that consists 
of a traveling grate, a rotary kiln, and an annular cooler. The grate 
kiln indurating furnace begins at the point where the grate feed 
conveyor discharges the green balls onto the furnace traveling grate 
and ends where the hardened pellets exit the cooler. The atmospheric 
pellet cooler vent stack is not included as part of the grate kiln 
indurating furnace.
    Indurating means the process whereby unfired taconite pellets, 
called green balls, are hardened at high

[[Page 61902]]

temperature in an indurating furnace. Types of indurating furnaces 
include straight grate indurating furnaces and grate kiln indurating 
furnaces.
    Ore crushing and handling means the process whereby dry taconite 
ore is crushed and screened. Ore crushing and handling includes, but is 
not limited to, all dry crushing operations (e.g., primary, secondary, 
and tertiary crushing), dry ore conveyance and transfer points, dry ore 
classification and screening, dry ore storage and stockpiling, dry 
milling, dry cobbing (i.e., dry magnetic separation), and the grate 
feed. Ore crushing and handling specifically excludes any operations 
where the dry crushed ore is saturated with water, such as wet milling 
and wet magnetic separation.
    Ore dryer means a rotary dryer that repeatedly tumbles wet taconite 
ore concentrate through a heated air stream to reduce the amount of 
entrained moisture in the taconite ore concentrate.
    Pellet cooler vent stacks means atmospheric vents in the cooler 
section of the grate kiln indurating furnace that exhaust cooling air 
that is not returned for recuperation. Pellet cooler vent stacks are 
not to be confused with the cooler discharge stack, which is in the 
pellet loadout or dumping area.
    Pellet loading area means that portion of a taconite iron ore 
processing plant where taconite pellets are loaded into trucks or 
railcars.
    Responsible official means responsible official as defined in Sec.  
63.2.
    Rod-deck venturi scrubber means a wet scrubber emission control 
device in which the inlet air flows through a bed of parallel metal 
pipes spaced apart to produce a series of parallel venturi throats.
    Screen means a device for separating material according to size by 
passing undersize material through one or more mesh surfaces (screens) 
in series and retaining oversize material on the mesh surfaces 
(screens).
    Storage bin means a facility for storage (including surge bins and 
hoppers) of taconite ore or taconite pellets prior to further 
processing or loading.
    Straight grate indurating furnace means a furnace system that 
consists of a traveling grate that carries the taconite pellets through 
different furnace temperature zones. In the straight grate indurating 
furnace a layer of fired pellets, called the hearth layer, is placed on 
the traveling grate prior to the addition of unfired pellets. The 
straight grate indurating furnace begins at the point where the grate 
feed conveyor discharges the green balls onto the furnace traveling 
grate and ends where the hardened pellets drop off of the traveling 
grate.
    Taconite iron ore processing means the separation and concentration 
of iron ore from taconite, a low-grade iron ore, to produce taconite 
pellets.
    Taconite ore means a low-grade iron ore suitable for concentration 
of magnetite or hematite by fine grinding and magnetic or flotation 
treatment, from which pellets containing iron can be produced.
    Tailings basin means a natural or artificial impoundment in which 
gangue or other refuse material resulting from the washing, 
concentration or treatment of ground taconite iron ore is confined.
    Wet grinding and milling means the process whereby wet taconite ore 
is finely ground using rod and/or ball mills.

Tables to Subpart RRRRR of Part 63

    As required in Sec.  63.9590(a), you must comply with each 
applicable emission limit in the following table:

                              Table 1 to Subpart RRRRR of Part 63.--Emission Limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   then you must comply with the
                                                                                         flow-weighted mean
                                                                                    concentration of particulate
                                                                                      matter discharged to the
   If your affected source is . . .     and the affected source is categorized as   atmosphere from the affected
                                                          . . .                     source, as determined using
                                                                                       the procedures in Sec.
                                                                                     63.9621(b), such that you
                                                                                       must not exceed . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Ore crushing and handling emission  Existing..................................  0.008 grains per dry standard
 units.                                                                             cubic foot (gr/dscf).
                                       New.......................................  0.005 gr/dscf.
2. Straight grate indurating furnace   Existing..................................  0.01 gr/dscf.
 processing magnetite.                 New.......................................  0.006 gr/dscf.
3. Grate kiln indurating furnace       Existing..................................  0.01 gr/dscf.
 processing magnetite.                 New.......................................  0.006 gr/dscf.
4. Grate kiln indurating furnace       Existing..................................  0.03 gr/dscf.
 processing hematite.                  New.......................................  0.018 gr/dscf.
5. Finished pellet handling emission   Existing..................................  0.008 gr/dscf.
 units.                                New.......................................  0.005 gr/dscf.
6. Ore dryer.........................  Existing..................................  0.052 gr/dscf.
                                       New.......................................  0.025 gr/dscf.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Citation                     Subject             Applies to Subpart RRRRR           Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.1....................  Applicability..........  Yes.
Sec.   63.2....................  Definitions............  Yes.
Sec.   63.3....................  Units and Abbreviations  Yes.
Sec.   63.4....................  Prohibited Activities..  Yes.
Sec.   63.5....................  Construction/            Yes.
                                  Reconstruction.

[[Page 61903]]

 
Sec.   63.6(a)-(g).............  Compliance With          Yes.
                                  Standards and
                                  Maintenance
                                  Requirements.
Sec.   63.6(h).................  Compliance With Opacity  No............................  Subpart RRRRR does not
                                  and Visible Emission                                     contain opacity and
                                  (VE) Standards.                                          VE standards.
Sec.   63.6(i), (j)............  Extension of Compliance  Yes.
                                  and Presidential
                                  Compliance Extension.
Sec.   63.7(a)(1)-(2)..........  Applicability and        No............................  Subpart RRRRR
                                  Performance Test Dates.                                  specifies performance
                                                                                           test applicability
                                                                                           and dates.
Sec.   63.7(a)(3), (b)-(h).....  Performance Testing      Yes.
                                  Requirements.
Sec.   63.8(a)(1)-(a)(3), (b),   Monitoring Requirements  Yes...........................  Continuous monitoring
 (c)(1)-(3), (c)(5)-(8), (d),                                                              system (CMS)
 (e), (f)(1)-(5), (g)(1)-(4).                                                              requirements in Sec.
                                                                                            63.8(c)(5) and (6)
                                                                                           apply only to COMS
                                                                                           for dry electrostatic
                                                                                           precipitators.
Sec.   63.8(a)(4)..............  Additional Monitoring    No............................  Subpart RRRRR does not
                                  Requirements for                                         require flares.
                                  Control Devices in
                                  Sec.   63.11.
Sec.   63.8(c)(4)..............  Continuous Monitoring    No............................  Subpart RRRRR
                                  System Requirements.                                     specifies
                                                                                           requirements for
                                                                                           operation of CMS.
Sec.   63.8(f)(6)..............  Relative Accuracy Test   No............................  Subpart RRRRR does not
                                  Alternative (RATA).                                      require continuous
                                                                                           emission monitoring
                                                                                           systems.
Sec.   63.8(g)(5)..............  Data Reduction.........  No............................  Subpart RRRRR
                                                                                           specifies data
                                                                                           reduction
                                                                                           requirements.
Sec.   63.9....................  Notification             Yes...........................  Additional
                                  Requirements.                                            notifications for CMS
                                                                                           in Sec.   63.9(g)
                                                                                           apply to COMS for dry
                                                                                           electrostatic
                                                                                           precipitators.
Sec.   63.10(a), (b)(1)-         Recordkeeping and        Yes...........................  Additional records for
 (2)(xii), (b)(2)(xiv), (b)(3),   Reporting Requirements.                                  CMS in Sec.
 (c)(1)-(6), (c)(9)-(15),                                                                  63.10(c)(1)-(6), (9)-
 (d)(1)-(2), (d)(4)-(5), (e),                                                              (15), and reports in
 (f).                                                                                      Sec.   63.10(d)(1)-
                                                                                           (2) apply only to
                                                                                           COMS for dry
                                                                                           electrostatic
                                                                                           precipitators.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiii).......  CMS Records for RATA     No............................  Subpart RRRRR doesn't
                                  Alternative.                                             require continuous
                                                                                           emission monitoring
                                                                                           systems.
Sec.   63.10(c)(7)-(8).........  Records of Excess        No............................  Subpart RRRRR
                                  Emissions and                                            specifies record
                                  Parameter Monitoring                                     requirements.
                                  Exceedances for CMS.
Sec.   63.10(d)(3).............  Reporting opacity or VE  No............................  Subpart RRRRR does not
                                  observations.                                            have opacity and VE
                                                                                           standards.
Sec.   63.11...................  Control Device           No............................  Subpart RRRRR does not
                                  Requirements.                                            require flares.
Sec.   63.12...................  State Authority and      Yes.
                                  Delegations.
Sec.   63.13-Sec.   63.15......  Addresses,               Yes.
                                  Incorporation by
                                  Reference,
                                  Availability of
                                  Information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 03-22309 Filed 10-29-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P