[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 145 (Tuesday, July 28, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45476-45504]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-13397]



[[Page 45475]]

Vol. 85

Tuesday,

No. 145

July 28, 2020

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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





40 CFR Part 63





National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Taconite Iron 
Ore Processing Residual Risk and Technology Review; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 145 / Tuesday, July 28, 2020 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 45476]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0664; FRL-10010-15-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT05


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 
Taconite Iron Ore Processing Residual Risk and Technology Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action finalizes the residual risk and technology review 
(RTR) conducted for the Taconite Iron Ore Processing source category 
regulated under national emission standards for hazardous air 
pollutants (NESHAP). In addition, we are taking final action addressing 
the exemptions previously allowed for periods of startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction (SSM) and clarifying that the emissions standards apply at 
all times. These final amendments include no revisions to the numerical 
emission limits of the rule based on the RTR. The amendments add 
electronic reporting of performance test results and compliance reports 
and make minor technical corrections and amendments to monitoring and 
testing requirements that will reduce the compliance burden on industry 
while continuing to be protective of the environment. While the 
amendments do not result in quantifiable reductions in emissions of 
hazardous air pollutants (HAP), this action results in improved 
monitoring, compliance, and implementation of the rule.

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 28, 2020. The incorporation 
by reference (IBR) of certain publications listed in the rule is 
approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of July 28, 2020.

ADDRESSES: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has 
established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2017-0664. All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov/ website. Although listed, some information is not 
publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other 
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet 
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form or on a third 
party's website. Publicly available docket materials are available 
electronically through https://www.regulations.gov/. Out of an 
abundance of caution for members of the public and our staff, the EPA 
Docket Center and Reading Room was closed to public visitors on March 
31, 2020, to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket 
Center staff will continue to provide remote customer service via 
email, phone, and webform. There is a temporary suspension of mail 
delivery to the EPA, and no hand deliveries are currently accepted. For 
further information and updates on EPA Docket Center services and the 
current status, please visit us online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action, 
contact Mr. David Putney, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-
02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; 
telephone number: (919) 541-2016; fax number: (919) 541-4991; and email 
address: [email protected]. For specific information regarding the 
risk modeling methodology, contact Mr. Chris Sarsony, Health and 
Environmental Impacts Division (C539-02), Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research 
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-4843; 
fax number: (919) 541-0840; and email address: [email protected]. 
For information about the applicability of the NESHAP to a particular 
entity, contact Mr. John Cox, Office of Enforcement and Compliance 
Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, WJC South Building, 
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 
(202) 564-1395; and email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use 
multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may not 
be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference 
purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here:

ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
BLDS bag leak detection system
CAA Clean Air Act
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COMS continuous opacity monitoring systems
CPMS continuous parameter monitoring system
CRA Congressional Review Act
EMP elongated mineral particulate
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESP electrostatic precipitator
HAP hazardous air pollutants(s)
HCl hydrogen chloride
HF hydrogen fluoride
HI hazard index
HQ hazard quotient
IBR incorporation by reference
ICR Information Collection Request
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MIR maximum individual risk
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PM particulate matter
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIN Regulatory Information Number
RTR residual risk and technology review
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
the Court the United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
TRIM.FaTE Total Risk Integrated Methodology. Fate, Transport, and 
Ecological Exposure model
TWHS Taconite Workers Health Study
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    Background information. On September 25, 2019, the EPA proposed the 
results of the RTR, proposed a decision regarding the non-asbestiform 
amphibole elongated mineral particulates (EMP), and proposed various 
revisions to address periods of SSM and to improve certain monitoring 
and testing requirements in the Taconite Iron Ore Processing NESHAP. In 
this action, we are finalizing decisions and revisions for the rule. We 
summarize some of the more significant comments we timely received 
regarding the proposed rule and provide our responses in this preamble. 
A summary of all other public comments on the proposal and the EPA's 
responses to those comments is available in the document titled 
National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Taconite 
Iron Ore Processing Residual Risk and Technology Review Summary of 
Public Comments and Responses, which can be found in Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2017-0664. A ``track changes'' version of the regulatory 
language that incorporates the changes in this action is available in 
the docket.
    Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is 
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?
    C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. What is the Taconite Iron Ore Processing source category and 
how does the

[[Page 45477]]

NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source category?
    C. What changes did we propose for the Taconite Iron Ore 
Processing source category in our September 25, 2019, proposal?
III. What is included in this final rule?
    A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review 
for the Taconite Iron Ore Processing source category?
    B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology 
review for the Taconite Iron Ore Processing source category?
    C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions 
during periods of SSM?
    D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?
    E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the revisions 
to the NESHAP?
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for 
the Taconite Iron Ore Processing source category?
    A. Residual Risk Review for the Taconite Iron Ore Processing 
Source Category
    B. Technology Review for the Taconite Iron Ore Processing Source 
Category
    C. SSM for the Taconite Iron Ore Processing Source Category
    D. Other Amendments to the Taconite Iron Ore Processing NESHAP
    E. Compliance Dates of the Revisions to the NESHAP
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and 
Additional Analyses Conducted
    A. What are the affected facilities?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the benefits?
    F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
    G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we 
conduct?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 
1 CFR Part 51
    K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Regulated entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated 
by this action are shown in Table 1 of this preamble.

 Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Final
                                 Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Source category                   NESHAP          NAICS \1\ code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taconite Iron Ore Processing...  40 CFR part 63, subpart           21221
                                  RRRRR.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

    Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but 
rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be 
affected by the final action for the source category listed. To 
determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the 
applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If you have any 
questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this NESHAP, 
please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this final action will also be available on the internet. Following 
signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this 
final action at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/taconite-iron-ore-processing-national-emission-standards-hazardous. 
Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the 
Federal Register version and key technical documents at this same 
website.
    Additional information is available on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/risk-and-technology-review-national-emissions-standards-hazardous. This information 
includes an overview of the RTR program and links to project websites 
for the RTR source categories.

C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration

    Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of 
this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in 
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
(the Court) by September 28, 2020. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the 
requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged 
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to 
enforce the requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an 
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable 
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public 
hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also 
provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person 
raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was 
impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public 
comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for 
public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and 
if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule. 
Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a 
Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. 
EPA, Room 3000, WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the 
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate 
General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General 
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 
Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process 
to address emissions of HAP from stationary sources. In the first 
stage, we must identify categories of sources emitting one or more of 
the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and then promulgate technology-
based NESHAP for those

[[Page 45478]]

sources. ``Major sources'' are those that emit, or have the potential 
to emit, any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons per year or more, or 25 
tons per year or more of any combination of HAP. For major sources, 
these standards are commonly referred to as maximum achievable control 
technology (MACT) standards and must reflect the maximum degree of 
emission reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy 
requirements, and non-air quality health and environmental impacts). In 
developing MACT standards, CAA section 112(d)(2) directs the EPA to 
consider the application of measures, processes, methods, systems, or 
techniques, including, but not limited to, those that reduce the volume 
of or eliminate HAP emissions through process changes, substitution of 
materials, or other modifications; enclose systems or processes to 
eliminate emissions; collect, capture, or treat HAP when released from 
a process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point; are design, 
equipment, work practice, or operational standards; or any combination 
of the above.
    For these MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum 
stringency requirements, which are referred to as MACT floor 
requirements, and which may not be based on cost considerations. See 
CAA section 112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less 
stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the best-
controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can 
be less stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be less 
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or 
subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or 
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT 
standards, we must also consider control options that are more 
stringent than the floor under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may establish 
standards more stringent than the floor, based on the consideration of 
the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality 
health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
    In the second stage of the regulatory process, the CAA requires the 
EPA to undertake two different analyses, which we refer to as the 
technology review and the residual risk review. Under the technology 
review, we must review the technology-based standards and revise them 
``as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, 
processes, and control technologies)'' no less frequently than every 8 
years, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the residual risk 
review, we must evaluate the risk to public health remaining after 
application of the technology-based standards and revise the standards, 
if necessary, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health or to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, 
and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. The 
residual risk review is required within 8 years after promulgation of 
the technology-based standards, pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In 
conducting the residual risk review, if the EPA determines that the 
current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health, it is not necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to 
CAA section 112(f).\1\ For more information on the statutory authority 
for this rule, see the proposed rule at 84 FR 50660, September 25, 
2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Court has affirmed this approach of implementing CAA 
section 112(f)(2)(A): NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 
2008) (``If EPA determines that the existing technology-based 
standards provide an `ample margin of safety,' then the Agency is 
free to readopt those standards during the residual risk 
rulemaking.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What is the Taconite Iron Ore Processing source category and how 
does the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source category?

    The EPA promulgated the Taconite Iron Ore Processing NESHAP on 
October 30, 2003 (68 FR 61868). The standards are codified at 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart RRRRR. The taconite iron ore processing industry 
consists of facilities that separate and concentrate iron ore from 
taconite, a low-grade iron ore containing about 20- to 25-percent iron, 
and produce taconite pellets, which are about 60- to 65-percent iron. 
The source category covered by these MACT standards currently includes 
eight U.S. facilities; six facilities are in Minnesota and two are in 
Michigan.
    Taconite iron ore processing includes crushing and handling of the 
crude ore, concentrating, agglomerating, indurating, and finished 
pellet handling. The regulated sources are each new or existing ore 
crushing and handling operation, ore dryer, pellet indurating furnace, 
and finished pellet handling operation at a taconite iron ore 
processing plant that is (or is part of) a major source of HAP 
emissions. The NESHAP also regulates fugitive emissions from stockpiles 
(including uncrushed and crushed ore and finished pellets), material 
transfer points, plant roadways, tailings basins, pellet loading areas, 
and yard areas. The indurating furnaces are the most significant 
sources of HAP emissions and account for about 99 percent of the total 
HAP emissions from the Taconite Iron Ore Processing source category. 
The rule requires compliance with emission limits, operating limits for 
control devices, and work practice standards. The emission limits are 
in the form of particulate matter (PM) limits, which are a surrogate 
for certain metal HAP emissions as well as for hydrogen chloride (HCl) 
and hydrogen fluoride (HF). The PM emission limitations apply to each 
new and existing ore crushing and handling operation, ore dryer, 
indurating furnace, and finished pellet handling operation. More 
information on the industry and the key requirements of the NESHAP can 
be found in the September 25, 2019, proposed rule at 84 FR 50660.

C. What changes did we propose for the Taconite Iron Ore Processing 
source category in our September 25, 2019, proposal?

    On September 25, 2019, the EPA published a proposed rule in the 
Federal Register for the Taconite Iron Ore Processing NESHAP, 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart RRRRR, that took into consideration the RTR analyses. 
In the proposed rule, the EPA found that risks due to emissions of air 
toxics from this source category are acceptable and that the existing 
emission standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health and prevent, taking into consideration relevant factors, an 
adverse environmental effect. Pursuant to the technology review, the 
EPA did not identify any developments in practices, processes, or 
control technologies for affected sources subject to the Taconite Iron 
Ore Processing NESHAP. The EPA proposed no revisions to the numerical 
emission limits based on these analyses. Separate from the RTR, the EPA 
did propose the following amendments:
     Removal of exemptions during periods of SSM and clarifying 
that the emissions standards apply at all times;
     Addition of electronic reporting of performance test 
results and compliance reports;
     Reduction in the minimum required compliance testing 
duration of individual runs from 2 hours to 1 hour;
     Removal of pressure drop as a monitoring option for 
dynamic wet scrubbers;
     Removal of the requirements for conducting quarterly 
internal baghouse inspections for baghouses equipped with a bag leak 
detection system (BLDS);
     Changes to clarify testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and

[[Page 45479]]

reporting requirements and to correct typographical errors; and
     Determination that a compound known as non-asbestiform 
amphibole EMP is not a HAP and, thus, is not subject to regulation 
under CAA section 112(d).

III. What is included in this final rule?

    This action finalizes the EPA's determinations pursuant to the RTR 
provisions of CAA section 112 for the Taconite Iron Ore Processing 
source category. This actions also finalizes several changes to the 
NESHAP, including the following: (1) Removal of exemptions for periods 
of SSM and clarifying that the emissions standards apply at all times; 
(2) addition of requirements for electronic reporting of performance 
test results and compliance reports; (3) reduction in the minimum 
required compliance testing duration of individual runs from 2 hours to 
1 hour; (4) removal of the option to monitor pressure drop for dynamic 
wet scrubbers; (5) removal of the requirements to conduct quarterly 
internal baghouse inspections for baghouses equipped with a bag leak 
detection system; and (6) clarification of various requirements for 
testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting and correction of 
typographical errors. This preamble also addresses comments received 
during the public comment period concerning the EPA's decision not to 
set standards for mercury emissions as part of this action and the 
EPA's determination that the non-asbestiform amphibole EMP that are 
emitted from one facility in this source category are not a HAP and 
are, therefore, not subject to regulation under CAA section 112(d), as 
described in section IV of this preamble.

A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review for the 
Taconite Iron Ore Processing source category?

    The EPA proposed no changes to 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRRR, based 
on the risk review conducted pursuant to CAA section 112(f). 
Specifically, we determined that risks from the Taconite Iron Ore 
Processing source category are acceptable, that the standards provide 
an ample margin of safety to protect public health, and that it is not 
necessary to set a more stringent standard to prevent, taking into 
consideration relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. The 
EPA received no new data or other information during the public comment 
period that changed this determination. Therefore, we are finalizing 
our determination that the existing standards protect public health 
with an ample margin of safety and that the standards protect against 
an adverse environmental effect and, thus, we are not requiring 
additional controls under CAA section 112(f)(2).

B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology review 
for the Taconite Iron Ore Processing source category?

    The EPA proposed no changes to 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRRR, based 
on the technology review conducted pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). 
Specifically, we determined that there are no developments in 
practices, processes, and control technologies for this source 
category. The EPA received no new data or other information during the 
public comment period that affected the technology review 
determination. Therefore, as proposed, we are not revising the MACT 
standards under CAA section 112(d)(6).

C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions during 
periods of SSM?

    We are finalizing the proposed amendments to the Taconite Iron Ore 
Processing NESHAP to remove and revise provisions related to SSM. In 
its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 
2008), the Court vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's CAA 
section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods 
of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemptions contained in 
40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that under section 
302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations must be 
continuous in nature and that the SSM exemptions violate the CAA's 
requirement that some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously. As 
detailed in section IV.C of the proposal preamble (84 FR 50674, 
September 25, 2019), the Taconite Iron Ore Processing NESHAP requires 
that the standards apply at all times (see 40 CFR 63.9610). We are 
finalizing amendments eliminating the SSM exemption in 40 CFR 63.9610 
that apply after January 25, 2021. We are also finalizing several 
revisions to Table 2 (the General Provisions applicability table) 
related to SSM plans, monitoring, and recordkeeping as explained in the 
proposed rule.
    We are finalizing the SSM provisions as proposed without setting 
separate standards for startup and shutdown as discussed in the 
proposal at IV.C. Further, we are not finalizing separate standards for 
malfunctions. As discussed in the September 25, 2019, proposal 
preamble, the EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not requiring emissions 
that occur during periods of malfunction to be factored into 
development of CAA section 112 standards, although the EPA has the 
discretion to set standards for malfunctions where feasible. For this 
industry sector, it is unlikely that a production equipment malfunction 
would result in a violation of the standards, and no comments were 
submitted that would suggest otherwise. Refer to section IV.C of the 
proposal preamble for further discussion of the EPA's rationale for the 
decision not to set separate standards for malfunctions, as well as a 
discussion of the actions a source could take in the unlikely event 
that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA section 112(d) 
standards as a result of a malfunction event, given that administrative 
and judicial procedures for addressing exceedances of the standards 
fully recognize that violations may occur despite good faith efforts to 
comply and can accommodate those situations.
    Finally, we are finalizing our proposal to revise the Deviation 
Notification Report and related records accordingly. As discussed in 
the proposal preamble, these revisions are consistent with the 
requirement in 40 CFR 63.9610(a) that the standards apply at all times. 
Refer to section IV.C.1 of the proposal preamble for a detailed 
discussion of these amendments.
1. General Duty
    We are promulgating revisions to the General Provisions 
applicability table (Table 2) of 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRRR, by 
adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i), which describes the general 
duty to minimize emissions, and including a ``No'' in column 3 
indicating that it does not apply to subpart RRRRR. Some of the 
language in that section is no longer necessary or appropriate in light 
of the elimination of the SSM exemption. We are instead adding general 
duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.9600 that reflects the general duty 
to minimize emissions while eliminating the reference to periods 
covered by an SSM exemption. The current language in 40 CFR 
63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes what the general duty entails during 
periods of SSM. With the elimination of the SSM exemption, there is no 
need to differentiate between normal operations, startup and shutdown, 
and malfunction events in describing the general duty. Therefore, the 
language the EPA is promulgating for 40 CFR 63.9600 does not include 
that language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1) after July 28, 2020.

[[Page 45480]]

2. SSM Plan
    We are finalizing revisions to the General Provisions applicability 
table (Table 2) of 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRRR, by adding an entry 
for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) and including ``No'' in column 3. Generally, the 
paragraphs under 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) require development of an SSM plan 
and specify SSM recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the 
SSM plan. As the EPA is removing the SSM exemptions, the affected units 
will be subject to an emission standard during such events, making an 
SSM plan unnecessary.
    We are also finalizing revisions to the General Provisions 
applicability table (Table 2) of 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRRR, by 
adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) and including ``No'' in 
column 3. The paragraph under 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes 
requirements that are not necessary with the elimination of the SSM 
exemption or are redundant with the general duty requirement being 
added at 40 CFR 63.9600.
3. Compliance With Standards
    We are finalizing revisions to the General Provisions applicability 
table (Table 2) of 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRRR by adding an entry for 
40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and including ``No'' in column 3. The paragraph under 
40 CFR 63.6(f)(1), which exempted sources from non-opacity standards 
during periods of SSM, was vacated by the Court in Sierra Club v. EPA 
as discussed above.
    We also are finalizing revisions to the General Provisions 
applicability table (Table 2) of 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRRR by 
adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) and including ``No'' in column 3. 
The paragraph under 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), which exempted sources from 
opacity standards during periods of SSM, was also vacated by the Court 
in Sierra Club v. EPA. Consistent with the Court mandate, the EPA is 
finalizing revisions to standards in this rule to ensure that a CAA 
section 112 standard applies at all times.
4. Performance Testing
    We are finalizing revisions to the General Provisions applicability 
table (Table 2) of 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRRR by adding an entry for 
40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) and including ``No'' in column 3. The paragraph under 
40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing requirements. The EPA 
is instead adding a performance testing requirement at 40 CFR 63.9621. 
The performance testing requirements we are adding differ from the 
General Provisions performance testing provisions in several respects. 
The regulatory text does not include the language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) 
that restated the SSM exemption and language that precluded startup and 
shutdown periods from being considered ``representative'' for purposes 
of performance testing. The revised performance testing provisions 
require testing under representative operating conditions and exclude 
periods of startup and shutdown.
    As in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), performance tests conducted under this 
subpart should not be conducted during malfunctions because conditions 
during malfunctions are often not representative of normal operating 
conditions. The EPA is promulgating language that requires the owner or 
operator to record the process information that is necessary to 
document operating conditions during the test and include in this 
record an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal 
operation. The paragraph under 40 CFR 63.7(e) requires that the owner 
or operator make available to the Administrator on request such records 
``as may be necessary to determine the condition of the performance 
test'' but does not specifically require the information to be 
recorded. The regulatory text the EPA is adding to this provision 
builds on that requirement and makes explicit the requirement to record 
the information.
5. Monitoring
    We are finalizing revisions to the General Provisions applicability 
table (Table 2) of 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRRR by adding entries for 
40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii) and including ``No'' in column 3. The 
cross-references to the general duty and SSM plan requirements in those 
subparagraphs are not necessary in light of other requirements of 40 
CFR 63.8 that require good air pollution control practices (40 CFR 
63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the requirements of a quality control 
program for monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)).
    We are finalizing revisions to the General Provisions applicability 
table (Table 2) of 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRRR by adding an entry for 
40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) and including ``No'' in column 3. The final sentence 
in 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) refers to the General Provisions' SSM plan 
requirement which is no longer applicable. The EPA is adding to the 
rule at 40 CFR 63.9632(b)(5) text that replaces 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) and 
removes the reference to the SSM plan.
6. Recordkeeping
    We are finalizing revisions to the General Provisions applicability 
table (Table 2) of 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRRR by adding an entry for 
40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) and including ``No'' in column 3. Paragraph 40 
CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the recordkeeping requirements during 
startup and shutdown. These recording provisions are no longer 
necessary because the EPA is requiring that recordkeeping and reporting 
applicable to normal operations would apply to startup and shutdown. In 
the absence of special provisions applicable to startup and shutdown, 
such as a startup and shutdown plan, there is no reason to retain 
additional recordkeeping for startup and shutdown periods. Provisions 
are added to 40 CFR 63.9642 that specify records that must be kept when 
there is a failure to meet an applicable standard.
    We are finalizing revisions to the General Provisions applicability 
table (Table 2) of 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRRR by adding an entry for 
40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) and including ``No'' in column 3. Paragraph 40 
CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the recordkeeping requirements during a 
malfunction. The EPA is adding such requirements to 40 CFR 63.9642. The 
regulatory text we are adding differs from the General Provisions it is 
replacing in that the General Provisions requires the creation and 
retention of a record of the occurrence and duration of each 
malfunction of process, air pollution control, and monitoring 
equipment. The EPA is finalizing this requirement to apply to any 
failure to meet an applicable standard and is requiring the source to 
record the date, time, and duration of the failure. The EPA is also 
adding to 40 CFR 63.9642 the requirement that sources keep records that 
include a list of the affected source or equipment and actions taken to 
minimize emissions, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated 
pollutant emitted over the standard for which the source failed to meet 
the standard, and a description of the method used to estimate the 
emissions. The EPA is requiring that sources keep records of this 
information to ensure that there is adequate information to allow the 
EPA to determine the severity of any failure to meet a standard, and to 
provide data that may document how the source met the general duty to 
minimize emissions when the source has failed to meet an applicable 
standard.
    We are finalizing revisions to the General Provisions applicability 
table (Table 2) of 40 CFR part 63, subpart

[[Page 45481]]

RRRRR by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) and including 
``No'' in column 3. When applicable, the provision requires sources to 
record actions taken during SSM events when actions were inconsistent 
with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer appropriate because 
SSM plans would no longer be required. The requirement previously 
applicable under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) to record actions to minimize 
emissions and record corrective actions during SSM is now applicable at 
all times by 40 CFR 63.9642.
    We are finalizing revisions to the General Provisions applicability 
table (Table 2) of 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRRR by adding an entry for 
40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) and including ``No'' in column 3. When 
applicable, the provision requires sources to record actions taken 
during SSM events to show that actions taken were consistent with their 
SSM plan. The requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM plans 
would no longer be required.
    We are finalizing revisions to the General Provisions applicability 
table (Table 2) of 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRRR by adding an entry for 
40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) and including ``No'' in column 3. Because the SSM 
plan requirement is being eliminated, 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no longer 
applies. When applicable, the provision allowed an owner or operator to 
use the affected source's SSM plan or records kept to satisfy the 
recordkeeping requirements of the SSM plan, specified in 40 CFR 
63.6(e), to also satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10) 
through (12). The EPA is eliminating this requirement because SSM plans 
are no longer required, and, therefore, 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no longer 
serves any useful purpose for affected units.
7. Reporting
    We are finalizing revisions to the General Provisions applicability 
table (Table 2) of 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRRR by adding an entry for 
40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) and including ``No'' in column 3. Paragraph 40 CFR 
63.10(d)(5) describes the reporting requirements for SSM. We are no 
longer requiring owners or operators to determine whether actions taken 
to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan, because plans 
are no longer required. To replace the General Provisions reporting 
requirement, the EPA is adding reporting requirements to 40 CFR 
63.9641. The replacement language differs from the General Provisions 
requirement in that it eliminates periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone 
report. We are adding language that requires sources that fail to meet 
an applicable standard at any time to report the information concerning 
such events in the semiannual reporting period compliance report 
already required under this rule. We are requiring the report to 
contain the date, time, duration, and the cause of such events 
(including unknown cause, if applicable), a list of the affected source 
or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant 
emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the method used 
to estimate the emissions. The EPA is promulgating this requirement to 
ensure that there is adequate information to determine compliance, to 
allow the EPA to determine the severity of the failure to meet an 
applicable standard, and to provide data that may document how the 
source met the general duty to minimize emissions during a failure to 
meet an applicable standard.
    We are no longer requiring owners or operators to determine whether 
actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan, 
because plans are no longer required. These final amendments, 
therefore, eliminate from this section the cross-reference to 40 CFR 
63.10(d)(5) that contains the description of the previously required 
SSM report format and submittal schedule. These specifications are no 
longer necessary because the SSM events would be reported in otherwise 
required periodic reports with similar format and submittal 
requirements.

D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?

    Other amendments to the NESHAP that do not fall into the categories 
in the previous sections include:
     Requiring that owners or operators of taconite iron ore 
processing plants submit electronic copies of required performance test 
reports and compliance reports through the EPA's Central Data Exchange 
(CDX) using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface 
(CEDRI);
     Reducing the minimum time for test runs for performance 
tests conducted on ore crushing and handling, finished pellet handling, 
ore drying, and indurating furnace affected sources from 2 hours for 
each test run to 1 hour for each test run;
     Removing pressure drop as a monitoring option for dynamic 
wet scrubbers and requiring that the owner or operator establish and 
monitor the scrubber water flow rate and fan amperage; and
     Removing the requirements for conducting quarterly 
internal baghouse inspections for baghouses equipped with a bag leak 
detection system that is installed, operated, and maintained in 
compliance with the requirements in the Taconite Iron Ore Processing 
NESHAP.
    We are also finalizing various other changes to clarify testing, 
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements and to correct 
typographical errors, including:
     Revisions to 40 CFR 63.9600(b)(2) to clarify when a BLDS 
alarm becomes an operating system deviation;
     Revisions to 40 CFR 63.9620(f) and 63.9634(b)(3) to 
resolve conflicting provisions;
     Revisions to 40 CFR 63.9621(b) that clarify the test 
methods and procedures that must be used to determine compliance with 
the applicable emission limits for PM;
     Revisions to 40 CFR 63.9622(d)(2), which establishes the 
operating limits for wet electrostatic precipitators;
     Revisions to the introductory paragraph of 40 CFR 63.9625 
to clarify the requirements for demonstrating initial compliance for 
air pollution control devices subject to operating limits;
     Revisions to 40 CFR 63.9632(b) to clarify the requirements 
for continuous parameter monitoring systems (CPMS);
     Revisions to 40 CFR 63.9632(f) to clarify the requirements 
for continuous opacity monitoring systems (COMS);
     Revisions to 40 CFR 63.9633(a) and (b) to clarify the 
monitoring and data collection requirements;
     Revisions to 40 CFR 63.9634(d) to clarify the requirements 
for baghouses for determining continuous compliance with emission 
limits;
     Revisions to 40 CFR 63.9634(h)(1) and 40 CFR 63.9634(j)(1) 
and (2) for clarification;
     Revisions to 40 CFR 63.9641(b)(7) and (8) to clarify the 
reporting requirements for deviations from emission limitations;
     Revisions to the recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR 
63.9642(a) and (b) to clarify what information must be recorded when an 
applicable standard is not met as well as what information is required 
in a performance evaluation plan; and
     Removal of the definitions of conveyor belt transfer point 
and wet grinding and milling because the terms are not used in the 
rule, and the addition of a definition of wet scrubber.

E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the revisions to the 
NESHAP?

    The revisions to the NESHAP being promulgated in this action are 
effective on July 28, 2020. The compliance date

[[Page 45482]]

for the revised requirements for affected sources that commenced 
construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 2019, is 
January 25, 2021, with an exception for the revised provisions that 
apply to dynamic wet scrubbers, which have a compliance date of January 
28, 2022. The compliance date for the revised requirements for affected 
sources that commence construction or reconstruction after September 
25, 2019, is the effective date of the standard, July 28, 2020, or upon 
startup, whichever is later.

IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for 
the Taconite Iron Ore Processing source category?

    For each issue, this section provides a description of what we 
proposed and what we are finalizing, the EPA's rationale for the final 
decisions and amendments, and a summary of key comments and responses. 
For all comments not discussed in this preamble, comment summaries and 
the EPA's responses can be found in the National Emissions Standards 
for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Taconite Iron Ore Processing Residual 
Risk and Technology Review Summary of Public Comments and Responses, 
which is available in the docket.

A. Residual Risk Review for the Taconite Iron Ore Processing Source 
Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(f) for the Taconite 
Iron Ore Processing source category?
    Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), the EPA conducted a residual risk 
review and presented the results of this review, along with our 
proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of 
safety, and adverse environmental effects, in the September 25, 2019, 
proposed rule (84 FR 50660). The results of the risk assessment for the 
proposal are presented briefly in Table 2 of this preamble. More detail 
is in the residual risk document, Residual Risk Assessment for the 
Taconite Iron Ore Processing Source Category in Support of the 2019 
Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule (also referred to as the 
Taconite Risk Report in this preamble), which is available in the 
docket for this rulemaking (Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0664-0130).

                          Table 2--Taconite Iron Ore Processing Source Category Inhalation Risk Assessment Results at Proposal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Maximum individual      Estimated population at   Estimated annual cancer       Maximum chronic        Maximum
                                         cancer risk (in 1     increased risk of cancer    incidence (cases per       noncancer TOSHI \1\     screening
                                             million)              >= 1-in-1 million               year)          --------------------------    acute
                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------                            noncancer
          Risk  assessment                                                                                                                      HQ \2\
                                       Based on     Based on     Based on     Based on     Based on     Based on     Based on     Based on  ------------
                                        actual     allowable      actual     allowable      actual     allowable      actual     allowable     Based on
                                      emissions    emissions    emissions    emissions    emissions    emissions    emissions    emissions      actual
                                                                                                                                              emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Category....................            2            6       38,000       43,000        0.001        0.001          0.2          0.2   HQREL = <1
Whole Facility.....................            2  ...........       40,000  ...........        0.001  ...........          0.2  ...........  ...........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The target organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI) is the sum of the chronic noncancer hazard quotients (HQs) for substances that affect the same target
  organ or organ system.
\2\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop HQ values.

    The results of the proposal inhalation risk modeling, as shown in 
Table 2 of this preamble, indicate that the maximum individual cancer 
risk based on actual emissions (lifetime) was estimated to be 2-in-1 
million (driven by arsenic and nickel from fugitive dust and indurating 
sources), the estimated maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value based on 
actual emissions was 0.2 (driven by manganese compounds from fugitive 
dust and ore crushing sources), and the maximum screening acute 
noncancer HQ value (off-facility site) was less than 1 (driven by 
arsenic from fugitive dust and ore crushing sources). The total 
estimated annual cancer incidence (national) from these facilities 
based on actual emission levels was 0.001 excess cancer cases per year 
or 1 case in every 1,000 years.
    The results of the proposal inhalation risk modeling using 
allowable emissions data (lifetime), as shown in Table 2, indicate that 
the estimated maximum individual cancer risk was 6-in-1 million (driven 
by arsenic and nickel from fugitive dust and indurating sources) and 
the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value was 0.2 (driven by manganese 
compounds from fugitive dust and ore crushing sources). At proposal, 
the total annual cancer incidence (national) from these facilities 
based on allowable emissions was estimated to be 0.001 excess cancer 
cases per year, or one case in every 1,000 years.
    At proposal, the maximum facility-wide cancer maximum individual 
risk (MIR) was estimated to be 2-in-1 million, driven by arsenic and 
nickel from fugitive dust and indurating emissions. The maximum 
facility-wide TOSHI for the source category was estimated to be 0.2, 
mainly driven by emissions of manganese from fugitive dust and ore 
crushing emissions. The total estimated cancer incidence from the whole 
facility was determined to be 0.001 excess cancer cases per year, or 
one excess case in every 1,000 years.
    At proposal, potential multipathway health risks were also 
considered. Based upon the maximum Tier 2 screening values for mercury 
(fisher scenario) and arsenic (fisher and gardener scenario) occurring 
from the same location, we proceeded to a site-specific assessment 
using Total Risk Integrated Methodology. Fate, Transport, and 
Ecological Exposure model (TRIM.FaTE). We also selected the same site 
for assessing noncancer risks from cadmium utilizing the fisher 
scenario as the site was comparable to the maximum Tier 2 location. The 
selected site represents the combined contribution of mercury, arsenic, 
and cadmium emissions from five taconite iron ore processing plants. 
The site selected was modeled using TRIM.FaTE to assess cancer risk 
from arsenic emissions and noncancer risks from mercury and cadmium 
emissions for the fisher and gardener scenarios. The final cancer risk 
based upon the fisher scenario and gardener scenario was less than 1-
in-1 million from arsenic emissions. The final noncancer risks had a 
hazard index (HI) less than 1 for mercury (0.02) and for cadmium 
(0.01). Based on these results, at proposal we concluded that there is 
no significant potential for multipathway health effects.
    At proposal, we conducted an environmental risk screening 
assessment for the Taconite Iron Ore Processing source category for the 
following pollutants: Arsenic, cadmium, dioxins/furans, HCl, HF, lead, 
mercury (methyl mercury and mercuric

[[Page 45483]]

chloride), and polycyclic organic matter. Based on this evaluation, we 
proposed that we do not expect an adverse environmental effect as a 
result of HAP emissions from this source category.
    We weighed all health risk factors, including those shown in Table 
2 of this preamble, in our risk acceptability determination and 
proposed that the residual risks from the Taconite Iron Ore Processing 
source category are acceptable (see section IV.A.2.a of the proposal 
preamble, 84 FR 50677, September 25, 2019).
    We then considered whether 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRRR provides 
an ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevents, taking 
into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, 
an adverse environmental effect. In considering whether the standards 
should be tightened to provide an ample margin of safety to protect 
public health, we considered the same risk factors that we considered 
for our acceptability determination and also considered the costs, 
technological feasibility, and other relevant factors related to 
emissions control options that might reduce risk associated with 
emissions from the source category. In this analysis, we focused on 
cancer risks since all the chronic and acute noncancer HIs and HQs are 
below the level of concern. The cancer risks are driven by metal HAP 
emissions (e.g., arsenic, nickel, and chromium VI) from indurating 
furnaces and fugitive dust sources. The indurating furnaces are 
currently controlled via wet scrubbers. At proposal, we evaluated the 
option of reducing emissions from indurating furnaces by installing a 
wet electrostatic precipitator (wet ESP) after the existing wet 
scrubbers. Under this scenario, we estimated that the current metal HAP 
emissions would be reduced by about 99.9 percent, and the MIR would be 
reduced from 2-in-1 million based on actual emissions and 6-in-1 
million based on allowable emissions to less than 1-in-1 million for 
both actual and allowable emissions. We estimated annual costs of about 
$167 million for the industry, with a cost effectiveness of about $16 
million per ton of metal HAP reduced. Due to the relatively small 
reduction in risk and the substantial costs associated with this 
option, we proposed that additional emissions controls for metal HAP 
from indurating furnaces are not necessary to provide an ample margin 
of safety to protect public health. See the technical memorandum titled 
Taconite Iron Ore Processing--Ample Margin of Safety Analysis, 
available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0664, for details.
    For the other affected sources that emit metal HAP (i.e., ore 
crushing and handling operations, finished pellet handling operations, 
ore drying, and sources subject to the fugitive dust emission control 
plan), we proposed that additional emissions controls for metal HAP 
from these affected sources are not necessary to provide an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health because the risk reduction 
would be minimal since about 98 percent of the HAP emissions are from 
the indurating furnaces. Moreover, we did not identify any developments 
in practices, processes, and control technologies under the technology 
review that we could evaluate for achieving additional reductions from 
these other affected sources.
    Given the substantial costs for the enhanced control scenario we 
identified for the source category that would reduce HAP emissions and 
considering the small reduction in the already low baseline risk, we 
proposed that additional emission controls for this source category are 
not necessary to provide an ample margin of safety (refer to section 
IV.A.2.b of the proposal preamble, 84 FR 50677, September 25, 2019).
2. How did the risk review change for the Taconite Iron Ore Processing 
source category?
    We received comments both supporting and opposing the proposed 
residual risk review and our proposed determination that the existing 
standards protect public health with an ample margin of safety and 
additional control is not needed to protect against an adverse 
environmental effect under CAA section 112(f)(2). One commenter 
provided updated actual and effective production rates and actual fuel 
use data for two taconite facilities. The EPA utilized the provided 
data to revise the emissions dataset memorandum for this source 
category (which is available in the docket for this rulemaking). The 
final risk assessment report (also available in the docket for this 
rulemaking) reflects these emissions changes. Since the resulting 
emissions changes are relatively small and are restricted to just two 
facilities, we did not remodel the risk for the source category. 
Instead, we used the revised emissions data to scale the risks up or 
down, as appropriate, for the two subject facilities. Table 3 of this 
preamble shows the final risk assessment results after the 
incorporation of the updated emissions data. There were no resulting 
changes to the chronic noncancer risks, acute risks, or multipathway 
risks. There were small changes in the chronic cancer MIRs. 
Specifically, based on actual emissions, the MIR for both the source 
category and whole facility increased from 2-in-1 million to 3-in-1 
million. Also, based on allowable emissions, the MIR for the source 
category decreased from 6-in-1 million to 5-in-1 million.
    After a review of all of the public comments received and the 
revised risk estimates, we determined that no changes to our risk 
review conclusions are necessary.

                 Table 3--Taconite Iron Ore Processing Source Category Inhalation Risk Assessment Final Results After Emissions Updates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Maximum individual      Estimated population at   Estimated annual cancer       Maximum chronic        Maximum
                                         cancer risk (in 1     increased risk of cancer    incidence (cases per       noncancer TOSHI \1\     screening
                                             million)              >= 1-in-1 million               year)          --------------------------    acute
                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------                            noncancer
          Risk  assessment                                                                                                                      HQ \2\
                                       Based on     Based on     Based on     Based on     Based on     Based on     Based on     Based on  ------------
                                        actual     allowable      actual     allowable      actual     allowable      actual     allowable     Based on
                                      emissions    emissions    emissions    emissions    emissions    emissions    emissions    emissions      actual
                                                                                                                                              emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Category....................            3            5       38,000       43,000        0.001        0.001          0.2          0.2   HQREL = <1
Whole Facility.....................            3  ...........       40,000  ...........        0.001  ...........          0.2  ...........  ...........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The TOSHI is the sum of the chronic noncancer HQs for substances that affect the same target organ or organ system.
\2\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop HQ values.


[[Page 45484]]

3. What comments did we receive on the risk review?
    We received comments in support of and against the proposed 
residual risk reviews and our determinations that no revisions were 
warranted under CAA section 112(f)(2) for the Taconite Iron Ore 
Processing source category. One commenter provided updated production 
and fuel use data for two taconite facilities. The EPA utilized the 
provided data to revise the emissions dataset memorandum for this 
source category (which is available in the docket for this rulemaking). 
The final risk assessment report (also available in the docket for this 
rulemaking) reflects these emissions changes.
    Other comments were received on the air dispersion modeling methods 
used, the treatment of mercury in the risk assessment (e.g., mercury 
deposition, methylation, and speciation), the exclusion of non-taconite 
HAP emissions from the risk assessment (e.g., mobile sources, natural 
sources, and historical emissions), our risk assessment of lead, the 
multipathway analysis, the environmental justice analysis, and the 
ample margin of safety analysis. More details on these and other 
comments received, and our responses, can be found in the document 
titled National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 
Taconite Iron Ore Processing Residual Risk and Technology Review 
Summary of Public Comments and Responses, which is available in the 
docket for this action.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for 
the risk review?
    For the reasons explained in the proposed rule, the Agency 
determined that the risks from the Taconite Iron Ore Processing source 
category are acceptable, and the current standards provide an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health and prevent an adverse 
environmental effect. We did not receive any data or other information 
since proposal that supports a change to our proposed determination. 
Therefore, as proposed, we are not revising 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
RRRRR, to require additional controls pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2) 
based on the residual risk review and we are readopting the existing 
emissions standards under CAA section 112(f)(2).

B. Technology Review for the Taconite Iron Ore Processing Source 
Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the 
Taconite Iron Ore Processing source category?
    Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), the EPA conducted a technology 
review and summarized the results of the review in the September 25, 
2019, proposal preamble (see section IV.B of the proposal preamble, 84 
FR 50678) and in more detail in the memorandum, Draft Technology Review 
for the Taconite Iron Ore Processing Source Category, which is 
available in the docket for this action (Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2017-0664-0103). The technology review investigated practices, 
processes, and controls with a view toward identifying developments, 
which may be any of the following:
     Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was 
not identified and considered during development of the original MACT 
standards;
     Any improvements in add-on control technology or other 
equipment (that were identified and considered during development of 
the original MACT standards) that could result in significant 
additional emissions reduction;
     Any work practice or operational procedure that was not 
identified or considered during development of the original MACT 
standards;
     Any process changes or pollution prevention alternatives 
that could be broadly applied to the industry and that were not 
identified or considered during development of the original MACT 
standards; and
     Any significant changes in the cost (including cost 
effectiveness) of applying add-on control technology or other equipment 
to affected sources (including controls the EPA considered during the 
development of the original MACT standards).
    New technologies were identified that improved the efficiency of 
processes and increased plant production capacity but have no 
demonstrated ability to reduce HAP emissions. For the control of metal 
HAP emissions from taconite iron ore processing, all of the 
technologies identified were in use in the industry during development 
of the original 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRRR MACT standards and we did 
not identify any significant changes in improved control or in cost or 
cost effectiveness of applying these technologies to taconite iron ore 
processing facilities. Based on information available to the EPA, the 
technology review did not identify any developments in practices, 
processes, or control technologies that would reduce HAP emissions from 
ore crushing and handling, pellet indurating, pellet handling, ore 
drying, and/or fugitive dust emission sources.
2. How did the technology review change for the Taconite Iron Ore 
Processing source category?
    The technology review for the Taconite Iron Ore Processing source 
category has not changed since proposal. As proposed, the EPA is not 
making changes to the standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).
3. What comments did we receive on the technology review?
    Comments were received that were both supportive of the technology 
review as well as critical of the technology review. The comments 
received related to the EPA's decision not to establish mercury 
standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) in this action, and our 
responses to those comments, are provided below. Other comments related 
to the technology review, and our responses to those comments, can be 
found in the document titled National Emissions Standards for Hazardous 
Air Pollutants: Taconite Iron Ore Processing Residual Risk and 
Technology Review Summary of Public Comments and Responses, which is 
available in the docket for this action.
    Comment: Several commenters stated that the technology review 
memorandum states that no new technologies have been identified with 
regard to mercury emissions. These commenters point out that in 2018, 
the taconite iron ore processing facilities submitted mercury reduction 
plans (MRP) to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) to explain 
how they planned to reduce their mercury emissions to help the state 
reach its mercury Total Maximum Daily Load goals. However, the EPA did 
not list the MRP in the sources of information it considered in its 
technology review nor did the Agency explain why it did not do so. The 
commenters contended these documents on the control technologies that 
are potentially applicable to this industry, identifying technologies 
such as activated carbon injection with halide or bromide added. Other 
commenters stated that the EPA indicated that they include the MRP 
because the MRP addresses water quality issues.
    These commenters also identified what they claimed are outdated 
sources of information and asserted that the EPA's use of outdated 
technological reports that do not address potential mercury controls 
indicates that the EPA

[[Page 45485]]

had already decided not to require mercury controls but to continue to 
rely on PM as a surrogate. These commenters contend that the EPA's 
technology review is incomplete because it fails to even discuss 
potential mercury controls and that the decision not to do so is 
arbitrary and capricious, especially given the poor quality of the 
EPA's risk analysis.
    Response: The commenters are mistaken in saying that the technology 
review addressed mercury emissions from taconite iron ore processing 
facilities but found no new technologies to control mercury. The EPA 
reads CAA section 112(d)(6) as a limited provision requiring the Agency 
to review the emission standards already promulgated in the NESHAP and 
to revise those standards as necessary taking into account developments 
in practices, processes, and control technologies. The EPA does not 
read this provision as directing the Agency, as part of or in 
conjunction with the mandatory 8-year technology review, to develop new 
emission standards to address HAP or emission points for which 
standards were not previously promulgated.\2\ Neither the proposed rule 
nor the technology review memorandum (Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-
0664-0103) for the proposed rule addressed potential controls for 
mercury emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ On April 21, 2020, as the Agency was preparing the final 
rule for signature, a decision was issued in LEAN v. EPA, 955 F. 3d. 
1088 (D.C. Cir. 2020) in which the Court held that the EPA has an 
obligation to set standards for unregulated pollutants as part of 
technology reviews under CAA section 112(d)(6). At the time of 
signature, the mandate in that case had not been issued and the EPA 
is continuing to evaluate the decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that these MRP are still under review by MPCA and that the 
technologies discussed therein have only been applied at the taconite 
processing facilities in pilot scale studies. That is, these control 
technologies remain unproven at commercial scale and the amount of 
mercury reduction achieved by them remain uncertain. Also, as noted, 
the EPA did not regulate mercury in the 2003 NESHAP and the PM standard 
which is a surrogate for multiple HAP was not established as a 
surrogate for mercury.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technology 
review?
    For the reasons explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, we 
determined there were no developments under CAA section 112(d)(6) (84 
FR 50678). Since proposal, neither the technology review nor our 
determination that there were no developments for affected sources has 
changed, and we are not revising 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRRR, 
pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). The final technology review, Final 
Technology Review for the Taconite Iron Ore Processing Source Category, 
is available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2017-0664).

C. SSM for the Taconite Iron Ore Processing Source Category

1. What did we propose for the Taconite Iron Ore Processing source 
category?
    We proposed amendments to the NESHAP for Taconite Iron Ore 
Processing to remove and revise provisions related to SSM that are not 
consistent with the requirement that the standards apply at all times. 
More information concerning the elimination of SSM provisions is in the 
preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR 50678-50681, September 25, 2019).
2. How did the SSM provisions change for the Taconite Iron Ore 
Processing source category?
    The removal and revision of the SSM provisions for the Taconite 
Iron Ore Processing source category have not changed since proposal. We 
are finalizing the removal and revisions of the SSM provisions as 
proposed, with no changes.
3. What key comments did we receive on the SSM provisions, and what are 
our responses?
    We received five comments related to our proposed revisions to the 
SSM provisions. The comments were generally supportive of the 
amendments to require the emission standards to apply at all times. The 
comments and our responses can be found in the National Emissions 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Taconite Iron Ore Processing 
Residual Risk and Technology Review Summary of Public Comments and 
Responses, which is available in the docket for this action.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the SSM provisions?
    We evaluated all comments on the EPA's proposed amendments to the 
SSM provisions. For the reasons explained in the proposed rule, we 
determined that these amendments remove and revise provisions related 
to SSM that are not consistent with the requirement that the standards 
apply at all times. More information concerning the amendments we are 
finalizing for SSM is in the preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR 
50678--50684, September 25, 2019) and in section III.C of this 
preamble. Therefore, we are finalizing our approach for the SSM 
provisions as proposed.

D. Other Amendments to the Taconite Iron Ore Processing NESHAP

1. What amendments did we propose?
    In the September 25, 2019, action, we proposed the following 
amendments to the rule:
     We proposed that owners or operators of taconite iron ore 
processing plants submit electronic copies of required performance test 
reports and compliance reports through the EPA's CDX using CEDRI.
     We proposed that the minimum duration for test runs for 
performance tests conducted on ore crushing and handling, finished 
pellet handling, ore drying, and indurating furnace affected sources be 
reduced from a minimum of 2 hours for each test run to a minimum of 1 
hour for each test run, with the stipulation that if test results 
indicate emissions are below the method detection limit, then the 
source's emissions will be assumed equal to the method detection limit 
when using the results to determine compliance with the MACT standards.
     We proposed the removal of the requirement to conduct 
quarterly internal baghouse inspections whenever a baghouse is equipped 
with a BLDS that is installed, operated, and maintained in compliance 
with the requirements in the Taconite Iron Ore Processing NESHAP.
     We proposed to remove pressure drop as a monitoring option 
for dynamic wet scrubbers and instead require that the scrubber water 
flow rate and fan amperage be monitored.
     We proposed a determination that a compound referred to as 
non-asbestiform amphibole EMP is not a HAP and is, thus, not subject to 
regulation under CAA section 112.
    We also proposed various changes to clarify testing, monitoring, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements and to correct typographical 
errors, including:
     Revisions to 40 CFR 96.9583 to clarify the dates by which 
the owners or operators of taconite iron ore processing facilities must 
comply with the proposed amendments;
     Revisions to 40 CFR 63.9600(b)(2) to clarify when a BLDS 
alarm becomes an operating system deviation;
     Revisions to 40 CFR 63.9620(f) and 63.9634(b)(3) to 
resolve conflicting provisions;
     Revisions to 40 CFR 63.9621(b) that clarify the test 
methods and procedures that must be used to determine

[[Page 45486]]

compliance with the applicable emission limits for PM;
     Revisions to 40 CFR 63.9622(d)(2), which establishes the 
operating limits for wet ESP;
     Revisions to the introductory paragraph of 40 CFR 63.9625 
to clarify the requirements for demonstrating initial compliance for 
air pollution control devices subject to operating limits;
     Revisions to 40 CFR 63.9632(a) to specify different 
detection limits for BLDS installed after the September 25, 2019, 
proposal date;
     Revisions to 40 CFR 63.9632(b) to clarify the requirements 
for CPMS;
     Revisions to 40 CFR 63.9632(f) to clarify the requirements 
for COMS;
     Revisions to 40 CFR 63.9633(a) and (b) to clarify the 
monitoring and data collection requirements;
     Revisions to 40 CFR 63.9634(d) to clarify the requirements 
for baghouses for determining continuous compliance with emission 
limits;
     Revisions to 40 CFR 63.9634(h)(1) and 40 CFR 63.9634(j)(1) 
and (2) for clarification;
     Revisions to 40 CFR 63.9641(b)(7) and (8) to clarify the 
reporting requirements for deviations from emission limitations;
     Revisions to the recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR 
63.9642(a) and (b) to clarify what information must be recorded when an 
applicable standard is not met as well as what information is required 
in a performance evaluation plan; and
     Removal of the definitions of conveyor belt transfer point 
and wet grinding and milling because the terms are not used in the 
rule, and the addition of a definition of wet scrubber.
    We also considered a few other potential amendments to the rule 
that had been requested by industry, but because we did not have 
adequate information or data to support a proposed change, we did not 
propose them as amendments to the rule. Instead, we described the 
potential amendments that industry requested and solicited comments, 
data, and any information as to whether the changes were appropriate. 
The three changes requested by industry for which we solicited 
information include the following:
     A reduction in the required testing frequency for 
indurating furnaces from twice per 5-year permit term to once per 5-
year permit term;
     An increase in the time allowed after a BLDS alarm to 
initiate corrective action; and
     An increase from six to 10 for the number of ore crushing 
and handling operations or finished pellet handling operations that can 
be considered similar and represented by an emissions test on a single 
representative unit.
    These requested amendments were described in the preamble to the 
proposed rule (84 FR 50682-50683, September 25, 2019).
2. How did the requirements change since proposal?
    Based on the consideration of comments received, we are finalizing 
all of the proposed amendments with the exception that we are not 
finalizing the proposed amendment to clarify compliance dates in 40 CFR 
63.9583 and the proposed amendment that would have required new BLDS to 
be more sensitive than existing ones. For those issues on which we 
solicited additional information, we did not receive sufficient 
information or data that supported making those changes to the NESHAP 
at this time.
3. What key comments did we receive and what are our responses?
    We received several comments regarding our proposal that a compound 
referred to as non-asbestiform amphibole EMP is not a HAP and is, thus, 
not subject to regulation under CAA section 112. A summary of these 
comments and our responses is provided below. Comments and our 
responses associated with the other proposed changes were generally 
supportive and can be found in the National Emissions Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Taconite Iron Ore Processing Residual Risk 
and Technology Review Summary of Public Comments and Responses, which 
is available in the docket for this action.
    Comment 1: Several commenters stated that the EPA refuses to set 
emission limits for EMP, even though it committed to doing so in its 
2004 voluntary partial remand in a legal challenge to the 2003 MACT 
standards. National Wildlife Federation et. al. v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 
03-1548) (NWF). The EPA's justification is that EMP are not classified 
as asbestos nor are they included on the EPA's list of HAP. However, 
there is no requirement in the remand for EMP to be listed as a HAP for 
it to be controlled--the remand simply says the EPA will set an 
emission standard. These commenters also stated that just because EMP 
are not classified as asbestos nor currently listed as HAP does not 
mean that they do not cause health problems. This argument ignores the 
significantly higher rates of mesothelioma on Minnesota's Iron Range, 
which has been studied by the University of Minnesota and the Minnesota 
Department of Health (MDH). The MDH study found a 3-percent increase in 
the risk of contracting mesothelioma for each year of employment in the 
taconite iron ore industry. According to the commenters, the study 
shows that taconite iron ore workers have an established risk for 
mesothelioma related to cumulative EMP exposure although the type of 
EMP (asbestiform or non-asbestiform) accounting for this association 
has not been determined with certainty; nor is there certainty as to 
whether the EMP over 5 micrometers in length are the best metric in 
this situation, given that the predominant EMP exposure is to minerals 
1-3 micrometers in length. According to the commenters, the study 
further notes that because of the lack of quantitative data on non-
asbestiform amphibole EMP, there remains uncertainty on the role of 
this exposure and the association with mesothelioma and there is 
additional uncertainty due to the lack of quantitative data on 
historical exposure to asbestiform EMP from commercial asbestos use. 
The commenters stated that this report establishes the uncertainties of 
whether EMP can be implicated in the higher rates of mesothelioma among 
taconite iron ore workers. One commenter points this out to show why 
the EPA should act conservatively by setting EMP emissions limits at 
these facilities. One commenter stated that maintaining good air 
quality at industrial mining operations is of great importance to the 
people of northeastern Minnesota, particularly taconite iron ore 
workers, their families and communities, and to the physicians who 
serve and care for them. There are serious health risks documented in 
connection with PM, and also EMP. The EPA should put forth rules that 
will protect the public and, therefore, should not preclude EMP from 
regulation when their contribution to human illness is not adequately 
understood.
    Response: Although some research suggests that non-asbestiform 
amphibole EMP may impact human health (although there is certainly no 
consensus, and indeed, much uncertainty as to the extent of their 
impact on human health), the issue for the EPA to regulate this 
pollutant under section 112 of the CAA is whether it is a HAP. As the 
EPA discussed in the proposal preamble (84 FR 50683-50684, September 
25, 2019) and in the memorandum, EPA's Analysis of Elongated Mineral 
Particulate (available as Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0664-0131), 
non-asbestiform amphibole EMP, such as those emitted

[[Page 45487]]

by this source category, are not a HAP as set forth in CAA section 
112(b)(1). We do note that these non-asbestiform amphibole EMP are a 
subset of PM, and emissions of PM are regulated as a surrogate for 
certain HAP in the current NESHAP for this source category.
    We recognize that the voluntary remand order in NWF provides for a 
remand to ``enable [EPA] to propose a standard for asbestos and 
asbestos-like fiber emissions from taconite iron ore processing 
facilities.'' At the time EPA requested the voluntary remand, EPA 
believed that these fibers were HAP subject to regulation under CAA 
section 112. Based on further analysis, and as explained in more detail 
in our proposed rule and in our analysis cited above, EPA has 
determined that the non-asbestiform EMP at issue are not a HAP. Thus, 
EPA is meeting the court order through this final action determining 
that it is not required to regulate the subject EMP under CAA section 
112. To the extent that the commenter is contending that the court 
remand order obligates EPA to regulate EMP regardless of whether it has 
authority to do so under CAA section 112, we disagree. The scope of the 
litigation at issue was limited to EPA's obligation under CAA section 
112(d)(2) and (3) to promulgate MACT standards and any remand order 
would need to fall within the scope of that legal challenge.
    We also note that many of the concerns raised by the commenter 
appear to address workplace exposure to EMP. The EPA's authority under 
the CAA is to address pollutants in the ambient air and does not extend 
to regulating workplace exposure. The Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration typically addresses workplace exposure concerns.
    Comment 2: Several commenters stated that the docket includes a 
2019 report on EMP written by the American Iron and Steel Institute 
(AISI) and that if this is the only document the EPA used, then the 
EPA's analysis is biased and uninformed. There is no indication that 
the MDH had any input to this report. Emails between the EPA and MPCA 
staff found in the docket (regarding fibers emitted from the Northshore 
taconite facility) indicate that the MPCA does not take the same view 
as the EPA that the only issue is whether these fibers can be 
identified as asbestos. According to the commenters, the MPCA argues 
that scientific consensus is lacking on the public health implications 
for mineral fibers meeting the more inclusive definitions of an EMP, 
which can often be as broad as any respirable mineral particles found 
in the ambient air and, therefore, were taking an approach of 
precaution in their air permitting approach to the facility. These 
commenters stated that the docket includes a memorandum from Ann Foss 
of the MPCA explaining why the MPCA was proposing to change how it 
regulates EMP. While the MPCA is making changes in the air permit 
issued to Northshore Mining, it will still continue to regulate EMP, 
just with newer, statistically driven methods.
    One commenter presented a schematic from a conference on EMP held 
in Charlottesville, Virginia, in October 2017 to illustrate the scope 
and complexity of EMP. The commenter stated that we do not know enough 
about EMP to make blanket statements about them and included quotes 
from the conference recognizing the uncertainty as to the toxicity and 
carcinogenicity associated with EMP as well as the underlying 
structural and compositional transformations and health outcomes 
associated with the various EMP.
    The commenter indicated that in the memorandum EPA's Analysis of 
Elongated Mineral Particulate (Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0664-
0131), the EPA pointed out that the fibers collected by ambient air 
monitors near the Peter Mitchell mine were non-asbestiform ferro-
actinolite and grunerite, not asbestos. The commenter stated that 
toxicological studies have shown ferro-actinolite is at least as toxic 
as amosite in animal studies.
    The commenter further stated that most studies in EMP science 
relate to the potential for EMP to cause mesothelioma and other lung 
malignancies. The commenter noted that the Taconite Workers Health 
Study (TWHS) also pointed out that there are significantly higher risks 
of nonmalignant lung disease and hypertensive heart disease in mine 
workers.
    Response: The cited 2019 report on EMP written by AISI was not the 
only document that informed the EPA's decisions regarding non-
asbestiform amphibole EMP. The docket for this rulemaking also includes 
two studies performed on the Peter Mitchell Mine (i.e., the taconite 
iron ore mine utilized by the Northshore facility) and on fibers found 
via ambient air monitoring near Silver Bay (i.e., the town near the 
associated taconite iron ore processing operations) and the referenced 
proposal by MPCA to modify its approach to regulating emissions of the 
subject non-asbestiform amphibole EMP, see Docket Item Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2017-0664-0138, -0127, and -0122, respectively.
    As discussed in the response to Comment 1, above, the EPA did not 
cite a lack of human health impact, or the associated lack of consensus 
or certainty, as rationale for not establishing emissions standards for 
non-asbestiform amphibole EMP for this source category under CAA 
section 112. Rather, the rationale for not regulating these fibers 
directly through the NESHAP for Taconite Iron Ore Processing is that 
the non-asbestiform amphibole EMP are not a HAP as set forth in CAA 
section 112(b)(1).
    The Minnesota regulations that apply to the ``Minnesota Fibers'' 
are not based on the authority of the CAA, but rather on Minnesota 
state law. The above-referenced MPCA proposal to change how it 
regulates these fibers contains a summary of these historical 
authorities. However, for the purposes of setting MACT standards, the 
EPA cannot use the state law authorities relied on by MPCA to regulate 
Minnesota Fibers (or any other pollutant) but rather only the 
authorities provided by CAA section 112. As the EPA previously noted, 
CAA section 112 does not provide the EPA with authority to regulate 
substances that are not listed as a HAP as set forth in CAA section 
112(b)(1). Nevertheless, as mentioned in response above, these non-
asbestiform amphibole EMP are a subset of PM, and emissions of PM are 
regulated as a surrogate for certain HAP in the current NESHAP for this 
source category.
    Comment 3: One commenter stated that there is no need for the 
proposed rule to mention EMP, and, therefore, the EPA should remove 
this reference from the rule. The commenter stated that EMP as a broad 
class have not been defined to be a HAP under the CAA, and as such, 
they are not subject to regulation under CAA section 112. There is a 
specific class of EMP that is regulated: Commercial asbestos. The 
commenter pointed out two issues: (1) It is incorrect to state that the 
EPA does not regulate EMP, because the EPA does, in fact, regulate 
specific EMP (the prime example being commercial asbestos), and (2) 
stating that the EPA chooses not to regulate EMP gives the false 
impression they are not worthy of concern.
    Response: As discussed in the response to Comment 1, above, non-
asbestiform amphibole EMP are the subject of a 2004 remand of the 
NESHAP for Taconite Iron Ore Processing. The EPA is addressing that 
remand based on the convincing information supporting that these non-
asbestiform amphibole EMP are not a HAP as set forth in CAA section

[[Page 45488]]

112(b)(1) and, thus, not subject to regulation under CAA section 112.
    We regret any confusion that may have arisen in regard to the terms 
used in the preamble of the proposed rule to refer to the subject 
fibers, or any false impressions that may have resulted from our 
proposal to not regulate the subject non-asbestiform amphibole EMP 
under the NESHAP for Taconite Iron Ore Processing. The discussion of 
EMP in the preamble to the proposed rule was not intended to address 
all types of EMP but rather referred only to non-asbestiform amphibole 
EMP emitted from taconite iron ore processing. As the commenter points 
out, the EPA already does regulate the EMP that qualify as asbestos in 
other various NESHAP because asbestos is a HAP as set forth in CAA 
section 112(b)(1).
    Comment 4: One commenter stated that following a challenge to the 
EPA decision that resulted in a partial voluntary remand of the 
original standards for the Taconite Iron Ore Processing source 
category, the EPA conducted a more fulsome analysis of the EMP 
compounds and correctly determined that non-asbestiform amphibole EMP 
emitted by the Taconite Iron Ore Processing source category does not 
meet the definition of asbestos or fine mineral fibers. Moreover, EMP 
is not listed as a HAP under the CAA. The commenter stated that the EPA 
is not obligated (and indeed is unable) to establish emission standards 
for these compounds under the Taconite Iron Ore Processing NESHAP, nor 
would it be appropriate to do so. The commenter further stated that as 
the preamble observes, the conclusion that EMP is not asbestos is 
supported not only by recent scientific developments, but also by the 
consistent definition of ``asbestos'' in other CAA and Toxic Substances 
Control Act regulations, such as, the National Emission Standard for 
Asbestos (40 CFR part 61, subpart M). Because the EMP compounds emitted 
from taconite facilities are not asbestiform and otherwise do not 
satisfy the elements of the definition, they are not asbestos.
    The commenter also stated that EMP should not be regulated as a 
fine mineral fiber because it does not fit within the definition of 
that HAP. The preamble states that the ``fine mineral fibers'' 
definition specifically applies to synthetic vitreous fibers largely 
associated with processing of glass, rock, or slag fibers. Because this 
definition is specific and limited to particular fibers and clearly 
does not include EMP, the EPA reasonably concluded that EMP should not 
be regulated as fine mineral fibers.
    Response: The EPA acknowledges and appreciates the support of this 
commenter. We do note, however, that our discussion of EMP in this 
rulemaking is restricted to those non-asbestiform EMP emitted from 
taconite iron ore processing, as discussed in the response to Comment 
3, above. Other EMP may well meet the definition of ``asbestos'' or 
``fine mineral fibers'' or some other HAP as set forth in CAA section 
112(b)(1).
    Comment 5: One commenter stated that the EPA's decision that 
regulation of EMP compounds under CAA section 112 is unnecessary is 
bolstered by studies published since 2003, which have found that EMP 
are less likely to cause hazardous health effects than asbestos. The 
commenter noted that those studies suggest that the lower health hazard 
may be due, in part, to the biological processes by which they are 
transported in tissue.
    Response: As discussed in the responses to Comments 1 and 2, above, 
the Agency's basis for not regulating these fibers under the NESHAP for 
Taconite Iron Ore Processing is that they are not a HAP as set forth 
under CAA section 112(b)(1) and, therefore, the EPA does not have 
authority to regulate these fibers in the NESHAP. The EPA did not rely 
on health studies regarding these particles and our decision not to 
regulate these particles under the NESHAP should not be construed as a 
decision by the EPA on potential impacts of these non-asbestiform 
amphibole EMP on human health. That issue is outside the scope of this 
rulemaking.
    Comment 6: One commenter stated that EMP are sufficiently 
controlled by PM control devices. The commenter noted that in the 
motion for a voluntary remand associated with the NESHAP, the EPA 
stated to the Court that it intends to propose that these fibers be 
regulated by using the emissions limitation for PM as a surrogate and 
to take public comment on such proposal. The commenter noted the EPA's 
position in the proposed RTR that EMP is not asbestos, thus, not HAP. 
The commenter stated that emissions of EMP are controlled by operating 
PM control devices, good fugitive dust management practices, and 
ongoing facility operation and maintenance, and that ambient air 
monitoring for EMP is a condition of the facility's air emissions 
operating permit, in effect and ongoing. The commenter believed that, 
after review of the EPA's assessment, that with this continued 
regulatory approach, available evidence does not currently reflect any 
increased risk for the broader community.
    Response: As discussed in the responses to Comments 1 and 2, above, 
and as recognized by the commenter, the EPA is not proposing to 
regulate the subject non-asbestiform amphibole EMP. We agree with the 
commenter that PM controls currently used by the taconite iron ore 
processing facilities to address certain HAP emissions also limit 
emissions of the amphibole non-asbestiform EMP at the Northside 
facility.
4. What is our final approach for these amendments?
    For the reasons explained in the preamble to the proposed rule and 
after considering comments on the proposed rule, we are now finalizing 
the following amendments to the rule:
     Requiring that owners or operators of taconite iron ore 
processing plants submit electronic copies of required performance test 
reports and compliance reports.
     Reducing the minimum duration for test runs for 
performance tests conducted from a minimum of 2 hours for each test run 
to a minimum of 1 hour for each test run.
     Removing the requirements to conduct quarterly internal 
baghouse inspections whenever a baghouse is equipped with a properly 
installed, operated, and maintained BLDS.
     Removing pressure drop as a monitoring option for dynamic 
wet scrubbers.
     Determining that compounds referred to as non-asbestiform 
amphibole EMP are not a HAP as set forth in CAA section 112(b)(1) and, 
thus, are not subject to regulation under CAA section 112.
    We are not finalizing our proposal to amend 40 CFR 63.9632(a) to 
require that lower detection limits apply to BLDS installed after the 
September 25, 2019, proposal date. The proposed increase in required 
sensitivity for new BLDS was similar to what the EPA required in 
several recent new source performance standards and NESHAP rulemakings. 
However, in those cases, the increase in required BLDS detection 
sensitivity was triggered by circumstances specific to the source 
categories being addressed at that time (e.g., reduction in allowable 
emission rates or unacceptable risks). In the case of the NESHAP for 
Taconite Iron Ore Processing, we neither proposed to find the risks 
unacceptable nor to tighten the associated MACT PM standards. The EPA 
believes that the PM loading to control devices installed on affected 
sources at taconite iron ore processing facilities is at a level where 
the BLDS sensitivity currently required under the NESHAP is sufficient 
to

[[Page 45489]]

ensure compliance with the MACT standards and that these MACT standards 
protect health and the environment with an ample margin of safety. 
Therefore, the final rule does not include the tightened detection 
sensitivity requirement for new BLDS.
    We are not amending 40 CFR 63.9583 to specify the compliance dates 
for the changes made to the rule as provided in the proposed rule. 
Instead, we have added the compliance date requirements to each section 
where changes to the rule have been made. We believe this approach more 
clearly communicates the dates by which compliance with the new 
requirements is required.
    We are not amending the rule to include the changes requested by 
industry for which we solicited information at proposal because we did 
not receive sufficient additional information that supported making the 
requested changes at this time.

E. Compliance Dates of the Revisions to the NESHAP

1. What compliance dates did we propose?
    We proposed compliance dates of 180 days after promulgation of the 
final rule for all of the NESHAP revisions.
2. What changed since proposal?
    We modified the dates by which the owners or operators of taconite 
iron ore processing facilities must be in compliance with the final 
amendments. Specifically, we modified the compliance dates of some 
General Provisions to the date of promulgation of the final rule and we 
modified the compliance dates for monitoring of fan amperage of dynamic 
wet scrubbers to 18 months after promulgation of the final rule. We 
also modified certain rule provisions to state that affected sources 
that construct or reconstruct after the date of the proposed rule must 
comply on the effective date of the final rule or date of startup, 
whichever is later.
3. What comments did we receive and what are our responses?
    Commenters generally supported the September 25, 2019, proposed 
compliance dates. However, one commenter did object to the proposed 
requirement to comply with monitoring requirements for fan amperage on 
dynamic wet scrubbers within 180 days of promulgation of the final 
rule. For the reasons cited in section IV.E.4 of this preamble, below, 
we are finalizing a compliance date of 18 months after promulgation of 
the final rule for the requirement to comply with fan amperage 
monitoring requirements for a dynamic wet scrubber for which the owner 
or operator previously monitored pressure drop.
    Summaries of these comments and the EPA responses are contained in 
the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Taconite 
Iron Ore Processing Residual Risk and Technology Review Summary of 
Public Comments and Responses, which is available in the docket for 
this action.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for these amendments?
    Our experience with similar industries that have been required to 
convert reporting mechanisms, become familiar with required templates, 
learn the process of submitting compliance reports electronically 
through the EPA's CEDRI, test these new electronic submission 
capabilities, and reliably employ electronic reporting, shows that a 
time period of at least 180 days is generally necessary to successfully 
complete these changes. Our experience with similar industries further 
shows that this sort of regulated facility generally requires a time 
period of 180 days to read and understand the amended rule 
requirements; evaluate their operations to ensure that they can meet 
the standards during periods of startup and shutdown as defined in the 
rule and make any necessary adjustments; adjust parameter monitoring 
and recording systems to accommodate revisions; and update their 
operations to reflect the revised requirements. The EPA recognizes the 
confusion that multiple different compliance dates for individual 
requirements would create and the additional burden such an assortment 
of dates would impose. From our assessment of the timeframe needed for 
compliance with the entirety of the revised requirements, the EPA 
considers a period of 180 days to be the most expeditious compliance 
period practicable, and, thus, is finalizing the requirement that 
existing affected sources be in compliance with all of this 
regulation's revised requirements within 180 days of the regulation's 
effective date.
    In 2009, the Court vacated two specific General Provision 
exemptions, namely, 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 63.6(h)(1). Since those 
sections are already vacated, the removal of their ``applicability'' in 
our rules is strictly ministerial.
    We changed the compliance date for monitoring requirements for fan 
amperage on dynamic wet scrubbers from 180 days after promulgation of 
the final rule to 18 months after promulgation of the final rule for 
taconite iron ore processing facilities that operate dynamic wet 
scrubbers and have been monitoring their operation using pressure drop 
and water flow rate. Under the final rule, these facilities must 
convert to monitoring fan amperage and water flow rate. In these cases, 
the owner or operator of the facility must modify their parametric 
monitoring system and conduct testing in order to comply with the 
monitoring requirements in the final rule. In our experience with 
similar industries, these activities can take up to 18 months. 
Therefore, the final rule allows these facilities up to 18 months to 
comply with the requirement to monitor fan amperage on dynamic wet 
scrubbers. For dynamic wet scrubbers that commence construction or 
reconstruction after the proposal date of September 25, 2019, owner or 
operators must comply with the requirements to monitor both the water 
flow rate and fan amperage upon startup, or by the date of promulgation 
of the final rule, whichever is later.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and Additional 
Analyses Conducted

A. What are the affected facilities?

    We anticipate that the eight taconite iron ore processing 
facilities currently operating in the United States will be affected by 
this final rule.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    We are not establishing new emission limits and are not requiring 
additional controls; therefore, no significant air quality impacts are 
expected as a result of the final amendments to the rule. However, we 
believe that the removal of exemptions during periods of SSM and the 
enhanced transparency associated with electronic reporting may result 
in unquantifiable benefits and air quality impacts.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    As described in the proposed rule and covered in detail in the cost 
memorandum in the docket to this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2017-0664), the final amendments to reduce testing duration and the 
elimination of the requirement to conduct internal visual baghouse 
inspections will result in an estimated overall cost savings to 
industry of $190,000 per year.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    Because the overall costs and savings to industry associated with 
the proposed revisions are relatively small,

[[Page 45490]]

no significant economic impacts from the final amendments are 
anticipated.

E. What are the benefits?

    While the amendments in this final rule do not require any new 
reductions in emissions of HAP, this action results in improved 
monitoring, compliance, and implementation of the rule. The final rule 
increases transparency and public availability of data via the 
requirement for electronic submittal of compliance test results and 
reports.

F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

    To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that 
might be associated with the source category, we performed a 
demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risks to individual 
demographic groups of the populations living within 5 kilometers (km) 
and within 50 km of the facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the 
distribution of HAP-related cancer and noncancer risks from the 
Taconite Iron Ore Processing source category across different 
demographic groups within the populations living near facilities. That 
analysis indicates that actual emissions from the source category 
expose approximately 38,000 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 
million and no one to a chronic noncancer HI greater than 1. The 
percent of minorities nationally (38 percent) is much higher than for 
the category population with cancer risk greater than or equal to 1-in-
1 million (7 percent). The category population with cancer risk greater 
than or equal to 1-in-1 million has a greater percentage of Native 
American (2.8 percent) as compared to nationally (0.8 percent), but 
lower percentages for African American (1 percent) and Hispanic (1 
percent) as compared to nationally (12 percent and 18 percent, 
respectively). The category population with cancer risk greater than or 
equal to 1-in-1 million has a lower percentage of the population below 
the poverty level (14 percent) as compared to nationally (19 percent). 
Therefore, the EPA believes that this action does not have 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or 
indigenous peoples. The documentation for this decision is contained in 
section IV.A.1 of the proposal preamble (84 FR 50676--50677) and in the 
Taconite Iron Ore Processing Demographic Analysis Report, which is 
available in this rulemaking docket (Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-
0664-0129).

G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we conduct?

    The EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks 
addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. 
This action's health and risk assessments are protective of the most 
vulnerable populations, including children, due to how we determine 
exposure and through the health benchmarks that we use. Specifically, 
the risk assessments we perform assume a lifetime of exposure, in which 
populations are conservatively presumed to be exposed to airborne 
concentrations at their residence continuously, 24 hours per day for a 
70-year lifetime, including childhood. With regards to children's 
potentially greater susceptibility to noncancer toxicants, the 
assessments rely on the EPA's (or comparable) hazard identification and 
dose-response values that have been developed to be protective for all 
subgroups of the general population, including children. For more 
information on the risk assessment, see summary in section IV.A of this 
preamble and the final Taconite Risk Report, which is available in the 
docket to this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0664).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was, 
therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
for review.

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

    This action is considered an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory 
action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this final rule can be 
found in EPA's analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated 
with this action.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this rule will be 
submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The Information Collection 
Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR 
number 2050.09. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this 
rule, and it is briefly summarized here. The information collection 
requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them.
    We are finalizing amendments that require electronic reporting, 
remove the malfunction exemption, and impose other revisions that 
affect reporting and recordkeeping for taconite iron ore processing 
facilities. This information will be collected to assure compliance 
with 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRRR.
    Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of taconite iron 
ore processing facilities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart RRRRR).
    Estimated number of respondents: Eight (total).
    Frequency of response: Initial, semiannual, and annual.
    Total estimated burden: The annual recordkeeping and reporting 
burden for facilities to comply with all of the requirements in the 
NESHAP is estimated to be 1,000 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 
5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: The annual recordkeeping and reporting burden 
for facilities to comply with all the requirements in the NESHAP is 
estimated to be $550,000 (per year). The only costs associated with the 
information collection activity is labor cost. There are no capital/
startup or operation and maintenance costs for this ICR.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the 
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB 
approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the 
Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to 
display the OMB control number for the approved information collection 
activities contained in this final rule.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or 
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

[[Page 45491]]

While this action creates an enforceable duty on the private sector, 
the cost does not exceed $100 million or more.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. No tribal governments own facilities subject to 
this action. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. 
However, since tribal officials expressed significant interest in this 
rulemaking, consistent with the EPA Policy on Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribes, the EPA consulted with tribal 
officials during the development of this action. A summary of that 
consultation is provided in the docket to this rulemaking (Docket Item 
Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0664-0142, EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0664-0144, and EPA-HQ-
OAR-2017-0664-0145). Tribal officials also provided written comments on 
the proposed rule. A summary of their comments along with the EPA's 
responses are in the preamble to this final rule or in the National 
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Taconite Iron Ore 
Processing Residual Risk and Technology Review Summary of Public 
Comments and Responses, available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-
0664.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is 
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and 
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety 
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to 
children. This action's health and risk assessments are summarized in 
section IV.A of this preamble and in section IV of the September 25, 
2019, proposal preamble and are further documented in the final 
Taconite Risk Report, which is available in the docket for this action 
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0664).

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

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

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR 
Part 51

    This action involves technical standards. The EPA has decided to 
use ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 Part 10, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas 
Analyses,'' manual portion only, as an alternative to EPA Method 3B and 
incorporates the alternative method by reference. The ANSI/ASME PTC 
19.10-1981 Part 10 method incorporates both manual and instrumental 
methodologies for the determination of oxygen content of the exhaust 
gas. The manual method segment of the oxygen determination is performed 
through the absorption of oxygen. The method is acceptable as an 
alternative to EPA Method 3B and is available from the American Society 
of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) at http://www.asme.org; by mail at Three 
Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990; or by telephone at (800) 843-
2763. EPA Method 3B is applicable for the determination of oxygen, 
carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide concentrations in the exhaust gas 
from fossil-fuel combustion for use in excess air or emission rate 
correction factor calculations. The EPA is continuing to require the 
use of the EPA's ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance'' to 
develop monitoring plans for BLDS. This publication (EPA-454/R-98-015) 
provides guidance on the selection, setup, adjustment, operation, and 
quality assurance of fabric filter BLDS and is available at https://www3.epa.gov/ttnemc01/cem/tribo.pdf.

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

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately 
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority 
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as 
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The 
risks for this source category were found to be acceptable for all 
populations, including minority pollutions, low income populations, 
and/or indigenous people. In addition, this action increases the level 
of environmental protection for all affected populations through 
improved compliance. Specifically, the final rule removes SSM 
exemptions and clarifies testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
reporting requirements. The results of the final risk analysis are 
contained in section IV.A of this preamble and in the final risk 
assessment report (available in the docket for this rulemaking). The 
results of the demographics analysis are contained in section V.F of 
this preamble and the Taconite Iron Ore Processing Demographic Analysis 
Report, which is available in this rulemaking docket (Docket Item No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0664-0129).

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule 
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of 
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, 
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

Andrew Wheeler,
Administrator.

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

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

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

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


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


Sec.  63.14   Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 
10, Instruments and Apparatus], issued August 31, 1981, IBR approved 
for Sec. Sec.  63.309(k), 63.457(k), 63.772(e) and (h), 63.865(b), 
63.997(e), 63.1282(d) and (g), 63.1625(b), table 5 to subpart EEEE, 
63.3166(a), 63.3360(e), 63.3545(a), 63.3555(a), 63.4166(a), 63.4362(a), 
63.4766(a), 63.4965(a), 63.5160(d), table 4 to subpart UUUU, table3 to 
subpart YYYY, 63.7822(b), 63.7824(e), 63.7825(b), 63.9307(c), 
63.9323(a), 63.9621(b) and (c), 63.11148(e), 63.11155(e), 63.11162(f), 
63.11163(g),

[[Page 45492]]

63.11410(j), 63.11551(a), 63.11646(a), and 63.11945, table 5 to subpart 
DDDDD, table 4 to subpart JJJJJ, table 4 to subpart KKKKK, tables 4 and 
5 of subpart UUUUU, table 1 to subpart ZZZZZ, and table 4 to subpart 
JJJJJJ.
* * * * *
    (n) * * *
    (3) EPA-454/R-98-015, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 
(OAQPS), Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, September 1997, 
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=2000D5T6.PDF, IBR approved 
for Sec. Sec.  63.548(e), 63.864(e), 63.7525(j), 63.8450(e), 
63.8600(e), 63.9632(a), and 63.11224(f).
* * * * *

0
3. Section 63.9590 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.9590   What emission limitations must I meet?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) On or before January 28, 2022, for affected sources that 
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 
2019, 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. After January 28, 2022, for 
affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or 
before September 25, 2019, and after July 28, 2020, or upon start-up, 
which ever date is later, for affected sources that commenced 
construction or reconstruction after September 25, 2019, for each 
dynamic wet scrubber applied to meet any particulate matter emission 
limit in Table 1 to this subpart, you must maintain the daily average 
scrubber water flow rate and the daily average fan amperage (a 
surrogate for fan speed as revolutions per minute) at or above the 
minimum levels established during the initial performance test.
* * * * *

0
4. Section 63.9600 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(2) 
introductory text to read as follows:


Sec.  63.9600  What are my operation and maintenance requirements?

    (a) On or before January 25, 2021, for affected sources that 
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 
2019, you must always operate and maintain your affected source, 
including air pollution control and monitoring equipment, according to 
the provisions in Sec.  63.6(e)(1)(i). After January 25, 2021, for 
affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or 
before September 25, 2019, and after July 28, 2020, or upon start-up, 
which ever date is later, for affected sources that commenced 
construction or reconstruction after September 25, 2019, at all times, 
you must always operate and maintain any affected source, including 
associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, in 
a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control 
practices for minimizing emissions. The general duty to minimize 
emissions does not require the owner or operator to make any further 
efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by the applicable 
standard have been achieved. Determination of whether such operation 
and maintenance procedures are being used will be based on information 
available to the Administrator which may include, but is not limited 
to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, 
review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the 
source.
    (b) * * *
    (2) Corrective action procedures for bag leak detection systems. On 
or before January 25, 2021, for affected sources that commenced 
construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 2019, 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. After January 25, 2021, for affected sources that 
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 
2019, and after July 28, 2020, or upon start-up, which ever date is 
later, for affected sources that commenced construction or 
reconstruction after September 25, 2019, in the event a bag leak 
detection system alarm is triggered, you must initiate corrective 
action to determine the cause of the alarm within 1 hour of the alarm, 
initiate corrective action to correct the cause of the problem within 
24 hours of the alarm, and complete the corrective action as soon as 
practicable. If the alarm sounds more than 5 percent of the operating 
time during a 6-month period as determined according to Sec.  
63.9634(d)(3), it is considered an operating parameter deviation. 
Corrective actions may include, but are not limited to, the actions 
listed in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (vi) of this section.
* * * * *

0
5. Section 63.9610 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory 
text and paragraph (c) to read as follows:


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

    (a) On or before January 25, 2021, for affected sources that 
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 
2019, you must be in compliance with the requirements in paragraphs 
(a)(1) through (6) of this section at all times, except during periods 
of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. After January 25, 2021, for 
affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or 
before September 25, 2019, and after July 28, 2020, for affected 
sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after September 
25, 2019, you must be in compliance with the emission limitations, 
standards, and operation and maintenance requirements in this subpart 
at all times.
* * * * *
    (c) On or before January 25, 2021, for affected sources that 
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 
2019, you must develop a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction 
plan according to the provisions in Sec.  63.6(e)(3). For affected 
sources, a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan is not required 
after January 25, 2021. No startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan is 
required for affected sources that commenced construction or 
reconstruction after September 25, 2019.

0
6. Section 63.9620 is amended by revising paragraph (f) introductory 
text to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (f) If you elect to test representative emission units as provided 
in paragraph (e) of this section, the units that are grouped together 
as similar units must meet the criteria in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of 
this section.
* * * * *


0
7. Section 63.9621 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b)(1) and 
(2), and (c)(1) and (2) to read as follows:

[[Page 45493]]

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

    (a) On or before January 25, 2021, for affected sources that 
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 
2019, 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. After January 25, 2021, for 
affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or 
before September 25, 2019, and after July 28, 2020, or upon start-up, 
which ever date is later, for affected sources that commenced 
construction or reconstruction after September 25, 2019, you must 
conduct each performance test that applies to your affected source 
under normal operating conditions of the affected source. The owner or 
operator may not conduct performance tests during periods of 
malfunction. The owner or operator must record the process information 
that is necessary to document operating conditions during the test and 
include in such record an explanation to support that such conditions 
represent normal operation. Upon request, the owner or operator shall 
make available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to 
determine the conditions of performance tests. You must also conduct 
each performance test that applies to your affected source according to 
the requirements in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
    (b) * * *
    (1) Except as provided in Sec.  63.9620(e), determine the 
concentration of particulate matter in the stack gas for each emission 
unit according to the test methods listed in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) 
through (v) of this section.
    (i) EPA Method 1 or 1A in appendix A-1 to part 60 of this chapter 
to select sampling port locations and the number of traverse points. 
Sampling ports must be located at the outlet of the control device and 
prior to any releases to the atmosphere.
    (ii) EPA Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, or 2F in appendix A-1 to part 60 of 
this chapter or EPA Method 2G in appendix A-2 to part 60 of this 
chapter, as applicable, to determine the volumetric flow rate of the 
stack gas.
    (iii) EPA Method 3A or 3B in appendix A-2 to part 60 of this 
chapter to determine the dry molecular weight of the stack gas. The 
voluntary consensus standard ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 (incorporated by 
reference-see Sec.  63.14) may be used as an alternative to the manual 
procedures (but not instrumental procedures) in EPA Method 3B.
    (iv) EPA Method 4 in appendix A-3 to part 60 of this chapter to 
determine the moisture content of the stack gas.
    (v) EPA Method 5 or 5D in appendix A-3 to part 60 of this chapter 
or EPA Method 17 in appendix A-6 to part 60 of this chapter to 
determine the concentration of particulate matter.
    (2) Each EPA Method 5, 5D, or 17 performance test must consist of 
three separate runs. Each run must be conducted for a minimum of 1 
hour. If any measurement result is reported as below the method 
detection limit, use the method detection limit for that value when 
calculating the average particulate matter concentration. The average 
particulate matter concentration from the three runs will be used to 
determine compliance, as shown in Equation 1 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28JY20.000

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.

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

0
8. Section 63.9622 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (d)(2) to 
read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (b) On or before January 28, 2022, for affected sources that 
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 
2019, 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. After January 28, 2022, for 
affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or 
before September 25, 2019, and after July 28, 2020, or upon start-up, 
which ever date is later, for affected sources that commenced 
construction or reconstruction after September 25, 2019, for dynamic 
wet scrubbers subject to performance testing in Sec.  63.9620 and 
operating limits for scrubber water flow rate and fan amperage in Sec.  
63.9590(b)(2), you must establish site-specific operating limits 
according to the procedures in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this 
section.
    (1) On or before January 28, 2022, for affected sources that 
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 
2019, 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. After January 28, 2022, for affected sources that 
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September

[[Page 45494]]

25, 2019, and after July 28, 2020, or upon start-up, which ever date is 
later, for affected sources that commenced construction or 
reconstruction after September 25, 2019, using the CPMS required in 
Sec.  63.9631(b), measure and record the scrubber water flow rate and 
the fan amperage every 15 minutes during each run of the particulate 
matter performance test.
    (2) On or before January 28, 2022, for affected sources that 
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 
2019, calculate and record the average scrubber water flow rate and 
either the average fan amperage or the 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. After January 28, 2022, for affected sources that commenced 
construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 2019, and 
after July 28, 2020, or upon start-up, which ever date is later, for 
affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after 
September 25, 2019, calculate and record the average scrubber water 
flow rate and the average fan amperage for each individual test run. 
Your operating limits are established as the lowest average scrubber 
water flow rate and the lowest average fan amperage value corresponding 
to any of the three test runs.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) For each individual test run, calculate and record the average 
value for each operating parameter in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through 
(iii) of this section for each wet electrostatic precipitator field. 
Your operating limits are established as the lowest average value for 
each operating parameter of secondary voltage and water flow rate 
corresponding to any of the three test runs, and the highest average 
value for each stack outlet temperature corresponding to any of the 
three test runs.
* * * * *

0
9. Section 63.9623 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as 
follows:


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

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) On or before January 28, 2022, for affected sources that 
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 
2019, 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). After January 28, 2022, for affected sources 
that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 
25, 2019, and after July 28, 2020, or upon start-up, which ever date is 
later, for affected sources that commenced construction or 
reconstruction after September 25, 2019, for each dynamic wet scrubber 
subject to performance testing in Sec.  63.9620 and operating limits 
for scrubber water flow rate and fan amperage in Sec.  63.9590(b)(2), 
you have established appropriate site-specific operating limits and 
have a record of the scrubber water flow rate and the fan amperage 
value, measured during the performance test in accordance with Sec.  
63.9622(b).
* * * * *

0
10. Section 63.9625 is amended by revising the introductory text to 
read as follows:


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

    For each air pollution control device subject to operating limits 
in Sec.  63.9590(b), you have demonstrated initial compliance with the 
operation and maintenance requirements if you meet all of the 
requirements in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section.
* * * * *

0
11. Section 63.9631 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) introductory 
text and (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.9631   What are my monitoring requirements?

    (a) On or before January 25, 2021, for affected sources that 
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 
2019, 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. After January 25, 2021, for affected sources that commenced 
construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 2019, and 
after July 28, 2020, or upon start-up, which ever date is later, for 
affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after 
September 25, 2019, for each baghouse applied to meet any particulate 
matter emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart, you must install, 
operate, and maintain a bag leak detection system to monitor the 
relative change in particulate matter loadings according to the 
requirements in Sec.  63.9632(a), and conduct inspections at their 
specified frequencies according to the requirements in paragraphs 
(a)(1) through (6) and (8) of this section. For each baghouse applied 
to meet any particulate matter emission limit in Table 1 to this 
subpart that is not required by Sec.  63.9632(a) to be equipped with a 
bag leak detection system, you must conduct inspections at their 
specified frequencies according to the requirements in paragraphs 
(a)(1) through (8) of this section.
* * * * *
    (c) On or before January 28, 2022, for affected sources that 
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 
2019, 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. After January 28, 2022, for affected 
sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before 
September 25, 2019, and after July 28, 2020, or upon start-up, which 
ever date is later, for affected sources that commenced construction or 
reconstruction after September 25, 2019, for each dynamic wet scrubber 
subject to the scrubber water flow rate and the fan amperage operating 
limits in Sec.  63.9590(b)(2), you must install, operate, and maintain 
a CPMS according to the requirements in Sec.  63.9632(b) through (e) 
and monitor the daily average scrubber water flow rate and the daily 
average fan amperage according to the requirements in Sec.  63.9633.
* * * * *

0
12. Section 63.9632 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text.

[[Page 45495]]

0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(3) through (8) as paragraphs (a)(4) 
through (9).
0
c. Adding new paragraph (a)(3).
0
d. Revising newly redesignated paragraphs (a)(4), (a)(5) introductory 
text, (a)(7) introductory text, and (a)(7)(i).
0
e. Revising paragraphs (b)(3) through (6) and (f)(2) and (4).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


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

    (a) On or before January 25, 2021, for affected sources that 
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 
2019, for each negative pressure baghouse or positive pressure baghouse 
equipped with a stack, applied to meet any particulate emission limit 
in Table 1 to this subpart, you must install, operate, and maintain a 
bag leak detection system for each exhaust stack according to the 
requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) and (a)(4) through (9) of 
this section. After January 25, 2021, for affected sources that 
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 
2019, and after July 28, 2020, or upon start-up, which ever date is 
later, for affected sources that commenced construction or 
reconstruction after September 25, 2019, for each negative pressure 
baghouse or positive pressure baghouse equipped with a stack, applied 
to meet any particulate emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart, you 
must install, operate, and maintain a bag leak detection system for 
each exhaust stack according to the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) 
through (9) of this section.
* * * * *
    (3) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with a device to 
continuously record the output signal from the sensor.
    (4) The system must be equipped with an alarm that will sound when 
an increase in relative particulate loadings is detected over the alarm 
level set point established according to paragraph (a)(5) of this 
section. The alarm must be located such that it can be heard by the 
appropriate plant personnel.
    (5) For each bag leak detection system, you must develop and submit 
to the Administrator for approval, a site-specific monitoring plan that 
addresses the items identified in paragraphs (a)(5)(i) through (v) of 
this section. The monitoring plan shall be consistent with the 
manufacturer's specifications and recommendations contained in the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) guidance document, ``Fabric 
Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance'' (EPA-454/R-98-015) (incorporated 
by reference--see Sec.  63.14). You must operate and maintain the bag 
leak detection system according to the site-specific monitoring plan at 
all times. The plan shall describe all of the items in paragraphs 
(a)(5)(i) through (v) of this section.
* * * * *
    (7) Following initial adjustment, do not adjust sensitivity or 
range, averaging period, alarm set point, or alarm delay time, without 
approval from the Administrator except as provided for in paragraph 
(a)(7)(i) of this section. In no event may the sensitivity be increased 
more than 100 percent or decreased by more than 50 percent over a 365-
day period unless such adjustment follows a complete baghouse 
inspection that demonstrates the baghouse is in good operating 
condition.
    (i) Once per quarter, you may adjust the sensitivity or range of 
the bag leak detection system to account for seasonal effects, 
including temperature and humidity, according to the procedures 
identified in the site-specific monitoring plan required under 
paragraph (a)(5) of this section.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) On or before January 25, 2021, for affected sources that 
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 
2019, performance evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria (e.g., 
calibrations). After January 25, 2021, for affected sources that 
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 
2019, and after July 28, 2020, or upon start-up, which ever date is 
later, for affected sources that commenced construction or 
reconstruction after September 25, 2019, performance evaluation 
procedures, a schedule for performing such procedures, and acceptance 
criteria (e.g., calibrations), as well as corrective action to be taken 
if a performance evaluation does not meet the acceptance criteria. If a 
CPMS calibration fails, the CPMS is considered to be inoperative until 
you take corrective action and the system passes calibration.
    (4) On or before January 25, 2021, for affected sources that 
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 
2019, ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance with 
the general requirements of Sec.  63.8(c)(1), (3), (4)(ii), (7), and 
(8). After January 25, 2021, for affected sources that commenced 
construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 2019, and 
after July 28, 2020, or upon start-up, which ever date is later, for 
affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after 
September 25, 2019, ongoing operation and maintenance procedures and a 
schedule for preventative maintenance procedures, in a manner 
consistent with good air pollution control practices and in accordance 
with the general requirements of Sec.  63.8(c)(1)(ii), (c)(3), 
(c)(4)(ii), and (c)(7) and (8).
    (5) On or before January 25, 2021, for affected sources that 
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 
2019, ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with the 
general requirements of Sec.  63.8(d). After January 25, 2021, for 
affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or 
before September 25, 2019, and after July 28, 2020, or upon start-up, 
which ever date is later, for affected sources that commenced 
construction or reconstruction after September 25, 2019, ongoing data 
quality assurance procedures in accordance with the general 
requirements of Sec.  63.8(d)(1) and (2). The owner or operator shall 
keep these written procedures on record for the life of the affected 
source or until the affected source is no longer subject to the 
provisions of this part, to be made available for inspection, upon 
request, by the Administrator. If the performance evaluation plan is 
revised, the owner or operator shall keep previous (i.e., superseded) 
versions of the performance evaluation plan on record to be made 
available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator, for a 
period of 5 years after each revision to the plan.
    (6) On or before January 25, 2021, for affected sources that 
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 
2019, ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance with 
the general requirements of Sec.  63.10(c), (e)(1), and (e)(2)(i). 
After January 25, 2021, for affected sources that commenced 
construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 2019, and 
after July 28, 2020, or upon start-up, which ever date is later, for 
affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after 
September 25, 2019, ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in 
accordance with the general requirements of Sec.  63.10(c)(1) through 
(14), (e)(1), and (e)(2)(i).
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (2) On or before January 25, 2021, for affected sources that 
commenced

[[Page 45496]]

construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 2019, you 
must develop and implement a quality control program for operating and 
maintaining each continuous opacity monitoring system (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. After January 25, 2021, for 
affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or 
before September 25, 2019, and after July 28, 2020, or upon start-up, 
which ever date is later, for affected sources that commenced 
construction or reconstruction after September 25, 2019, you must 
develop and implement a quality control program for operating and 
maintaining each COMS according to Sec.  63.8(a) and (b), (c)(1)(ii), 
(c)(2) through (8), (d)(1) and (2), and (e) through (g) and Procedure 3 
in appendix F to 40 CFR part 60. At a minimum, the quality control 
program must include a daily calibration drift assessment, quarterly 
performance audit, and annual zero alignment of each COMS.
* * * * *
    (4) On or before January 25, 2021, for affected sources that 
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 
2019, you must determine and record the 6-minute average opacity for 
periods during which the COMS is not out of control. After January 25, 
2021, for affected sources that commenced construction or 
reconstruction on or before September 25, 2019, and after July 28, 
2020, or upon start-up, which ever date is later, for affected sources 
that commenced construction or reconstruction after September 25, 2019, 
you must determine and record the 6-minute average opacity for periods 
during which the COMS is not out of control. All COMS must complete a 
minimum of one cycle of sampling and analyzing for each successive 10-
second period and one cycle of data recording for each successive 6-
minute period.

0
13. Section 63.9633 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to 
read as follows:


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

    (a) Except for monitoring malfunctions, out of control periods, 
associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control 
activities (including as applicable, calibration checks and required 
zero and span adjustments), you must monitor continuously (or collect 
data at all required intervals) at all times an affected source is 
operating.
    (b) You may not use data recorded during monitoring malfunctions, 
out of control periods, associated repairs, and required quality 
assurance or control activities in data averages and calculations used 
to report emission or operating levels, or to fulfill a minimum data 
availability requirement. You must use all the data collected during 
all other periods in assessing compliance.

0
14. Section 63.9634 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b)(3), (d) introductory text, and (d)(2).
0
b. Adding paragraph (d)(3).
0
c. Revising paragraphs (f) introductory text, (f)(1), (3), and (4), 
(h)(1), and (j)(1) and (2).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) For ore crushing and handling and finished pellet handling 
emission units not selected for initial performance testing and defined 
within a group of similar emission units in accordance with Sec.  
63.9620(e), the site-specific operating limits established for the 
emission unit selected as representative of a group of similar emission 
units will be used as the operating limit for each emission unit within 
the group. The operating limit established for the representative unit 
must be met by each emission unit within the group.
* * * * *
    (d) On or before January 25, 2021, for affected sources that 
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 
2019, 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. After January 25, 2021, for affected sources that commenced 
construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 2019, and 
after July 28, 2020, or upon start-up, which ever date is later, for 
affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after 
September 25, 2019, for each baghouse applied to meet any particulate 
emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart, you must demonstrate 
continuous compliance by completing the requirements in paragraphs 
(d)(1) through (3) of this section.
* * * * *
    (2) Inspecting and maintaining each baghouse according to the 
requirements in Sec.  63.9631(a) and recording all information needed 
to document conformance with the requirements in Sec.  63.9631(a). If 
you increase or decrease the sensitivity of the bag leak detection 
system beyond the limits specified in your site-specific monitoring 
plan, you must include a copy of the required written certification by 
a responsible official in the next semiannual compliance report.
    (3) Each bag leak detection system must be operated and maintained 
such that the alarm does not sound more than 5 percent of the operating 
time during a 6-month period. Calculate the alarm time as specified in 
paragraphs (d)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) If inspection of the fabric filter demonstrates that no 
corrective action is required, no alarm time is counted.
    (ii) If corrective action is required, each alarm time (i.e., time 
that the alarm sounds) is counted as a minimum of 1 hour.
    (iii) If it takes longer than 1 hour to initiate corrective action, 
each alarm time is counted as the actual amount of time taken to 
initiate corrective action.
* * * * *
    (f) On or before January 28, 2022, for affected sources that 
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 
2019, 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. After January 28, 2022, for affected sources that commenced 
construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 2019, and 
after July 28, 2020, or upon start-up, which ever date is later, for 
affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after 
September 25, 2019, for each dynamic wet scrubber subject to the 
operating limits for scrubber water flow rate and the fan amperage in 
Sec.  63.9590(b)(2), you must demonstrate continuous compliance by 
completing the requirements of paragraphs (f)(1) through (4) of this 
section.
    (1) On or before January 28, 2022, for affected sources that 
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 
2019, 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. After January 28, 2022, for affected sources

[[Page 45497]]

that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 
25, 2019, and after July 28, 2020, or upon start-up, which ever date is 
later, for affected sources that commenced construction or 
reconstruction after September 25, 2019, maintaining the daily average 
scrubber water flow rate and the daily average fan amperage at or above 
the minimum levels established during the initial or subsequent 
performance test.
* * * * *
    (3) On or before January 28, 2022, for affected sources that 
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 
2019, 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 the requirements in Sec.  63.9632(c). After January 28, 2022, for 
affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or 
before September 25, 2019, and after July 28, 2020, or upon start-up, 
which ever date is later, for affected sources that commenced 
construction or reconstruction after September 25, 2019, collecting and 
reducing monitoring data for scrubber water flow rate and fan amperage 
according to Sec.  63.9632(c) and recording all information needed to 
document conformance with the requirements in Sec.  63.9632(c).
    (4) On or before January 28, 2022, for affected sources that 
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 
2019, 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. After January 28, 2022, for affected 
sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before 
September 25, 2019, and after July 28, 2020, or upon start-up, which 
ever date is later, for affected sources that commenced construction or 
reconstruction after September 25, 2019, if the daily average scrubber 
water flow rate or daily average fan amperage, is below the operating 
limits established for a corresponding emission unit or group of 
similar emission units, you must then follow the corrective action 
procedures in paragraph (j) of this section.
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (1) Maintaining the daily average secondary voltage and daily 
average scrubber water flow rate for each field at or above the minimum 
levels established during the initial or subsequent performance test. 
Maintaining the daily average stack outlet temperature at or below the 
maximum levels established during the initial or subsequent performance 
test.
* * * * *
    (j) * * *
    (1) You must initiate and complete initial corrective action within 
10 calendar days and demonstrate that the initial corrective action was 
successful. During any period of corrective action, you must continue 
to monitor, and record all required operating parameters for equipment 
that remains in operation. After the initial corrective action, if the 
daily average operating parameter value for the emission unit or group 
of similar emission units meets the operating limit established for the 
corresponding unit or group, then the corrective action was successful 
and the emission unit or group of similar emission units is in 
compliance with the established operating limits.
    (2) If the initial corrective action required in paragraph (j)(1) 
of this section was not successful, then you must complete additional 
corrective action within 10 calendar days and demonstrate that the 
subsequent corrective action was successful. During any period of 
corrective action, you must continue to monitor, and record all 
required operating parameters for equipment that remains in operation. 
If the daily average operating parameter value for the emission unit or 
group of similar emission units meets the operating limit established 
for the corresponding unit or group, then the corrective action was 
successful, and the emission unit or group of similar emission units is 
in compliance with the established operating limits.
* * * * *

0
15. Section 63.9637 is revised to read as follows:


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

    (a) Deviations. You must report each instance in which you did not 
meet each emission limitation in Table 1 to this subpart that applies 
to you. You also must report each instance in which you did not meet 
the work practice standards in Sec.  63.9591 and each instance in which 
you did not meet each operation and maintenance requirement in Sec.  
63.9600 that applies to you. These instances are deviations from the 
emission limitations, work practice standards, and operation and 
maintenance requirements in this subpart. These deviations must be 
reported in accordance with the requirements in Sec.  63.9641.
    (b) Startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. For existing sources and 
for new or reconstructed sources which commenced construction or 
reconstruction on or before September 25, 2019, on or before January 
25, 2021, for affected sources that commenced construction or 
reconstruction on or before September 25, 2019, 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 Sec.  63.6(e)(1). 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). After January 25, 2021, for affected sources that commenced 
construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 2019, and 
after July 28, 2020, or upon start-up, which ever date is later, for 
affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after 
September 25, 2019, the exemptions for periods of startup, shutdown, 
and malfunction in Sec.  63.6(e) no longer apply.

0
16. Section 63.9640 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(2) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.9640   What notifications must I submit and when?

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) On or before January 25, 2021, for affected sources that 
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 
2019, 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). After January 25, 
2021, for affected sources that commenced construction or 
reconstruction on or before September 25, 2019, and after July 28, 
2020, or upon start-up, which ever date is later, for affected sources 
that commenced construction or reconstruction after September 25, 2019, 
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

[[Page 45498]]

calendar day following the completion of the performance test according 
to Sec.  63.10(d)(2). If the performance test results have been 
submitted electronically in accordance with Sec.  63.9641(f), the 
process unit(s) tested, the pollutant(s) tested, and the date that such 
performance test was conducted may be submitted in the notification of 
compliance status report in lieu of the performance test results. The 
performance test results must be submitted to the Compliance and 
Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) by the date the notification 
of compliance status report is submitted.

0
17. Section 63.9641 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (4), (b) introductory text, and 
(b)(2) through (4) and (7), (b)(8) introductory text, (b)(8)(ii) 
through (vii) and (ix), and (c); and
0
b. Adding paragraphs (f), (g), and (h).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.9641   What reports must I submit and when?

    (a) * * *
    (2) On or before January 25, 2021, for affected sources that 
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 
2019, 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. After January 25, 2021, for affected 
sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before 
September 25, 2019, and after July 28, 2020, or upon start-up, which 
ever date is later, for affected sources that commenced construction or 
reconstruction after September 25, 2019, the first compliance report 
must be electronically submitted, postmarked or delivered no later than 
July 31 or January 31, whichever date comes first after your first 
compliance report is due.
* * * * *
    (4) On or before January 25, 2021, for affected sources that 
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 
2019, 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. After January 25, 2021, for 
affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or 
before September 25, 2019, and after July 28, 2020, or upon start-up, 
which ever date is later, for affected sources that commenced 
construction or reconstruction after September 25, 2019, each 
subsequent compliance report must be electronically submitted, 
postmarked or delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever 
date comes first after the end of the semiannual reporting period.
* * * * *
    (b) Compliance report contents. Each compliance report must include 
the information in paragraphs (b)(1) through (8) of this section, as 
applicable.
* * * * *
    (2) On or before January 25, 2021, for affected sources that 
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 
2019, 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. After January 25, 2021, for affected 
sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before 
September 25, 2019, and after July 28, 2020, or upon start-up, which 
ever date is later, for affected sources that commenced construction or 
reconstruction after September 25, 2019, statement by a responsible 
official, with the official's name, title, and signature, certifying 
the truth, accuracy, and completeness of the content of the report. If 
your report is submitted via CEDRI, the certifier's electronic 
signature during the submission process replaces the requirement in 
this paragraph (b)(2).
    (3) On or before January 25, 2021, for affected sources that 
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 
2019, date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting 
period. After January 25, 2021, for affected sources that commenced 
construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 2019, and 
after July 28, 2020, or upon start-up, which ever date is later, for 
affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after 
September 25, 2019, date of report and beginning and ending dates of 
the reporting period. You are no longer required to provide the date of 
report when the report is submitted via CEDRI.
    (4) On or before January 25, 2021, for affected sources that 
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 
2019, 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). A startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan and the information in Sec.  63.10(d)(5)(i) is not 
required after January 25, 2021, for affected sources that commenced 
construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 2019, and is 
not required after July 28, 2020, for affected sources that commenced 
construction or reconstruction after September 25, 2019.
* * * * *
    (7) On or before January 25, 2021, for affected sources that 
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 
2019, 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. 
After January 25, 2021, for affected sources that commenced 
construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 2019, and 
after July 28, 2020, or upon start-up, which ever date is later, for 
affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after 
September 25, 2019, for each deviation from an emission limitation in 
Table 1 to this subpart that occurs at an affected source where you are 
not using a continuous monitoring system (including a CPMS or COMS) to 
comply with an emission limitation in this subpart, the compliance 
report must contain the information in paragraphs (b)(7)(i) and (ii) of 
this section.
    (i) The total operating time in hours of each affected source 
during the reporting period.
    (ii) On or before January 25, 2021, for affected sources that 
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 
2019, information on the number, duration, and cause of deviation 
(including unknown cause) as applicable, and the corrective action 
taken. After January 25, 2021, for affected sources that commenced 
construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 2019, and 
after July 28, 2020, or upon start-up, which ever date is later, for 
affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after 
September 25, 2019, information on the affected sources or equipment, 
the emission limit deviated from, the start date, start time, duration 
in hours, and cause of each deviation (including unknown cause) as 
applicable, an estimate of the quantity in pounds of each regulated 
pollutant emitted over an emission limit and a description of the 
method used to estimate the emissions, and the corrective action taken.

[[Page 45499]]

    (8) On or before January 25, 2021, for affected sources that 
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 
2019, 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. After January 25, 2021, for affected sources 
that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 
25, 2019, and after July 28, 2020, or upon start-up, which ever date is 
later, for affected sources that commenced construction or 
reconstruction after September 25, 2019, for each deviation from an 
emission limitation occurring at an affected source where you are using 
a continuous monitoring system (including a CPMS or COMS) to comply 
with the emission limitation in this subpart, you must include the 
information in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section and the 
information in paragraphs (b)(8)(i) through (xi) of this section.
* * * * *
    (ii) The start date, start time, and duration in hours (or minutes 
for COMS) that each continuous monitoring system was inoperative, 
except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
    (iii) The start date, start time, and duration in hours (or minutes 
for COMS) that each continuous monitoring system was out-of-control, 
including the information in Sec.  63.8(c)(8).
    (iv) On or before January 25, 2021, for affected sources that 
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 
2019, for each affected source or equipment, the date and time that 
each deviation started and stopped, the cause of the deviation, and 
whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, 
or malfunction or during another period. After January 25, 2021, for 
affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or 
before September 25, 2019, and after July 28, 2020, or upon start-up, 
which ever date is later, for affected sources that commenced 
construction or reconstruction after September 25, 2019, for each 
affected source or equipment, the date and time that each deviation 
started and stopped, the cause of the deviation, and whether each 
deviation occurred during a period of malfunction or during another 
period.
    (v) The total duration in hours (or minutes for COMS) of all 
deviations for each Continuous Monitoring System (CMS) during the 
reporting period, the total operating time in hours of the affected 
source during the reporting period, and the total duration as a percent 
of the total source operating time during that reporting period.
    (vi) On or before January 25, 2021, for affected sources that 
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 
2019, 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. After January 25, 2021, for affected sources that 
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 
2019, and after July 28, 2020, or upon start-up, which ever date is 
later, for affected sources that commenced construction or 
reconstruction after September 25, 2019, a breakdown of the total 
duration in hours (or minutes for COMS) of the deviations during the 
reporting period including those that are due to control equipment 
problems, process problems, other known causes, and other unknown 
causes.
    (vii) The total duration in hours (or minutes for COMS) of 
continuous monitoring system downtime for each continuous monitoring 
system during the reporting period, the total operating time in hours 
of the affected source during the reporting period, and the total 
duration of continuous monitoring system downtime as a percent of the 
total source operating time during the reporting period.
* * * * *
    (ix) The monitoring equipment manufacturer and model number and the 
pollutant or parameter monitored.
* * * * *
    (c) Submitting compliance reports electronically. Beginning on 
January 25, 2021, submit all subsequent compliance reports to the EPA 
via CEDRI, which can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data 
Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The EPA will make all the 
information submitted through CEDRI available to the public without 
further notice to you. Do not use CEDRI to submit information you claim 
as confidential business information (CBI). Anything submitted using 
CEDRI cannot later be claimed to be CBI. You must use the appropriate 
electronic report template on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri) for this subpart. The report must be 
submitted by the deadline specified in this subpart, regardless of the 
method in which the report is submitted. Although we do not expect 
persons to assert a claim of CBI, if persons wish to assert a CBI 
claim, submit a complete report, including information claimed to be 
CBI, to the EPA. The report must be generated using the appropriate 
form on the CEDRI website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash 
drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly 
mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/
SPPD/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Taconite Iron Ore Processing Sector 
Lead, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file 
with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as 
described earlier in this paragraph (c). All CBI claims must be 
asserted at the time of submission. Furthermore, under CAA section 
114(c) emissions data in not entitled to confidential treatment, and 
EPA is required to make emissions data available to the public. Thus, 
emissions data will not be protected as CBI and will be made publicly 
available. On or before January 25, 2021, for affected sources that 
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 
2019, if you had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the 
reporting period that is 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). After January 25, 2021, for affected sources that 
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 
2019, and after July 28, 2020, or upon start-up, which ever date is 
later, for affected sources that commenced construction or 
reconstruction after September 25, 2019, an immediate startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction report is not required.
* * * * *
    (f) Performance tests. After January 25, 2021, for affected sources 
that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 
25, 2019, and after July 28, 2020, or upon start-up, which ever date is 
later, for affected sources that commenced construction or 
reconstruction after September 25, 2019, within 60 days after the date 
of completing each performance test required by this subpart, you must 
submit the results of the performance test following the procedures 
specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section.

[[Page 45500]]

    (1) Data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's 
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website 
(https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test. Submit the results of the 
performance test to the EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed through 
the EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be submitted in a 
file format generated through the use of the EPA's ERT. Alternatively, 
you may submit an electronic file consistent with the extensible markup 
language (XML) schema listed on the EPA's ERT website.
    (2) Data collected using test methods that are not supported by the 
EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the test. 
The results of the performance test must be included as an attachment 
in the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML 
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the ERT generated 
package or alternative file to the EPA via CEDRI.
    (3) Confidential business information (CBI). The EPA will make all 
the information submitted through CEDRI available to the public without 
further notice to you. Do not use CEDRI to submit information you claim 
as CBI. Anything submitted using CEDRI cannot later be claimed to be 
CBI. Although we do not expect persons to assert a claim of CBI, if 
persons wish to assert a CBI claim, submit a complete file, including 
information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. The file must be generated 
through the use of the EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file 
consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit 
the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used 
electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the 
electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group 
Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., 
Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be submitted 
to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) 
of this section. All CBI claims must be asserted at the time of 
submission. Furthermore, under CAA section 114(c) emissions data in not 
entitled to confidential treatment, and EPA is required to make 
emissions data available to the public. Thus, emissions data will not 
be protected as CBI and will be made publicly available.
    (g) Claims of EPA system outage. After January 25, 2021, for 
affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or 
before September 25, 2019, and after July 28, 2020, or upon start-up, 
which ever date is later, for affected sources that commenced 
construction or reconstruction after September 25, 2019, if you are 
required to electronically submit a report through CEDRI in the EPA's 
CDX, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage for failure to timely 
comply with the reporting requirement. To assert a claim of EPA system 
outage, you must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (g)(1) 
through (7) of this section.
    (1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI 
and submitting a required report within the time prescribed due to an 
outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
    (2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time 
beginning five business days prior to the date that the submission is 
due.
    (3) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
    (4) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as 
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due 
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a 
delay in reporting.
    (5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description 
identifying:
    (i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the 
system was unavailable;
    (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the 
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
    (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in 
reporting; and
    (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have 
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, 
the date you reported.
    (6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow 
an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion 
of the Administrator.
    (7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted 
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
    (h) Claims of force majeure. After January 25, 2021, for affected 
sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before 
September 25, 2019, and after July 28, 2020, or upon start-up, which 
ever date is later, for affected sources that commenced construction or 
reconstruction after September 25, 2019, if you are required to 
electronically submit a report through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may 
assert a claim of force majeure for failure to timely comply with the 
reporting requirement. To assert a claim of force majeure, you must 
meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (h)(1) through (5) of this 
section.
    (1) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to 
occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such 
an event within the period of time beginning five business days prior 
to the date the submission is due. For the purposes of this section, a 
force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been 
caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, 
its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that 
prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report 
electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such 
events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), 
acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond 
the control of the affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage).
    (2) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as 
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due 
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a 
delay in reporting.
    (3) You must provide to the Administrator:
    (i) A written description of the force majeure event;
    (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the 
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
    (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in 
reporting; and
    (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have 
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, 
the date you reported.
    (4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an 
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of 
the Administrator.
    (5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as 
possible after the force majeure event occurs.

0
18. Section 63.9642 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory 
text and (a)(2), adding paragraphs (a)(4) through (6), and revising 
paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.9642   What records must I keep?

    (a) On or before January 25, 2021, for affected sources that 
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 
2019, you must keep the records listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) 
of this section. After January 25, 2021, for affected sources that 
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 
2019, and after July 28, 2020, or upon start-up, which ever date is 
later,

[[Page 45501]]

for affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction 
after September 25, 2019, you must keep the records listed in 
paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this section.
* * * * *
    (2) On or before January 25, 2021, for affected sources that 
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 
2019, the records in Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) related to 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction. After January 25, 2021, for 
affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or 
before September 25, 2019, and after July 28, 2020, or upon start-up, 
which ever date is later, for affected sources that commenced 
construction or reconstruction after September 25, 2019, a startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction plan is not required.
* * * * *
    (4) In the event that an affected unit fails to meet an applicable 
standard, record the number of failures. For each failure record the 
date, time, the cause and duration of each failure.
    (5) For each failure to meet an applicable standard, record and 
retain a list of the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the 
quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit 
and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
    (6) Record actions taken in accordance with the general duty 
requirements to minimize emissions in Sec.  63.9600(a) and any 
corrective actions taken to return the affected unit to its normal or 
usual manner of operation.
    (b) * * *
    (3) On or before January 25, 2021, for affected sources that 
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 
2019, previous (that is, superseded) versions of the performance 
evaluation plan as required in Sec.  63.8(d)(3). After January 25, 
2021, for affected sources that commenced construction or 
reconstruction on or before September 25, 2019, and after July 28, 
2020, or upon start-up, which ever date is later, for affected sources 
that commenced construction or reconstruction after September 25, 2019, 
previous (that is, superseded) versions of the performance evaluation 
plan as required in Sec.  63.9632(b)(5), with the program of corrective 
action included in the plan required under Sec.  63.8(d)(2).
* * * * *

0
19. Section 63.9650 is revised to read as follows:


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

    Table 2 to this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions 
in Sec. Sec.  63.1 through 63.16 apply to you.

0
20. Section 63.9651 is amended by revising paragraph (c) introductory 
text and adding paragraph (c)(5) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.9651   Who implements and enforces this subpart?

* * * * *
    (c) The authorities that will not be delegated to state, local, or 
tribal agencies are specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) of this 
section.
* * * * *
    (5) Approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the 
EPA required by this subpart.

0
21. Section 63.9652 is amended by:
0
a. Removing the definition for ``Conveyor belt transfer point''.
0
b. Revising the definition for ``Deviation''.
0
c. Removing the definition for ``Wet grinding and milling''.
0
d. Adding in alphabetical order a definition for ``Wet scrubber''.
    The revision and addition read as follows:


Sec.  63.9652   What definitions apply to this subpart?

* * * * *
    Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to 
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
    (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this 
subpart, including but not limited to any emission limitation 
(including operating limits) or operation and maintenance requirement; 
or
    (2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to 
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is 
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to 
obtain such a permit.
* * * * *
    Wet scrubber means an air pollution control device that removes 
particulate matter and acid gases from the waste gas stream of 
stationary sources. The pollutants are removed primarily through the 
impaction, diffusion, interception and/or absorption of the pollutant 
onto droplets of liquid. Wet scrubbers include venturi scrubbers, 
marble bed scrubbers, or impingement scrubbers. For purposes of this 
subpart, wet scrubbers do not include dynamic wet scrubbers.

0
22. Table 2 to subpart RRRRR of part 63 is revised to read as follows:
    As required in Sec.  63.9650, you must comply with the requirements 
of the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) shown in 
the following table:

      Table 2 to Subpart RRRRR of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart RRRRR of Part 63
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Citation                       Subject           Applies to subpart RRRRR         Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.1(a)(1)-(4)............  Applicability............  Yes.....................
Sec.   63.1(a)(5)................  [Reserved]...............  No......................
Sec.   63.1(a)(6)................  Applicability............  Yes.....................
Sec.   63.1(a)(7)-(9)............  [Reserved]...............  No......................
Sec.   63.1(a)(10)-(12)..........  Applicability............  Yes.....................
Sec.   63.1(b)(1)................  Initial Applicability      Yes.....................
                                    Determination.
Sec.   63.1(b)(2)................  [Reserved]...............  No......................
Sec.   63.1(b)(3)................  Initial Applicability      Yes.....................
                                    Determination.
Sec.   63.1(c)(1)-(2)............  Applicability After        Yes.....................
                                    Standard Established,
                                    Permit Requirements.
Sec.   63.1(c)(3)-(4)............  [Reserved]...............  No......................
Sec.   63.1(c)(5)................  Area Source Becomes Major  Yes.....................
Sec.   63.1(d)...................  [Reserved]...............  No......................
Sec.   63.1(e)...................  Equivalency of Permit      Yes.....................
                                    Limits.
Sec.   63.2......................  Definitions..............  Yes.....................
Sec.   63.3(a)-(c)...............  Units and Abbreviations..  Yes.....................
Sec.   63.4(a)(1)-(2)............  Prohibited Activities....  Yes.....................
Sec.   63.4(a)(3)-(5)............  [Reserved]...............  No......................
Sec.   63.4(b)-(c)...............  Circumvention,             Yes.....................
                                    Fragmentation.

[[Page 45502]]

 
Sec.   63.5(a)(1)-(2)............  Construction/              Yes.....................
                                    Reconstruction,
                                    Applicability.
Sec.   63.5(b)(1)................  Construction/              Yes.....................
                                    Reconstruction,
                                    Applicability.
Sec.   63.5(b)(2)................  [Reserved]...............  No......................
Sec.   63.5(b)(3)-(4)............  Construction/              Yes.....................
                                    Reconstruction,
                                    Applicability.
Sec.   63.5(b)(5)................  [Reserved]...............  No......................
Sec.   63.5(b)(6)................  Applicability............  Yes.....................
Sec.   63.5(c)...................  [Reserved]...............  No......................
Sec.   63.5(d)(1)-(4)............  Application for Approval   Yes.....................
                                    of Construction or
                                    Reconstruction.
Sec.   63.5(e)...................  Approval of Construction   Yes.....................
                                    or Reconstruction.
Sec.   63.5(f)...................  Approval Based on State    Yes.....................
                                    Review.
Sec.   63.6(a)...................  Compliance with Standards  Yes.....................
                                    and Maintenance
                                    Requirements.
Sec.   63.6(b)(1)-(5)............  Compliance Dates for New/  Yes.....................
                                    Reconstructed Sources.
Sec.   63.6(b)(6)................  [Reserved]...............  No......................
Sec.   63.6(b)(7)................  Compliance Dates for New/  Yes.....................
                                    Reconstructed Sources.
Sec.   63.6(c)(1)-(2)............  Compliance Dates for       Yes.....................
                                    Existing Sources.
Sec.   63.6(c)(3)-(4)............  [Reserved]...............  No......................
Sec.   63.6(c)(5)................  Compliance Dates for       Yes.....................
                                    Existing Sources.
Sec.   63.6(d)...................  [Reserved]...............  No......................
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(i).............  Operation and Maintenance  Yes, on or before the     See Sec.   63.9600(a)
                                    Requirements--General      compliance date           for general duty
                                    Duty to Minimize           specified in Sec.         requirement.
                                    Emissions.                 63.9600(a). No, after
                                                               the compliance date
                                                               specified in Sec.
                                                               63.9600(a).
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(ii)............  Operation and Maintenance  No......................
                                    Requirements--Requiremen
                                    t to Correct Malfunction
                                    as Soon as Possible.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(iii)...........  Operation and Maintenance  Yes.....................
                                    Requirements--Enforceabi
                                    lity.
Sec.   63.6(e)(2)................  [Reserved]...............  No......................
Sec.   63.6(e)(3)................  Startup, Shutdown,         Yes, on or before the
                                    Malfunction (SSM) Plan.    compliance date
                                                               specified in Sec.
                                                               63.9610(c). No, after
                                                               the compliance date
                                                               specified in Sec.
                                                               63.9610(c).
Sec.   63.6(f)(1)................  SSM Exemption............  No......................  See Sec.   63.9600(a).
Sec.   63.6(f)(2)-(3)............  Methods for Determining    Yes.....................
                                    Compliance.
Sec.   63.6(g)(1)-(3)............  Alternative Nonopacity     Yes.....................
                                    Standard.
Sec.   63.6(h), except (h)(1)....  Compliance with Opacity    No......................  Opacity limits in
                                    and Visible Emission                                 subpart RRRRR are
                                    (VE) Standards.                                      established as part of
                                                                                         performance testing in
                                                                                         order to set operating
                                                                                         limits for ESPs.
Sec.   63.6(h)(1)................  Compliance except during   No......................  See Sec.   63.9600(a).
                                    SSM.
Sec.   63.6(i)(1)-(14)...........  Extension of Compliance..  Yes.....................
Sec.   63.6(i)(15)...............  [Reserved]...............  No......................
Sec.   63.6(i)(16)...............  Extension of Compliance..  Yes.....................
Sec.   63.6(j)...................  Presidential Compliance    Yes.....................
                                    Exemption.
Sec.   63.7(a)(1)-(2)............  Applicability and          No......................  Subpart RRRRR specifies
                                    Performance Test Dates.                              performance test
                                                                                         applicability and
                                                                                         dates.
Sec.   63.7(a)(3)-(4)............  Performance Testing        Yes.....................
                                    Requirements.
Sec.   63.7(b)...................  Notification.............  Yes.....................
Sec.   63.7(c)...................  Quality Assurance/Test     Yes.....................
                                    Plan.
Sec.   63.7(d)...................  Testing Facilities.......  Yes.....................
Sec.   63.7(e)(1)................  Conduct of Performance     No......................  See Sec.   63.9621.
                                    Tests.
Sec.   63.7(e)(2)-(4)............  Conduct of Performance     Yes.....................
                                    Tests.
Sec.   63.7(f)...................  Alternative Test Method..  Yes.....................
Sec.   63.7(g)...................  Data Analysis............  Yes.....................  Except this subpart
                                                                                         specifies how and when
                                                                                         the performance test
                                                                                         results are reported.
Sec.   63.7(h)...................  Waiver of Tests..........  Yes.....................
Sec.   63.8(a)(1)-(2)............  Monitoring Requirements..  Yes.....................
Sec.   63.8(a)(3)................  [Reserved]...............  No......................
Sec.   63.8(a)(4)................  Additional Monitoring      No......................  Subpart RRRRR does not
                                    Requirements for Control                             require flares.
                                    Devices in Sec.   63.11.
Sec.   63.8(b)(1)-(3)............  Conduct of Monitoring....  Yes.....................

[[Page 45503]]

 
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(i).............  Operation and Maintenance  Yes, on or before the     See Sec.   63.9632 for
                                    of CMS.                    compliance date           operation and
                                                               specified in Sec.         maintenance
                                                               63.9632(b)(4). No,        requirements for
                                                               after the compliance      monitoring. See Sec.
                                                               date specified in Sec.    63.9600(a) for general
                                                                63.9632(b)(4).           duty requirement.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(ii)............  Spare parts for CMS        Yes.....................
                                    Equipment.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(iii)...........  SSM Plan for CMS.........  Yes, on or before the
                                                               compliance date
                                                               specified in Sec.
                                                               63.9632(b)(4). No,
                                                               after the compliance
                                                               date specified in Sec.
                                                                63.9632(b)(4).
Sec.   63.8(c)(2)-(3)............  CMS Operation/Maintenance  Yes.....................
Sec.   63.8(c)(4)................  Frequency of Operation     No......................  Subpart RRRRR specifies
                                    for CMS.                                             requirements for
                                                                                         operation of CMS.
Sec.   63.8(c)(5)-(8)............  CMS Requirements.........  Yes.....................  CMS requirements in Sec.
                                                                                           63.8(c)(5) and (6)
                                                                                         apply only to COMS for
                                                                                         dry electrostatic
                                                                                         precipitators.
Sec.   63.8(d)(1)-(2)............  Monitoring Quality         Yes.....................
                                    Control.
Sec.   63.8(d)(3)................  Monitoring Quality         No......................  See Sec.
                                    Control.                                             63.9632(b)(5).
Sec.   63.8(e)...................  Performance Evaluation of  Yes.....................
                                    CMS.
Sec.   63.8(f)(1)-(5)............  Alternative Monitoring     Yes.....................
                                    Method.
Sec.   63.8(f)(6)................  Relative Accuracy Test     No......................  Subpart RRRRR does not
                                    Alternative (RATA).                                  require continuous
                                                                                         emission monitoring
                                                                                         systems.
Sec.   63.8(g)(1)-(4)............  Data Reduction...........  Yes.....................
Sec.   63.8(g)(5)................  Data That Cannot Be Used.  No......................  Subpart RRRRR specifies
                                                                                         data reduction
                                                                                         requirements.
Sec.   63.9......................  Notification Requirements  Yes.....................  Additional notifications
                                                                                         for CMS in Sec.
                                                                                         63.9(g) apply to COMS
                                                                                         for dry electrostatic
                                                                                         precipitators.
Sec.   63.10(a)..................  Recordkeeping and          Yes.....................
                                    Reporting, Applicability
                                    and General Information.
Sec.   63.10(b)(1)...............  General Recordkeeping      Yes.....................
                                    Requirements.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(i)............  Records of SSM...........  No......................  See Sec.   63.9642 for
                                                                                         recordkeeping when
                                                                                         there is a deviation
                                                                                         from a standard.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(ii)...........  Recordkeeping of Failures  No......................  See Sec.   63.9642 for
                                    to Meet Standard.                                    recordkeeping of (1)
                                                                                         date, time and
                                                                                         duration; (2) listing
                                                                                         of affected source or
                                                                                         equipment, and an
                                                                                         estimate of the
                                                                                         quantity of each
                                                                                         regulated pollutant
                                                                                         emitted over the
                                                                                         standard; and (3)
                                                                                         actions to minimize
                                                                                         emissions and correct
                                                                                         the failure.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iii)..........  Maintenance Records......  Yes.....................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iv)...........  Actions Taken to Minimize  No......................
                                    Emissions During SSM.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(v)............  Actions Taken to Minimize  No......................
                                    Emissions During SSM.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vi)...........  Recordkeeping for CMS      Yes.....................
                                    Malfunctions.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vii)-(xii)....  Recordkeeping for CMS....  Yes.....................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiii).........  Records for Relative       No......................  Subpart RRRRR does not
                                    Accuracy Test.                                       require continuous
                                                                                         emission monitoring
                                                                                         systems.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiv)..........  Records for Notification.  Yes.....................
Sec.   63.10(b)(3)...............  Applicability              Yes.....................
                                    Determinations.
Sec.   63.10(c)(1)-(6)...........  Additional Recordkeeping   Yes.....................
                                    Requirements for Sources
                                    with CMS.
Sec.   63.10(c)(7)-(8)...........  Records of Excess          No......................  Subpart RRRRR specifies
                                    Emissions and Parameter                              recordkeeping
                                    Monitoring Exceedances                               requirements.
                                    for CMS.
Sec.   63.10(c)(9)...............  [Reserved]...............  No......................
Sec.   63.10(c)(10)-(14).........  CMS Recordkeeping........  Yes.....................
Sec.   63.10(c)(15)..............  Use of SSM Plan..........  No......................
Sec.   63.10(d)(1)-(2)...........  General Reporting          Yes.....................  Except this subpart
                                    Requirements.                                        specifies how and when
                                                                                         the performance test
                                                                                         results are reported.
Sec.   63.10(d)(3)...............  Reporting opacity or VE    No......................  Subpart RRRRR does not
                                    observations.                                        have opacity and VE
                                                                                         standards that require
                                                                                         the use of EPA Method 9
                                                                                         of appendix A-4 to 40
                                                                                         CFR part 60 or EPA
                                                                                         Method 22 of appendix A-
                                                                                         7 to 40 CFR part 60.

[[Page 45504]]

 
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)...............  SSM Reports..............  Yes, on or before the     See Sec.   63.9641 for
                                                               compliance date           malfunction reporting
                                                               specified in Sec.         requirements.
                                                               63.9641(b)(4). No,
                                                               after the compliance
                                                               date specified in Sec.
                                                                63.9641(b)(4).
Sec.   63.10(e)..................  Additional Reporting       Yes, except a breakdown   The electronic reporting
                                    Requirements.              of the total duration     template combines the
                                                               of excess emissions due   information from the
                                                               to startup/shutdown in    summary report and
                                                               63.10(e)(3)(vi)(I) is     excess emission report
                                                               not required and when     with the Subpart RRRRR
                                                               the summary report is     compliance report.
                                                               submitted through
                                                               CEDRI, the report is
                                                               not required to be
                                                               titled ``Summary Report-
                                                               Gaseous and Opacity
                                                               Excess Emission and
                                                               Continuous Monitoring
                                                               System Performance.''.
Sec.   63.10(f)..................  Waiver of Recordkeeping    Yes.....................
                                    or Reporting
                                    Requirements.
Sec.   63.11.....................  Control Device and Work    No......................  Subpart RRRRR does not
                                    Practice Requirements.                               require flares.
Sec.   63.12(a)-(c)..............  State Authority and        Yes.....................
                                    Delegations.
Sec.   63.13(a)-(c)..............  State/Regional Addresses.  Yes.....................
Sec.   63.14(a)-(t)..............  Incorporations by          Yes.....................
                                    Reference.
Sec.   63.15(a)-(b)..............  Availability of            Yes.....................
                                    Information and
                                    Confidentiality.
Sec.   63.16.....................  Performance Track          Yes.....................
                                    Provisions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2020-13397 Filed 7-27-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P