Vol. 81 Tuesday, 

No. 70 April 12, 2016 

Part II 

Environmental Protection Agency 

40 CFR Part 52 

Air Plan Approval; Minnesota and Michigan; Revision to 2013 Taconite 

Federal Implementation Plan Establishing BART for Taconite Plants; Final 

Rule 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
21672 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

1Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal 

areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000 

acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks 

exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks 

that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 

7472(a). In accordance with section 169A of the 

CAA, EPA, in consultation with the Department of 

Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where 

visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 

69122 (November 30, 1979). The extent of a 

mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes 

in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C. 

7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate 

as Class I additional areas which they consider to 

have visibility as an important value, the 

requirements of the visibility program set forth in 

section 169A of the CAA apply only to ‘‘mandatory 

Class I Federal areas.’’ Each mandatory Class I 

Federal area is the responsibility of a ‘‘Federal Land 

Manager.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When we use the term 

‘‘Class I area’’ in this action, we mean a ‘‘mandatory 

Class I Federal area.’’ 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2015–0196; FRL–9944–22– 

Region 5] 

Air Plan Approval; Minnesota and 

Michigan; Revision to 2013 Taconite 

Federal Implementation Plan 

Establishing BART for Taconite Plants 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is finalizing a revision to 

the Federal implementation plan (FIP) 

addressing the requirement for best 

available retrofit technology (BART) for 

taconite plants in Minnesota and 

Michigan. In response to petitions for 

reconsideration, we are revising the 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) limits for taconite 

furnaces at facilities owned and 

operated by Cliffs Natural Resources 

(Cliffs) and ArcelorMittal USA LLC 

(ArcelorMittal). Cliffs owns and 

operates Tilden Mining and United 

Taconite. Hibbing is owned by Cliffs, 

ArcelorMittal and U.S. Steel and 

operated by Cliffs. ArcelorMittal is 

owner and operator of Minorca Mine. 

We are also revising the sulfur dioxide 

(SO2) requirements at two of Cliffs’ 

facilities. We are making these changes 

because new information has come to 

light that was not available when we 

originally promulgated the FIP on 

February 6, 2013. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

May 12, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R05–OAR–2015–0196. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either in www.regulations.gov or at the 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone Steven 

Rosenthal at (312) 886–6052 before 

visiting the Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steven Rosenthal, Environmental 

Engineer, Attainment Planning & 

Maintenance Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 

60604, (312) 886–6052, 

rosenthal.steven@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. This section is arranged as follows: 

I. Definitions 

II. Background Information 

III. Comments and Responses 

IV. Revision to Equation for Normally 

Distributed but not Statistically 

Independent Data 

V. What action is EPA taking? 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we 

are giving meaning to certain words or 

initials as follows: 

• The initials BACT mean or refer to 

Best Available Control Technology. 

• The initials BART mean or refer to 

Best Available Retrofit Technology. 

• The initials CAA mean or refer to 

the Clean Air Act. 

• The initials CBI mean or refer to 

Confidential Business Information. 

• The initials CEMS means or refers 

to continuous emission monitoring 

system. 

• The initials CFD mean or refer to 

computational fluid dynamic. 

• The words EPA, we, us, or our 

mean or refer to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

• The initials FIP mean or refer to 

Federal Implementation Plan. 

• The initials LNB mean or refer to 

low-NOX burners. 

• The initials MACT mean or refer to 

Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology. 

• The initials MCEA means or refers 

to the Minnesota Center for 

Environmental Advocacy. 

• The initials MMBtu mean or refer to 

million British thermal units. 

• The initials MW mean or refer to 

megawatts. 

• The initials NAAQS mean or refer 

to National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards. 

• The initials NESHAP mean or refer 

to National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants. 

• The initials NSPS mean or refer to 

Standards of Performance for New 

Stationary Sources. 

• The initials NOX mean or refer to 

nitrogen oxides. 

• The initials NPCA means or refers 

to the National Parks Conservation 

Association. 

• The initials NTAA means or refers 

to the National Tribal Air Association. 

• The initials PRB mean or refer to 

the Powder River Basin. 

• The initials RHR mean or refer to 

the EPA’s Regional Haze Rule. 

• The initials RMB mean or refer to 

RMB Consulting and Research. 

• The initials SCR mean or refer to 

Selective Catalytic Reduction. 

• The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

• The initials SO2 mean or refer to 

sulfur dioxide. 

• The initials UPL mean or refer to 

Upper Prediction Limit. 

II. Background Information 

A. Requirements of the Clean Air Act 

and EPA’s Regional Haze Rule 

In section 169A of the 1977 

Amendments to the CAA, Congress 

created a program for protecting 

visibility in the nation’s national parks 

and wilderness areas. This section of the 

CAA establishes as a national goal the 

‘‘prevention of any future, and the 

remedying of any existing, impairment 

of visibility in mandatory Class I 

Federal areas 1 which impairment 

results from manmade air pollution.’’ 

Congress added section 169B to the 

CAA in 1990 to address regional haze 

issues. EPA promulgated a rule to 

address regional haze on July 1, 1999. 

64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999), codified at 

40 CFR part 51, subpart P (herein after 

referred to as the ‘‘Regional Haze Rule’’). 

The RHR revised the existing visibility 

regulations to add provisions addressing 

regional haze impairment and 

established a comprehensive visibility 

protection program for Class I areas. The 

requirements for regional haze, found at 

40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included 

in EPA’s visibility protection 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.300–309. 

B. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) 

Section 169A of the CAA directs 

states, or EPA if developing a FIP, to 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 21673 

2The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially 

subject to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7), 

and includes ‘‘taconite ore processing facilities.’’ 

3BART-eligible sources are those sources that 

have the potential to emit 250 tons or more of a 

visibility-impairing air pollutant, were not in 

operation prior to August 7, 1962, but were in 

existence on August 7, 1977, and whose operations 

fall within one or more of 26 specifically listed 

source categories. 40 CFR 51.301. 

evaluate the use of retrofit controls at 

certain larger, often uncontrolled, older 

stationary sources in order to address 

visibility impacts from these sources. 

Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of 

the CAA requires EPA to develop a FIP 

that contains such measures as may be 

necessary to make reasonable progress 

toward the natural visibility goal, 

including a requirement that certain 

categories of existing major stationary 

sources 2 built between 1962 and 1977 

procure, install, and operate the BART 

as determined by EPA. Under the RHR, 

states (or in the case of a FIP, EPA) are 

directed to conduct BART 

determinations for such ‘‘BARTeligible’’ sources that may reasonably be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to any 

visibility impairment in a Class I area. 

On July 6, 2005, EPA published the 

Guidelines for BART Determinations 

Under the Regional Haze Rule at 

appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51 

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘BART 

Guidelines’’) to assist states and EPA in 

determining which sources should be 

subject to the BART requirements and 

in determining appropriate emission 

limits for each applicable source. 70 FR 

39104. 

The process of establishing BART 

emission limitations includes 

identifying those sources that meet the 

definition of ‘‘BART-eligible source’’ set 

forth in 40 CFR 51.301,3 determining 

which of these sources ‘‘emits any air 

pollutant which may reasonably be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to any 

impairment of visibility in any such 

area’’ (a source which fits this 

description is ‘‘subject to BART’’), and, 

for each source subject to BART, 

identifying the best available type and 

level of control for reducing emissions. 

States, or EPA if developing a FIP, 

must address all visibility-impairing 

pollutants emitted by a source in the 

BART determination process. The most 

significant visibility impairing 

pollutants are SO2, NOX, and particulate 

matter. 

A SIP or FIP addressing regional haze 

must include source-specific BART 

emission limits and compliance 

schedules for each source subject to 

BART. Once a state or EPA has made a 

BART determination, the BART controls 

must be installed and operated as 

expeditiously as practicable, but no later 

than five years after the date of the final 

SIP or FIP. See CAA section 169A(g)(4) 

and 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In addition 

to what is required by the RHR, general 

SIP requirements mandate that the SIP 

or FIP include all regulatory 

requirements related to monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting for the 

BART controls on the source. See CAA 

section 110(a). 

C. Regulatory and Legal History of the 

2013 Taconite FIP 

On February 6, 2013, EPA 

promulgated a FIP (78 FR 8706) that 

included BART limits for taconite 

furnaces subject to BART in Minnesota 

and Michigan. EPA took this action 

because Minnesota and Michigan had 

failed to meet a statutory deadline to 

submit their Regional Haze SIPs and 

subsequently failed to require BART at 

the taconite facilities. Cliffs, 

ArcelorMittal, and the State of Michigan 

petitioned the Eighth Circuit Court of 

Appeals for review of the FIP, and, on 

May 17, 2013, Cliffs and ArcelorMittal 

filed a joint motion for stay of the final 

rule, which was granted by the Eighth 

Circuit on June 14, 2013, and is still in 

effect. 

EPA received petitions for 

reconsideration of the 2013 Taconite FIP 

from the National Mining Association 

on March 8, 2013, ArcelorMittal on 

March 22, 2013, the State of Michigan 

on April 1, 2013, Cliffs on April 3, 2013, 

Congressman Richard M. Nolan on 

April 8, 2013, the State of Minnesota on 

April 8, 2013, and United States Steel 

Corporation (U.S. Steel) on November 

26, 2013. 

In a related action, EPA published a 

final partial disapproval of the Michigan 

and Minnesota Regional Haze SIPs on 

September 30, 2013 (78 FR 59825), for 

failure to require BART for SO2 and 

NOX emissions from taconite furnaces 

subject to BART. By petitions dated 

November 26, 2013, Cliffs and U.S. Steel 

petitioned EPA pursuant to section 

307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA for 

reconsideration of EPA’s partial 

disapproval of the Michigan and 

Minnesota Regional Haze SIPs. Further, 

Cliffs, ArcelorMittal, Michigan, and U.S. 

Steel petitioned the Eight Circuit Court 

of Appeals for review of the final rule 

partially disapproving the Michigan and 

Minnesota Regional Haze SIPs. 

EPA subsequently reached a 

settlement agreement with Cliffs, 

ArcelorMittal, and Michigan regarding 

issues raised by these parties in their 

petitions for review and 

reconsideration. Notice of the settlement 

was published in the Federal Register 

on January 30, 2015 (80 FR 5111), and 

the settlement agreement was fully 

executed on April 9, 2015. Pursuant to 

the settlement agreement, EPA granted 

partial reconsideration of the 2013 

Taconite FIP on July 2, 2015, based on 

new information raised in Cliffs’, 

ArcelorMittal’s, and Michigan’s 

petitions for reconsideration. EPA did 

not grant reconsideration of the 2013 

SIP disapprovals because EPA continues 

to believe that BART for taconite plants 

involves significant reductions of NOX

and SO2 emissions that were not 

required in the Michigan and Minnesota 

SIPs. 

III. Comments on Proposed Action and 

Responses 

On October 22, 2015, EPA published 

a Federal Register action entitled ‘‘Air 

Plan Approval; Minnesota and 

Michigan; Revision to Taconite Federal 

Implementation Plan; Proposed Rule’’ 

(80 FR 64160), which proposed to revise 

the 2013 Taconite FIP with respect to 

the BART emission limitations and 

compliance schedules for the following 

taconite plants: United Taconite, 

Hibbing Taconite, Tilden Mining, and 

ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine. Cliffs is 

the owner and operator of the United 

Taconite and Tilden Mining facilities 

and part owner and operator of Hibbing 

Taconite. ArcelorMittal is the owner 

and operator of the Minorca Mine 

facility and a part owner of the Hibbing 

Taconite facility. 

EPA proposed to revise the NOX

limits and compliance schedules for all 

four facilities and to revise the SO2

requirements for Tilden Mining and 

United Taconite in response to new 

information that became available after 

the close of the public comment period 

of the 2013 FIP. Specifically, Cliffs and 

ArcelorMittal submitted information to 

EPA that suggested high-stoichiometric 

LNBs, which formed the basis of the 

original NOX limits, posed serious 

technical hurdles. Consequently, EPA 

proposed to determine that BART for 

taconite facilities was lowstoichiometric LNBs (for grate kilns) and 

a combination of water and steam 

injection and pre-combustion 

technologies (for straight-grate kilns) 

and proposed revised NOX limits based 

upon these technologies. Cliffs also 

submitted information showing that 

United Taconite could not burn very 

low-sulfur coal without challenges and 

that Tilden intended to burn mixed lowsulfur fuels instead of 100% natural gas. 

As a result, EPA proposed to revise the 

SO2 limits for these facilities. 

The public comment period on the 

proposal ended on December 23, 2015. 

EPA received comments from the 

National Park Service of the United 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
21674 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

States Department of Interior, the 

National Parks Conservation 

Association (NPCA), the Minnesota 

Center for Environmental Advocacy 

(MCEA), United States Steel 

Corporation, ArcelorMittal USA LLC, 

the Forest Service of the United States 

Department of Agriculture (USDA), 

Cliffs Natural Resources, and the Fond 

du Lac Band of Lake Superior 

Chippewa. The National Tribal Air 

Association (NTAA) requested an 

extension of the public comment period 

of 120 days. A 30-day extension of the 

public comment period was provided, 

but NTAA did not subsequently submit 

comments. EPA fully considered all of 

the comments and responds to each 

comment below. Based on our 

consideration of the comments, we are 

finalizing the NOX and SO2 emission 

limits and compliance schedules as 

proposed, with two minor exceptions 

explained in Section V. 

A. Comments by the Forest Service 

Comment: The Forest Service 

disagreed with EPA’s determination that 

LNBs should be eliminated as a 

potential BART option for straight-grate 

kilns. The Forest Service stated that 

LNBs are included in the permits for 

straight-grate furnaces for Essar Steel 

(Essar) in Minnesota and Magnetation in 

Indiana, which (unlike Essar) has 

commenced operation. The permit 

limits for each of the two LNB-equipped 

straight-grate kilns are 0.25 lbs NOX/

MMBTU, which is lower than the limits 

proposed by EPA. 

Response: EPA disagrees that the 

situations at Essar and Magnetation 

provide sufficient evidence that LNBs 

would be technically feasible at the 

Minorca Mine and Hibbing facilities. 

Essar and Magnetation were subject to 

the BACT requirement that applies to 

new and modified sources. 

Consequently, these facilities were able 

to integrate LNBs into the design and 

construction of their furnaces. In 

contrast, the furnaces at Minorca Mine 

and Hibbing were not designed to 

accommodate LNBs. As discussed in the 

proposal, EPA eliminated LNBs from 

consideration due to the technical 

challenges associated with a retrofit 

application on the unique straight-grate 

kilns at Minorca Mine and Hibbing. We 

also note that the Essar straight-grate 

furnace is still not operational, and 

Magnetation is not an iron ore 

processing facility and therefore is not 

classified as a taconite facility as 

defined by the taconite MACT (40 CFR 

part 63 subpart RRRRR). While 

Magnetation’s permit limit is 0.25 lbs 

NOX/MMBTU, the results from an 

August-September 2015 test indicate 

emissions ranging from 0.773 lbs NOX/ 

MMBTU to 1.304 lbs NOX/MMBTU at 

that facility. Finally, we note that we are 

finalizing an initial emission limit of 1.2 

lbs NOX/MMBTU (subject to upward 

revision only in unlikely scenarios) for 

the Minorca Mine and Hibbing furnaces, 

which is consistent with the limit in our 

2013 FIP, but based on the installation 

of different technologies. 

Comment: The Forest Service stated 

that EPA seems to assume that the only 

way to meet the existing 0.6 percent 

sulfur limit is to use western subbituminous coal, which will not work in 

the furnace due to its lower heating 

value. The Forest Service did a quick 

search of U.S. coal data (US DOE, NETL, 

Detailed Coal Specifications, Quality 

Guidelines for Energy System Studies, 

Final Report, DOE/NETL–401/012111, 

January 2012, page 31) and could find 

no eastern bituminous coal at 0.6 

percent sulfur, but was able to find a 

low-volatile, eastern bituminous coal 

with very high heating value at 0.66 

percent sulfur, which is far below the 

new limit proposed by EPA for United 

Taconite of 1.5 percent sulfur. The 

Forest Service stated that if an 

adjustment is warranted to the existing 

limit, it should be based on low-sulfur 

content eastern bituminous coal, such as 

the one at 0.66 percent sulfur. 

Response: EPA disagrees with this 

comment. The primary SO2 emission 

limit for BART at United Taconite is the 

529 lbs SO2/hr aggregate limit on lines 

1 and 2. This BART limit, which is 

based upon the use of low-sulfur fuels 

(a combination of natural gas and coal), 

will result in 1900 tons per year of SO2

reductions. In contrast, the 1.5 percent 

sulfur limit is an operational limit that 

EPA imposed after Cliffs requested an 

adjustment to its baseline emission rate 

to be used in evaluating potential BART 

controls. Under the BART guidelines, 

the baseline emission rate ordinarily 

should represent a realistic depiction of 

anticipated annual emissions for the 

source based upon actual emissions 

from a baseline period. See 40 CFR part 

51, appendix Y. However, when future 

operating parameters, such as type of 

fuel, will differ from past practice, and 

if this projection has a deciding effect in 

the BART determination, then the 

operating parameter must be made into 

an enforceable limitation. Id. EPA 

imposed the original 0.60 percent sulfur 

limit on the coal burned at United 

Taconite to comply with this provision. 

However, Cliffs indicated in its petition 

for reconsideration that 0.60 percent 

sulfur coal posed several issues for its 

furnaces. As a result, the EPA proposed 

to increase the operational limit to 1.5 

percent sulfur, but this change will not 

have an effect on emissions at United 

Taconite due to the 529 lbs SO2/hr limit. 

In essence, United Taconite will now be 

required to burn more natural gas and 

less coal (or all gas) to meet its BART 

limit than the facility would have under 

a 0.60 percent sulfur limit. 

Comment: The Forest Service asked 

for an explanation as to why Minorca 

Mine and Tilden have the longest 

deadlines for compliance when they 

each have only one furnace at their 

facility. 

Response: To establish an overall 

compliance schedule that is as 

expeditious as practicable, we grouped 

the furnaces according to whether they 

are straight-grate kilns or grate kilns, not 

according to which facility they belong. 

By grouping furnaces according to 

design and function rather than facility, 

Cliffs and ArcelorMittal will be able to 

take advantage of the experience gained 

from the first installation of NOX

reduction technologies at a straight-grate 

kiln and grate kiln at the other furnaces. 

For example, Tilden will be able to take 

advantage of the experience of the 

earlier installation of a lowstoichiometric LNB on a grate kiln at 

United Taconite, while ArcelorMittal 

will be able to take advantage of the 

earlier installation of NOX reduction 

technologies on a straight-grate kiln at 

Hibbing. We believe that this staggered 

schedule is necessary because, although 

the selected NOX controls have been 

subject to extensive engineering studies, 

they have not been used on taconite 

furnaces in the United States to date. 

Such experience is necessary to ensure 

proper operation of these furnaces. 

Improper burner operation could 

adversely affect heat distribution 

throughout the furnace as well as pellet 

quality. 

Comment: The Forest Service stated 

that it would like the opportunity to 

review and comment on the final 

emission limits. 

Response: EPA has provided an 

extremely detailed and objective stepby-step procedure that will be used for 

determining the final emission limits. 

The notice of proposed rulemaking 

provided adequate information about 

the basis and timing of the final limits 

such that no further proposals will be 

necessary. The equations and an explicit 

explanation of how the final limits will 

be established are contained in the 

proposal, so the Forest Service could 

have raised any concerns during the 

public comment period. EPA is taking 

this approach in order to expedite the 

establishment of final enforceable limits 

for these facilities within the context of 

a process that provides reasonable time 

to design and install emission controls, 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 21675 

to obtain data needed for determining 

control effectiveness, and to minimize 

the time then needed to establish final 

enforceable limits. EPA has carefully 

considered the Forest Service’s 

comments, but does not believe that a 

second comment period is necessary. 

Comment: The Forest Service 

requested a description of how plant 

shutdowns will be handled. 

Response: EPA is unsure what the 

commenter means by ‘‘plant 

shutdowns,’’ but presumes that the 

Forest Service may be concerned that 

the emission limits could be relaxed 

during a shutdown. No special 

consideration has been given to plant 

shutdowns in this respect. The NOX

limits are based on the production level 

and the quantity of fuel burned. 

Comment: The Forest Service asked 

EPA to describe what will be done if 

adequate data are not collected within 

the timeframe envisioned in the 

schedule to establish a final emission 

limit. 

Response: The eight-month testing 

period, during which controls will be in 

place and CEMS will be operational, 

should provide ample time for 

collecting data adequate to establish a 

final limit. 

Comment: The Forest Service asked 

EPA to specify what design parameters 

will be monitored for the different 

control technologies. 

Response: The design parameters will 

be established in the engineering reports 

that are required by the settlement 

agreement and this action. We 

anticipate that the percent 

stoichiometric primary combustion air 

and gas/coal ratio when co-firing will be 

important variables. 

B. Comments by the National Park 

Service 

Comment: The National Park Service, 

as well as NPCA and MCEA, 

commented on the technical feasibility 

of controlling NOX using SCR and 

encouraged EPA to further evaluate 

various configurations of SCR, including 

tail-end SCR with gas stream reheat 

(hereinafter referred to as ‘‘SCR with 

reheat’’). 

Response: There are several air 

pollution control technology analyses 

involving the potential use of SCR and 

SCR with reheat on indurating furnace 

hood exhaust. In these analyses 

(Magnetation BACT, Essar BACT, and 

Tilden BART), SCR with reheat was 

rejected for not being cost-effective, 

while upstream SCR was rejected as 

technically infeasible due to the 

likelihood that the exhaust stream 

would foul the catalyst. 

In a study conducted by Hatch for 

U.S. Steel, SCR with reheat was 

considered as a potential control option, 

but further discussion with potential 

vendors resulted in the determination 

that SCR with reheat is not a technically 

feasible control option for taconite 

indurating furnaces. One potential 

vendor, Mitsubishi Power Systems, 

cited temperature and layout as factors 

rendering SCR with reheat less than 

optimal for NOX control from U.S. 

Steel’s Minntac taconite indurating 

furnaces. LKAB, a taconite facility in 

Sweden, has an SCR with reheat on its 

KK4 taconite pelletizing line. Alstom, 

the SCR vendor for LKAB, declined 

twice to bid on an SCR with reheat at 

Minntac, citing technical difficulties 

with the SCR with reheat at LKAB. 

These difficulties included operating 

within the narrow temperature range 

required by SCR with reheat. Further, 

LKAB is looking into process 

optimization and better burners to 

reduce NOX as opposed to installing 

another SCR with reheat in the future. 

It is important to note that SCR with 

reheat, even if it were technically 

feasible, would result in additional 

energy and environmental costs in the 

form of increased usage of natural gas 

and greenhouse gas emissions, 

respectively. While increased energy 

and environmental penalties are not 

preclusive, they further weigh against 

any additional analysis of SCR with 

reheat as a viable option for indurating 

furnaces at this time. We expect 

Minnesota and Michigan to reevaluate 

SCR with reheat as a potential option for 

making reasonable progress in future 

planning periods, but reject the 

technology as BART for the Minnesota 

and Michigan taconite facilities at this 

time. 

Comment: The National Park Service 

concurred with the maximum 3.0 lbs 

NOX/MMBTU limit when burning 

natural gas only at grate kilns. However, 

the National Park Service did not 

believe that allowing NOX emissions to 

increase by 87 percent above expected 

levels when burning a gas/coal mix at 

grate kilns is justified. 

Response: Low-stoichiometric LNBs, 

as designed by FCT Combustion (FCT), 

are designed to reduce NOX while 

maintaining pellet quality and 

production and optimizing fuel 

efficiency. As a result, this LNB was 

selected to establish BART limits for 

Cliffs’ grate-kiln furnaces. FCT’s 

computational fluid dynamic (CFD) 

modeling for co-firing at 30 percent gas 

and 70 percent coal indicated a 

reduction from a base case of 1.6–5.4 lbs 

NOX/MMBTU with a typical baseline 

value of 2.5 lbs NOX/MMBTU, to 2.04 

lbs NOX/MMBTU. Therefore, an 

increase from 2.04 to 2.5 lbs NOX/

MMBTU is a 23 percent increase above 

expected levels, which is more 

meaningful than the 67 percent increase 

(not 87 percent) above the low end of 

the range of the final emission limits. It 

should be noted that, in addition to the 

uncertainty resulting from the lack of 

experience in the use of lowstoichiometric LNBs, there is additional 

uncertainty because the CFD modeling 

was only performed for co-firing at 30 

percent gas and 70 percent coal. 

Furthermore, a rigorous demonstration 

would have to be made that 1.5 lbs 

NOX/MMBTU cannot be met before the 

limit is adjusted and an alternative final 

limit is set. 

Comment: The National Park Service 

was concerned that, although the 

proposed FIP requires the NOX

reduction technologies for the straightgrate furnaces at Minorca Mine and 

Hibbing be designed to meet a limit of 

1.2 lbs NOX/MMBTU, EPA is proposing 

to increase the final limit up to 1.8 lbs 

NOX/MMBTU if a rigorous 

demonstration is made that the 1.2 lbs 

NOX/MMBTU limit cannot be met. This 

represents a 50 percent increase above 

the expected emission rate and no 

justification is provided for such a large 

‘‘safety margin.’’ 

Response: As discussed in the 

proposed rulemaking, EPA is confident 

that Minorca Mine and Hibbing can 

meet a limit of 1.2 lbs NOX/MMBTU 

based upon the engineering report 

prepared for ArcelorMittal that assesses 

the use of water and steam injection and 

pre-combustion technologies. However, 

because this suite of technologies has 

not previously been used on straightgrate kilns, some uncertainty remains 

regarding the potential effect on pellet 

quality. As a result, EPA has provided 

a procedure by which the final limits for 

Minorca Mine and Hibbing could be 

revised upwards to as much as 1.8 lbs 

NOX/MMBTU. It is important to note, 

however, that EPA has included 

rigorous requirements that must be met 

before any relaxing of the initial 1.2 lbs 

NOX/MMBTU limit would be allowed. 

Comment: The National Park Service 

stated that EPA has the authority to 

limit the sulfur content of the fuels 

already fired at United Taconite. The 

National Park Service understood that 

United Taconite has identified problems 

with the characteristics of the 0.6 

percent sulfur coal originally proposed 

by EPA and the compatibility of that 

coal with the United Taconite furnace. 

The National Park Service cited EPA’s 

statement that it ‘‘is also establishing a 

limitation on the coal to be used by 

requiring the coal have a sulfur content 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
21676 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

no greater than 1.5 percent sulfur by 

weight based on a monthly block 

average.’’ However, the National Park 

Service stated that it is aware of eastern 

bituminous coals that have much lower 

sulfur contents and requested that EPA 

evaluate the potential for combustion of 

such coals at United Taconite. 

Response: EPA disagrees with this 

comment. The primary SO2 emission 

limit for BART at United Taconite is the 

529 lbs SO2/hr aggregate limit on lines 

1 and 2. This BART limit, which is 

based upon the use of low-sulfur fuels 

(a combination of natural gas and coal), 

will result in 1900 tons per year of SO2

reductions. In contrast, the 1.5 percent 

sulfur limit is an operational limit that 

EPA imposed after Cliffs requested an 

adjustment to its baseline emission rate 

to be used in evaluating potential BART 

controls. Under the BART guidelines, 

the baseline emission rate ordinarily 

should represent a realistic depiction of 

anticipated annual emissions for the 

source based upon actual emissions 

from a baseline period. See 40 CFR part 

51, appendix Y. However, when future 

operating parameters, such as type of 

fuel, will differ from past practice, and 

if this projection has a deciding effect in 

the BART determination, then the 

operating parameter must be made into 

an enforceable limitation. Id. EPA 

imposed the original 0.60 percent sulfur 

limit on the coal burned at United 

Taconite to comply with this provision. 

However, Cliffs indicated in its petition 

for reconsideration that 0.60 percent 

sulfur coal posed several issues for its 

furnaces. As a result, the EPA proposed 

to increase the operational limit to 1.5 

percent sulfur, but this change will not 

have an effect on emissions at United 

Taconite due to the 529 lbs SO2/hr limit. 

In essence, United Taconite will now be 

required to burn more natural gas and 

less coal (or all gas) to meet its BART 

limit than the facility would have under 

a 0.60 percent sulfur limit. 

Comment: The National Park Service 

stated that EPA was apparently 

proposing to use hourly emission rates 

measured by a CEMS to derive the UPL. 

The National Park Service questioned 

the appropriateness of basing the UPL 

on hourly values if EPA is setting a 30- 

day (or 720-hour) rolling average limit. 

The National Park Service was 

concerned that the use of hourly values 

would introduce excess variability into 

the calculation and could lead to a 

higher UPL. 

Response: When the UPL equation for 

normally distributed and statistically 

independent data is used, the average , 

standard deviation (s), and number of 

values (n) are based on the hourly data. 

The term number of values used to 

calculate the test average) is based on 

the compliance period, i.e., 720 for a 

720-hour average and not 1. This results 

in a lower and more stringent UPL than 

if 1. However, when setting a 720-hour 

average emission limit using the 

nonparametric equation, the data set 

used would be the 720-hour averages 

rather than the raw hourly data. 

C. Comments by the National Parks 

Conservation Association (NPCA) 

1. NPCA Incorporated the Comments 

Submitted by the National Park Service 

Comment: NPCA restated the National 

Park Service comments as follows: 

—SCR remains a feasible technical 

option for limiting NOX from taconite 

facilities. While two SCR vendors 

declined to bid on the NOX reduction 

testing at Minntac, this is an 

insufficient basis to reject SCR across 

the taconite industry. EPA should 

revisit this decision and evaluate 

various configurations of SCR that 

would serve to further reduce NOX

emissions beyond the limits in the 

proposed settlement. 

—EPA’s proposed NOX limits for the 

gas/coal scenario at United Taconite 

and Tilden are improper because they 

are up to 87 percent higher than the 

limits in the 2013 FIP. 

—EPA’s proposed NOX limits for 

Hibbing and Minorca Mine are 

improper because they are up to 50 

percent higher than the limits in the 

2013 FIP. 

—EPA should require the use of an 

alternative low-sulfur coal at United 

Taconite. 

Response: EPA has responded in 

detail to these comments in responses to 

the comments by the National Park 

Service (see above). 

Comment: NPCA stated that the 

proposal specifies that increased limits 

are permissible where the industry 

makes a rigorous demonstration that 

lower limits cannot be met. NPCA 

requested that any such demonstration 

be made available to the public for 

review and comment. 

Response: EPA has provided an 

extremely detailed and objective stepby-step procedure for determining the 

final emission limits. The notice of 

proposed rulemaking provided adequate 

information about the basis and timing 

of the final limits such that no further 

proposals will be necessary. EPA is 

taking this approach in order to 

expedite the establishment of final 

enforceable limits for these facilities 

within the context of a process that 

provides reasonable time to design and 

install emission controls, to obtain data 

needed for determining control 

effectiveness, and to minimize the time 

then needed to establish final 

enforceable limits. The proposal 

encouraged commenters to comment on 

any issues that might be anticipated to 

arise at any point in the process 

described in the proposal, and NPCA 

has not identified any such issues. 

2. NPCA Incorporated Its March 2, 2015 

Comments Regarding the Settlement 

Agreement 

Comment: NPCA stated that the 

changes in emission limits between the 

2013 FIP and the settlement agreement 

appear to significantly weaken the terms 

of the 2013 FIP because the emission 

limits are far less stringent. Although 

NPCA did not have the necessary level 

of detailed information to perform a 

precise comparison, NPCA’s rough 

calculations indicated that the 

limitations in attachment A of the 

settlement agreement would allow for 

pollution at or above the actual baseline 

emissions from the taconite facilities, 

that is, they represent no reduction (or 

at a minimum, no significant reduction) 

in pollution. 

Response: As discussed in the fivestep BART determinations in the 

proposal, there are significant emission 

reductions from the revised limits. 

There will be an estimated total of 3,000 

tons per year of NOX reductions from 

Tilden and United Taconite, a total of 

7,400 tons per year of NOX reductions 

from Minorca Mine and Hibbing, 1,900 

tons per year of SO2 reductions from 

United Taconite, and 300 tons of SO2

reductions from Tilden. The only NOX

emission limits that are definitely less 

stringent than those in the 2013 FIP are 

the NOX emission limits for Tilden and 

United Taconite when burning solely 

natural gas. The final NOX emission 

limits for Hibbing and Minorca Mine, as 

well as Tilden and United Taconite 

when co-firing coal and natural gas, are 

expected to be the same as, or close to, 

the 2013 FIP limits. There may also be 

an increase in SO2 emissions from 

Tilden, but this should be a fairly small 

increase as Tilden will be solely burning 

natural gas and very low (0.6 percent) 

sulfur coal. 

Comment: NPCA argued that the 

timeframes for compliance are 

significantly longer than in the 2013 

FIP. 

Response: The compliance schedule 

is generally similar to the FIP except 

that implementation has been delayed 

because of the court-imposed stay. The 

main differences between the two 

schedules are that Tilden must install 

controls within 50 months (compared 

with 26 months in the 2013 FIP) and 

Minorca Mine must install controls 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 21677 

within 44 months (compared with 26 

months in the 2013 FIP). The staggered 

compliance schedule, which includes 

additional time for Tilden and 

ArcelorMittal, is necessary because the 

NOX controls selected as BART have not 

been used on taconite furnaces in the 

United States. Such experience is 

necessary to ensure proper operation of 

these furnaces. The planned controls 

could adversely affect heat distribution 

throughout the furnace as well as pellet 

quality. 

Comment: NPCA stated that, in 

proposing the settlement, EPA offered 

no support to suggest why such a 

significant weakening of much needed 

and statutorily required limits was 

appropriate. NPCA was thus at a loss to 

comment on the rationale behind the 

changes. 

Response: As discussed in a prior 

response, EPA does not agree that there 

has been a significant weakening of the 

requirements for taconite facilities. 

EPA’s basis for all changes was 

contained in the proposed FIP revision 

and its associated docket. 

Comment: NPCA stated that EPA 

must provide documentation of the 

reasons for the proposed changes in the 

form of publicly available information. 

EPA cannot rely strictly on confidential 

information, which does not allow the 

public to review and consider the 

changes proposed. 

Response: Publicly available 

information in support of the FIP is 

contained in the docket. 

Comment: NPCA stated that the 

settlement referenced ‘‘equitable 

treatment of facilities not included in 

this settlement.’’ This would appear to 

refer to the taconite facilities covered by 

the 2013 FIP but not included in the 

settlement. To the extent that this 

statement refers to the potential 

weakening of limits imposed at other 

facilities in the taconite FIP, the 

increase in pollution that appears in the 

settlement is all the more concerning. 

Response: EPA has not proposed to 

change the emission limits for other 

facilities covered by the 2013 FIP at this 

time. 

Comment: NPCA stated that the 

timeframe for compliance detailed in 

the settlement agreement was 

inappropriate. The CAA requires that 

controls required under BART be 

implemented within five years of the 

final rule. In this case, the rule was 

finalized in January 2013, so 

compliance with emission limits must 

be by January 2018. 

Response: We disagree with this 

comment. Section 169A(g)(4) of the 

CAA requires compliance with BART 

emission limits no later than five years 

after ‘‘the date of promulgation of a . . . 

[FIP] revision.’’ In this final rule, we are 

promulgating a revision to the 2013 FIP 

that includes new BART determinations 

based on new technologies. These BART 

determinations fully supersede the 

determinations that were made in the 

2013 FIP. The taconite facilities must 

comply with the new BART emission 

limits in a staggered schedule that we 

have determined is as expeditious as 

practicable. Full compliance at all 

facilities will be achieved no later than 

five years from the date of the 

promulgation of this FIP revision. 

D. Comments by Cliffs Natural 

Resources 

Comment: Cliffs supported the 

proposed FIP, including the initial 

limits, the staggered compliance 

schedule, and the formula for setting 

final limits if the initial limits cannot be 

achieved without adverse impacts on 

pellet quality. However, Cliffs objected 

to EPA’s statement in the proposed FIP 

preamble that ‘‘there are no significant 

costs or environmental impacts’’ 

associated with the selected BART 

technologies. Cliffs will be required to 

expend millions of dollars to design and 

implement changes to its furnaces. 

There are also costs associated with lost 

production during downtime and 

shakedown, as well as the potential for 

additional fuel consumption when the 

BART technologies are operational. 

Response: EPA acknowledges that 

there will be costs associated with the 

BART control technologies employed by 

Cliffs. EPA’s full statement in the 

preamble was that ‘‘there are no 

significant costs or environmental 

impacts associated with this technology 

that would necessitate its elimination 

from consideration as BART.’’ EPA 

continues to believe that the costs, 

energy, and non-air quality impacts 

associated with the selected BART 

controls are reasonable. 

Comment: Cliffs stated that EPA’s 

proposal included a new requirement to 

report CEMS and pellet quality data at 

the end of a period that did not fall 

within the preceding calendar quarter 

within 7 days of the close of the period. 

Reporting this information within 7 

days is impracticable, as it does not 

provide the facility sufficient time to 

complete the appropriate laboratory 

analysis and quality assurance expected 

for the data. Cliffs acknowledged EPA’s 

need to include a provision to address 

the timely reporting of data, but 

requested that the reporting obligation 

be changed from 7 days to 30 days to 

allow for quality assurance checks. 

Response: Using United Taconite Line 

2 as an example, the settlement 

agreement states that, 44 months from 

the effective date of the rule, Cliffs must 

provide results from pellet quality 

analyses no later than 30 days from the 

end of each calendar quarter until 52 

months from the effective date of the 

rule. No later than 55 months after the 

effective date of the rule, EPA will take 

final agency action by publishing the 

NOX limits in the Federal Register. 

Assuming that the effective date of the 

rule is June 15, 2016, then 52 months 

from the effective date is October 15, 

2020, and 55 months is January 15, 

2021. The end of the quarter would be 

December 31, 2020, so under the 

settlement language, the pellet quality 

data from October 1 through October 15, 

2020, would not be due until January 

30, 2021, which is too late to be 

considered in establishing the final 

emission limit. According to the 

language in the proposal, the pellet 

quality analyses would need to be 

submitted to EPA by October 22, 2020. 

Accepting Cliffs’ suggested revision 

from 7 to 30 days would require the 

pellet quality analysis to be submitted to 

EPA by November 14, 2020. EPA 

accepts Cliffs’ basis for increasing the 

reporting requirement from 7 to 30 days 

and will make this revision in the final 

FIP because it will not significantly 

interfere with expeditiously setting the 

final limits. 

Comment: Cliffs stated that United 

Taconite’s pellet quality reporting 

obligations in the proposed FIP 

mistakenly refer to ‘‘Tilden’s ISO 9001 

quality management system’’ but should 

refer to ‘‘United Taconite’s ISO 9001 

quality management system.’’ 

Response: EPA acknowledges the 

error and has made the correction in the 

final FIP. 

E. Comments by the Fond du Lac Band 

of Lake Superior Chippewa 

Comment: The Band urged a fair, 

scientifically sound, and feasible 

process for all stakeholders, including 

affected and surrounding communities. 

The taconite industry should not be 

allowed to dictate its own compliance 

schedule or prolong compliance with 

Federal laws and regulations. 

Response: EPA agrees with this 

comment and has implemented a 

process to establish final BART limits 

based upon the most current, relevant, 

and scientifically sound information 

available. The taconite plant owners 

were in a unique position to acquire and 

provide the needed scientific 

information and understandably had 

motivation to do so. However, they are 

not dictating their own compliance 

schedule. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
21678 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

Comment: The Band argued that the 

emission limits in the 2013 FIP are more 

reasonable in terms of protecting 

visibility than the limits proposed in the 

revised FIP. 

Response: While we acknowledge that 

a few of the emission limits in the 2013 

FIP were more stringent than the limits 

in our proposed FIP revision, and were 

thus more protective of visibility, we 

disagree that the original limits were 

more reasonable. For the reasons 

explained in our proposal, new 

information provided by the taconite 

companies shows that the technology on 

which the 2013 FIP limits were based, 

high-stoichiometric LNBs, would 

adversely affect pellet quality. As a 

result, we proposed new BART 

determinations based on new 

technologies. These technologies will 

still result in significant emission 

reductions, improving visibility in the 

Class I areas in Minnesota and 

Michigan. 

Comment: The Band stated that the 

compliance schedule in the 2013 FIP 

was more reasonable from a health 

protection standpoint. The Band stated 

that it preferred the 2013 FIP schedule 

over the longer compliance schedule in 

the proposed FIP revision. 

Alternatively, a compromise schedule 

between the original schedule and the 

proposed schedule would be acceptable. 

Response: Please see our response to 

a similar comment from NPCA. 

Comment: The Band stated that 

Eastern bituminous coals are available 

that could meet both the requirements 

for a low-sulfur coal (0.66%) and a very 

high heating value (US DOE, NETL, 

Detailed Coal Specifications, Quality 

Guidelines for Energy System Studies, 

Final Report, DOE/NETL–401/012111, 

January 2012, page 31). 

Response: Please see our response to 

a similar comment from the Forest 

Service. 

Comment: The Band stated that SCR 

is considered the best available retrofit 

technology that has been used at other 

coal facilities and could feasibly reduce 

NOX emissions for taconite furnaces. 

The Band agreed with the National Park 

Service that the use of tail-end SCR with 

steam reheat should be evaluated for 

BART. 

Response: Please see our response to 

a similar comment from the National 

Park Service. 

Comment: The Band noted that EPA 

proposed to set limits for United 

Taconite and Tilden of 3.0 lbs NOX/ 

MMBTU when burning natural gas and 

2.5 lbs NOX/MMBTU when burning a 

gas/coal mix if the presumptive limits of 

2.8 lbs NOX/MMBTU and 1.5 lbs NOX/ 

MMBTU, respectively, cannot be met. 

The Band noted that a limit of 2.5 lbs 

NOX/MMBTU (gas coal mix) is 67 

percent higher than the predicted 

emission rate of 1.5 lbs NOX/MMBTU. 

The Band acknowledged that some 

uncertainty is involved in developing 

the use of a new control technology, but 

argued that this range of emission limits 

is too large. 

Response: Please see our response to 

a similar comment from the National 

Park Service. 

Comment: The Band stated that EPA 

recently implemented a national policy 

on Environmental Justice for Working 

with Federally Recognized Tribes and 

Indigenous Peoples. EPA must uphold 

its duties to protect the interests of 

tribes and their treaty rights and explain 

how the proposed FIP complies with 

EPA’s existing guidance and policies 

with Federally Recognized Tribes and 

Indigenous Peoples. 

Response: The U.S. Constitution 

defines treaties as part of the supreme 

law of the land with the same legal force 

as Federal statutes. Treaties are to be 

interpreted in accordance with the 

Federal Indian canons of construction, a 

set of long-standing principles 

developed by courts to guide the 

interpretation of treaties between the 

U.S. government and Indian tribes. As 

the Supreme Court has explained, 

treaties should be construed liberally in 

favor of tribes, giving effect to the treaty 

terms as tribes would have understood 

them, with ambiguous provisions 

interpreted for their benefit. Only 

Congress may abrogate Indian treaty 

rights, and courts will not find that 

abrogation has occurred absent clear 

evidence of congressional intent. 

EPA has committed to consider all 

relevant information obtained during 

tribal consultation to help ensure that 

EPA’s actions do not conflict with treaty 

rights, to help ensure that EPA is fully 

informed when it seeks to implement its 

programs, and to further protect treaty 

rights and resources when it has 

discretion to do so. We have done so in 

this action. EPA consulted and 

coordinated with tribal officials and 

provided information on both the 2012 

FIP proposal and the current taconite 

FIP proposal early in the process of 

developing this regulation in order to 

allow tribal governments to have 

meaningful and timely input. EPA 

provided information to tribes on the 

rationale for proposing this regulation in 

the absence of the states submitting 

plans, the potential health and 

environmental impacts associated with 

these facilities, and the emissions 

reductions to be gained from 

implementing this regulation. EPA also 

took into consideration the concerns 

and needs identified by tribal 

governments during this process. These 

consultation and education and 

outreach efforts began in August 2012 

and continue through the present 

utilizing forums such as monthly tribeEPA conference calls, presentations 

during annual meetings and 

conferences, and one-to-one discussions 

with EPA subject matter experts as 

requested. 

EPA’s revision of the FIP is expected 

to have significant environmental 

benefits relative to the SIPs submitted 

by Michigan and Minnesota. On-and offreservation trust resources held by 

Minnesota tribes (and other tribes), as 

recognized in treaties and in Minnesota 

v. Mille Lacs Band, 526 U.S. 172 (1999), 

among other authorities, will be 

protected to a greater extent by the 

controls required in the amended FIP. 

F. Comments by ArcelorMittal 

Comment: ArcelorMittal cited to the 

preamble to the proposed FIP revision, 

which states that ‘‘there are no 

significant costs or environmental 

impacts’’ associated with the BART 

determinations for Hibbing and 

Minorca. However, in actuality, the 

changes necessary to meet the proposed 

emission limits will not be without 

costs and environmental impacts. 

ArcelorMittal will be required to expend 

millions of dollars to design and 

implement changes to its straight-grate 

furnaces. It will also incur substantial 

costs associated with lost production 

during downtime and shakedown when 

these technologies are installed. Once 

operational, fuel penalties are expected 

which will result in increased cost. 

Response: EPA acknowledges that 

there will be costs associated with the 

BART control technologies employed by 

ArcelorMittal. EPA’s full statement in 

the preamble was that ‘‘there are no 

significant costs or environmental 

impacts associated with this technology 

that would necessitate its elimination 

from consideration as BART.’’ EPA 

continues to believe that the costs, 

energy, and non-air quality impacts 

associated with the selected BART 

controls are reasonable. 

G. Comments by United States Steel 

U.S. Steel submitted the following 

comments to ensure that EPA’s 

approach to amending the original FIP 

is applied evenly and fairly and results 

in a consistent approach to BART for 

the taconite industry. 

Comment: U.S. Steel agreed with 

EPA’s decision to develop a case-bycase approach to BART for indurating 

furnaces and the Agency’s proposed 

approach to determining BART for each 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 21679 

individual affected unit, based upon 

that unit’s design and unit-specific 

characteristics. 

Response: EPA appreciates U.S. 

Steel’s support. 

Comment: U.S. Steel stated that a 

similar approach will be necessary for 

U.S. Steel’s Minntac and Keetac 

furnaces. 

Response: This comment is outside 

the scope of this rulemaking. 

Comment: U.S. Steel stated that EPA 

should consider delaying finalization of 

the proposed FIP revision until EPA is 

prepared to promulgate similar 

amendments for all furnaces in the 

taconite industry. 

Response: EPA is bound by a 

settlement agreement to finalize the 

proposed FIP revision by March 18, 

2016. Furthermore, there have already 

considerable delays in the 

implementation of BART for taconite 

indurating furnaces. 

Comment: U.S. Steel stated that if 

EPA does not delay finalization of the 

proposed FIP revision, EPA should 

continue the stay of effective dates in 

the original 2013 FIP pending 

completion of a similar FIP amendment 

for U.S. Steel’s Minntac and Keetac 

facilities. 

Response: This comment is outside 

the scope of this rulemaking. 

Comment: U.S. Steel stated that EPA 

should clarify that U.S. Steel is part 

owner of Hibbing taconite. 

Response: EPA acknowledges that 

U.S. Steel is a part owner of the Hibbing 

facility. 

Comment: U.S. Steel identified four 

points made by EPA with which U.S. 

Steel disagrees and could not find 

substantiating information in the 

docket. These points are: (1) The smaller 

preheat burners at Minntac achieve very 

low NOX emissions rates (0.1–0.3 lbs 

NOX/MMBTU) due to a more favorable 

NOX reduction combustion environment 

in the preheat zone as compared to the 

firing end of the kiln; (2) ported kilns 

significantly change the heat balance of 

the furnace; (3) differences in the 

magnetite content of the ore body used 

by Minntac and United Taconite are 

significant; and 4) high-stoichiometric 

LNBs will require more fuel and result 

in higher NOX emissions. 

Response: The basis for the above 

points questioned by U.S. Steel is 

presented in the proposed FIP at 80 FR 

64163, which is in turn based upon the 

November 26, 2013 declaration by Eric 

Wagner, the Manager of Process 

Engineering for Metso Minerals Pyro 

Division, a ‘‘global expert in the design 

of iron ore pelletizing furnaces.’’ This 

declaration is attached to Cliffs’ 

November 26, 2013 Petition for 

Administrative Reconsideration of the 

Partial Disapproval of Air Quality 

Implementation Plans for Regional Haze 

for the States of Michigan and 

Minnesota. Although a hard copy of this 

document was included in EPA’s 

Regional docket, and available for 

inspection at EPA’s Region 5 office, EPA 

mistakenly did not include this Petition 

for Reconsideration in the electronic 

docket for this rule until after the 

comment period had closed. U.S. Steel’s 

comment questions the basis for several 

of Eric Wagner’s statements regarding 

factors affecting indurating furnace 

operation and NOX emissions. We do 

not believe this omission was material, 

however, because U.S. Steel is seeking 

information, not challenging or 

suggesting revisions to the proposal. 

Comment: U.S. Steel stated that EPA 

should reconsider the partial 

disapproval of Minnesota’s SIP. 

Response: This comment is outside 

the scope of this rulemaking. 

Comment: U.S. Steel stated that, for 

each of the affected facilities, there is a 

schedule prescribed for installation of 

the technology and period to collect 

data to confirm or adjust the limit based 

upon the data. The period allows for 

eight months of data collection. If an 

affected facility elects to install the 

technology earlier than prescribed by 

rule, the facility should have the ability 

to utilize a more robust data set greater 

than the eight months specified. Due to 

seasonal variations, a facility should 

have the ability to use at a minimum 12 

months of data if the installation of 

technology occurs prior to the 

compliance date. 

Response: This notice is intended to 

capture the details agreed upon by EPA, 

Cliffs and ArcelorMittal in a settlement 

agreement. This comment comes from a 

commenter who was not party to the 

settlement agreement. The detailed 

compliance schedules contained in the 

proposed FIP are based upon the 

settlement terms agreed to by Cliffs and 

ArcelorMittal, who operate all of the 

taconite furnaces subject to this FIP. The 

eight month testing period that was 

originally proposed was considered by 

them to be of sufficient duration to 

evaluate the performance of their 

control systems and their effect on 

pellet quality. There is therefore no 

benefit to extending the testing period 

when such an extension is not 

necessary. The requirements of BART, 

and not the compliance schedule in this 

rule, establish the most appropriate 

compliance schedule to be followed by 

any other taconite facility. 

Comment: U.S. Steel supported the 

provision allowing Tilden to exclude 

emissions data during a natural gas 

curtailment that is beyond a facility’s 

control. These events are typically 

infrequent, unplanned, and may cause 

the facility to operate in a manner that 

is not typical. 

Response: EPA appreciates U.S. 

Steel’s support for the provision stating 

that the SO2 limit for Tilden’s grate kiln 

does not apply during a natural gas 

curtailment. 

IV. Revision to Equation for Normally 

Distributed but Not Statistically 

Independent Data 

The proposal describes the process for 

establishing final emission limits to 

which the identified facilities shall 

become subject. As discussed in the 

proposal, the final limit must be based 

on the 95 percent upper predictive limit 

(UPL) using CEMS data compiled over 

an eight-month testing period. The UPL 

is a statistical technique that examines 

an existing set of data points and 

predicts the chances (i.e., the 

probability) of future data points (in this 

case, emission rates). In general terms, 

the UPL is a value that is calculated 

from a data set that identifies the 

emission rate that a source is meeting 

and would be expected to meet a 

specified percent of the time that the 

source is operating. In this case, the UPL 

will be the emission rate that the 

taconite facilities are predicted to be 

below during 95 out of 100 720-hour 

averaging periods. The UPL will be 

based on data obtained during an eightmonth testing period during which 

Cliffs and ArcelorMittal are primarily 

focused on operating the controls in a 

manner that does not adversely affect 

pellet quality, with a wide variability in 

emissions expected. The UPL must be 

calculated using an equation based on 

the average and variance of a data set, 

the distribution of the data, the quantity 

of data points, and the compliance 

period (e.g., a 720-hour compliance 

period). 

The settlement agreement and 

proposed FIP specified three equations 

for determining the UPL depending 

upon whether the data are normally 

distributed and, if so, whether the data 

are statistically independent or not 

statistically independent. In the 

proposal (the equation numbers have 

been changed in the final), Equation 1 

applied to normally distributed, 

statistically independent data sets; 

Equation 3 applied to normally 

distributed, but not statistically 

independent data sets; and Equation 4, 

the non-parametric UPL equation, 

applied to data sets that do not conform 

to a specific distribution. EPA’s 

statistical guidance for environmental 

applications, the ProUCL User Guide, 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
21680 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

includes UPL equations for different 

types of distributions, as well as a nonparametric equation for data sets that do 

not conform to a specific distribution. 

The guidance does not, however, 

include an equation for normally 

distributed, but not statistically 

independent (that is, highly correlated) 

data. Because Cliffs and ArcelorMittal 

were concerned about this latter 

category of data, we proposed what was 

purported to be an appropriate equation 

for normally distributed, but not 

statistically independent data (Equation 

3). We subsequently found that 

Equation 3 is not valid for large data 

sets, which is what will result from 

eight months of hourly data. When we 

applied Equation 3 to a large data set, 

the resulting UPL was higher than the 

highest 720-hour average, a nonsensical 

and mathematically unreasonable result. 

We are therefore eliminating Equation 3 

from the final FIP. Instead, we are 

requiring use of the fall back nonparametric equation (Equation 4) for 

data that are normally distributed, but 

not statistically independent. 

We are finalizing the non-parametric 

equation contained in the proposal with 

a clarification regarding the appropriate 

data set to be used. As stated above, the 

UPL equations are used to determine 

emission limits. To correctly calculate 

the UPL using the non-parametric 

equation, the data that is ranked from 

smallest to highest must be in the same 

form as the emission limit. The final 

emission limits are expressed in terms 

of 720-hour averages, so the ranked data 

set used in the non-parametric equation 

must be a set of 720-hour averages as 

well. Using data sets based upon an 

averaging time inconsistent with the 

form of the emission limit would be an 

improper use of the equation. For 

instance, calculating the 95 percent nonparametric limit using a data set of 

ranked one-hour values would establish 

the emission rate (based upon a onehour average) that the source would be 

predicted to be below during 95 out of 

100 one-hour averaging periods, i.e., an 

emission limit based on hourly 

compliance. The resulting emission 

limit would be improper if compliance 

is to be based upon a 720-hour average. 

Based upon our evaluation of existing 

data sets, using the 95th percentile of 

the one-hour values to establish a 720- 

hour average emission limit would 

result in a limit that is higher than the 

highest 720-hour average in the data 

sets, which is clearly inconsistent with 

the purpose of a 95 percent UPL. 

To reiterate, the purpose of a 95 

percent UPL is to establish an emission 

rate that a source is predicted to be 

below during 95 out of 100 averaging 

periods. Importantly, however, this does 

not mean that the source would be 

expected to exceed its emission limit 

five percent of the time once the limit 

is in place. During the eight-month 

testing period, Cliffs and ArcelorMittal 

will operate their furnaces and the new 

control technologies in a manner that 

will not interfere with pellet quality. 

The furnace operators will be adjusting 

numerous variables to optimize control 

technology performance, which will 

result in higher emissions at times. 

These periods of higher emissions will 

factor into the UPL calculation. Once 

the eight-month testing period is over, 

however, the operators will have gained 

sufficient experience to run the furnaces 

and control technologies with fewer 

adjustments, meaning less emission 

variations and lower emissions overall. 

Using the 95 percent UPL ensures that 

the final emission limits will be 

consistent with the actual emission 

reduction capabilities of the BART 

controls, as required by 40 CFR 51.301, 

which defines BART as ‘‘the degree of 

reduction achievable.’’ We also note that 

the 720-hour averaging period for the 

final emission limits will provide 

considerable flexibility for the sources. 

The operators will be able to continually 

review CEMS data on an hourly basis 

and make any necessary adjustments 

over the remaining 719 hours to ensure 

compliance. 

V. What action is EPA taking? 

For the reasons stated in the proposed 

FIP revision and the response to 

comments, EPA is finalizing the new 

BART emission limits and related 

requirements for taconite furnaces as 

proposed, with two exceptions. First, 

EPA is revising the requirement to 

report CEMS and pellet quality data at 

the end of a period that did not fall 

within the preceding calendar quarter 

from within 7 days of the close of the 

period to within 30 days of the close of 

the period. This revision will allow the 

facilities sufficient time to complete the 

appropriate laboratory analyses and 

quality assurance for the data and will 

not significantly interfere with 

expeditiously setting the final limits. 

Second, EPA is replacing the incorrect 

equation for normally distributed but 

not statistically independent data with 

the non-parametric UPL equation, 

which is consistent with EPA guidance. 

A summary of our final decision is 

included in the table below. 

SUMMARY OF FINAL EMISSION LIMITS AND COMPLIANCE SCHEDULES

Source 

Compliance 

schedule 

(months) 

NOX limit for 

gas/coal mix 

(lbs/MMBtu) 

NOX limit for 

gas only 

(lbs/MMBtu) 

SO2 limit 

Tilden .............................................................. 60 1.5–2.5 2.8–3.0 500 lbs/hr and 0.6%S. 

Hibbing 1 ......................................................... 37 ........................ 1.2–1.8 

Hibbing 2 ......................................................... 55 ........................ 1.2–1.8 

Hibbing 3 ......................................................... 60 ........................ 1.2–1.8 

UTAC 1 ........................................................... 37 1.5–2.5 2.8–3.0 529 lbs/hr (combined L1&2) and 1.5%S. 

UTAC 2 ........................................................... 55 1.5–2.5 2.8–3.0 529 lbs/hr (combined L1&2) and 1.5%S. 

Minorca Mine .................................................. 55 ........................ 1.2–1.8 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at http://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is exempt from review by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) because it is a rule of particular 

applicability and only affects four 

facilities. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

PRA. Because the FIP applies to just 

four facilities, the Paperwork Reduction 

Act does not apply. See 5 CFR 1320.3(c). 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 21681 

C. 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. In making this 

determination, the impact of concern is 

any significant adverse economic 

impact on small entities. An agency may 

certify that a rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities if 

the rule relieves regulatory burden, has 

no net burden or otherwise has a 

positive economic effect on the small 

entities subject to the rule. EPA’s rule 

adds additional controls to certain 

sources. The Regional Haze FIP 

revisions that EPA is promulgating here 

would impose Federal control 

requirements to meet the BART 

requirement for NOX and SO2 emissions 

on specific units at three sources in 

Minnesota and one in Michigan. The net 

result of the FIP action is that EPA is 

requiring emission controls on the 

indurating furnaces at four taconite 

furnaces and none of these sources are 

owned by small entities, and therefore 

are not small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. The action imposes no 

enforceable duty on any state, local or 

tribal governments or the private sector. 

E. 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. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on tribal governments. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this rule. However, EPA did 

discuss this action on a number of 

occasions, including a June 28, 2015, 

conference call with the Michigan and 

Minnesota tribes. 

G. 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 

EPA does not believe the environmental 

health or safety risks addressed by this 

action present a disproportionate risk to 

children. However, to the extent this 

rule will limit emissions of NOX and 

SO2, the rule will have a beneficial 

effect on children’s health by reducing 

air pollution. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

EPA believes the human health or 

environmental risk addressed by this 

action will not have potential 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority, low-income or indigenous 

populations. We have determined that 

this rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it increases the level of 

environmental protection for all affected 

populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on any population, including any 

minority or low-income population. 

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

This rule is exempt from the CRA 

because it is a rule of particular 

applicability. 

L. Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by June 13, 2016. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Regional 

haze, Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: March 18, 2016. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, 40 CFR chapter I is amended 

as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. Section 52.1183 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (k), (l), (m), and (n) 

and adding paragraph (p) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.1183 Visibility protection. 

* * * * * 

(k) Tilden Mining Company, or any 

subsequent owner/operator of the 

Tilden Mining Company facility in 

Ishpeming, Michigan, shall meet the 

following requirements: 

(1) NOX Emission Limits. (i) An 

emission limit of 2.8 lbs NOX/MMBTU, 

based on a 720-hour rolling average, 

shall apply to Tilden Grate Kiln Line 1 

when burning natural gas, and an 

emission limit of 1.5 lbs NOX/MMBTU, 

based on a 720-hour rolling average, 

shall apply to Tilden Grate Kiln Line 1 

when burning coal or a mixture of coal 

and natural gas. These emission limits 

will become enforceable 60 months after 

May 12, 2016 and only after EPA’s 

confirmation or modification of the 

emission limit in accordance with the 

procedures set forth in paragraphs 

(k)(1)(ii) through (viii) of this section. 

(ii) Compliance with these emission 

limits shall be demonstrated with data 

collected by a continuous emissions 

monitoring system (CEMS) for NOX. The 

owner or operator must start collecting 

CEMS data for NOX upon May 12, 2016 

and submit the data to EPA no later than 

30 days from the end of each calendar 

quarter. Any remaining data through the 

end of the 57th month from May 12, 

2016, that does not fall within a 

calendar quarter, must be submitted to 

EPA no later than 30 days from the end 

of the 57th month. Although CEMS data 

must continue to be collected, it does 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
21682 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

not need to be submitted to EPA starting 

57 months after May 12, 2016. 

(iii) No later than 48 months from 

May 12, 2016, the owner or operator 

must submit to EPA a report, including 

any final report(s) completed by the 

selected NOX reduction technology 

supplier and furnace retrofit engineer, 

containing a detailed engineering 

analysis and modeling of the NOX

reduction control technology being 

installed on Tilden Grate Kiln Line 1. 

This report must include a list of all 

variables that can reasonably be 

expected to have an impact on NOX

emission control technology 

performance, as well as a description of 

how these variables can be adjusted to 

reduce NOX emissions to meet the NOX

design emission limit. This NOX

reduction control technology must be 

designed to meet emission limits of 2.8 

lbs NOX/MMBTU when burning natural 

gas and 1.5 lbs NOX/MMBTU when 

burning coal or a mixture of coal and 

natural gas. 

(iv) The NOX reduction control 

technology shall be installed on Tilden 

Grate Kiln Line 1 furnace no later than 

50 months from May 12, 2016. 

(v) Commencing on the earlier of: Six 

months from the installation of the NOX

reduction control technology or 50 

months from May 12, 2016, the owner 

or operator must provide to EPA the 

results from pellet quality analyses. The 

owner or operator shall provide the 

results from pellet quality analyses no 

later than 30 days from the end of each 

calendar quarter up until 57 months 

after May 12, 2016. Any remaining 

results through the end of the 57th 

month that do not fall within a calendar 

quarter must be submitted to EPA no 

later than 30 days from the end of the 

57th month. The pellet quality analyses 

shall include results for the following 

factors: Compression, reducibility, 

before tumble, after tumble, and low 

temperature disintegration. For each of 

the pellet quality analysis factors the 

owner or operator must explain the 

pellet quality analysis factor as well as 

the defined acceptable range for each 

factor using the applicable product 

quality standards based upon 

customers’ pellet specifications that are 

contained in Tilden’s ISO 9001 quality 

management system. The owner or 

operator shall provide pellet quality 

analysis testing results that state the 

date and time of the analysis and, in 

order to define the time period when 

pellets were produced outside of the 

defined acceptable range for the pellet 

quality factors listed, provide copies of 

the production logs that document the 

starting and ending times for such 

periods. The owner or operator shall 

provide an explanation of causes for 

pellet samples that fail to meet the 

acceptable range for any pellet quality 

analysis factor. Pellet quality 

information and data may be submitted 

to EPA as Confidential Business 

Information. 

(vi) No later than 57 months after May 

12, 2016, the owner or operator may 

submit to EPA a report to either confirm 

or modify the NOX limits for Tilden 

Grate Kiln Line 1 within the upper and 

lower bounds described below. EPA 

will review the report and either 

confirm or modify the NOX limits. If the 

CEMS data collected during operating 

periods between months 50 and 57 that 

both meet pellet quality specifications 

and proper furnace/burner operation is 

normally distributed, the limit 

adjustment determination shall be based 

on the appropriate (depending upon 

whether data are statistically 

independent or dependent) 95% upper 

predictive limit (UPL) equations in 

paragraph (p) of this section. If the 

CEMS data collected during operating 

periods between months 50 and 57 that 

both meet pellet quality specifications 

and proper furnace/burner operation are 

not normally distributed, the limit 

adjustment determination shall be based 

on the non-parametric equation 

provided in paragraph (p) of this 

section. The data set for the 

determination shall exclude periods 

when pellet quality did not fall within 

the defined acceptable ranges of the 

pellet quality factors identified pursuant 

to paragraph (k)(1)(v) of this section and 

for any subsequent period when 

production had been reduced in 

response to pellet quality concerns 

consistent with Tilden’s ISO 9001 

operating standards. Any excluded 

period will commence at the time 

documented on the production log 

demonstrating pellet quality did not fall 

within the defined acceptable range and 

shall end when pellet quality within the 

defined acceptable range has been reestablished at planned production 

levels, which will be presumed to be the 

level that existed immediately prior to 

the reduction in production due to 

pellet quality concerns. EPA may also 

exclude data where operations are 

inconsistent with the reported design 

parameters of the NOX reduction control 

technology that were installed. 

(vii) EPA will take final agency action 

by publishing its final confirmation or 

modification of the NOX limits in the 

Federal Register no later than 60 

months after May 12, 2016. The 

confirmed or modified NOX limit for 

Tilden Grate Kiln Line 1 when burning 

only natural gas may be no lower than 

2.8 lbs NOX/MMBTU, based on a 720- 

hour rolling average, and may not 

exceed 3.0 lbs NOX/MMBTU, based on 

a 720-hour rolling average. The 

confirmed or modified NOX limit for 

Tilden Grate Kiln Line 1 when burning 

coal or a mixture of coal and natural gas 

may be no lower than 1.5 lbs NOX/

MMBTU, based on a 720-hour rolling 

average, and may not exceed 2.5 lbs 

NOX/MMBTU, based on a 720-hour 

rolling average. 

(viii) If the owner or operator submits 

a report proposing a single NOX limit for 

all fuels, EPA may approve the 

proposed NOX limit for all fuels based 

on a 30-day rolling average. The 

confirmed or modified limit will be 

established and enforceable within 60 

months from May 12, 2016. 

(2) SO2 Emission Limits. A fuel sulfur 

content limit of no greater than 1.20 

percent sulfur content by weight shall 

apply to fuel combusted in Process 

Boiler #1 (EUBOILER1) and Process 

Boiler #2 (EUBOILER2) beginning three 

months from March 8, 2013. A fuel 

sulfur content limit of no greater than 

1.50 percent sulfur content by weight 

shall apply to fuel combusted in the 

Line 1 Dryer (EUDRYER1) beginning 3 

months from March 8, 2013. The 

sampling and calculation methodology 

for determining the sulfur content of 

fuel must be described in the 

monitoring plan required at paragraph 

(n)(8)(x) of this section. 

(3) The owner or operator of the 

Tilden Grate Kiln Line 1 furnace shall 

meet an emission limit of 500 lbs SO2/ 

hr based on a 30-day rolling average 

beginning six months after May 12, 

2016. Compliance with these emission 

limits shall be demonstrated with data 

collected by a continuous emissions 

monitoring system (CEMS) for SO2. The 

owner or operator must start collecting 

CEMS data for SO2 beginning six 

months after May 12, 2016 and submit 

the data to EPA no later than 30 days 

from the end of each calendar quarter. 

The Tilden Grate Kiln Line 1 furnace 

shall not be limited to natural gas fuel. 

Beginning six months after May 12, 

2016, any coal burned on Tilden Grate 

Kiln Line 1 shall have no more than 

0.60 percent sulfur by weight based on 

a monthly block average. The sampling 

and calculation methodology for 

determining the sulfur content of coal 

must be described in the monitoring 

plan required for this furnace. The 

owner or operator must calculate an SO2

limit based on 12 continuous months of 

CEMS emissions data and submit such 

limit, calculations, and CEMS data to 

EPA no later than 36 months after May 

12, 2016. If the submitted CEMS SO2

hourly data are normally distributed, 

the SO2 lbs/hr emission rate shall be 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 21683 

based on the appropriate (depending 

upon whether data are statistically 

independent or dependent) 99% upper 

predictive limit (UPL) equation. If the 

submitted CEMS SO2 hourly data are 

not normally distributed, the SO2 lbs/hr 

emission rate shall be based on the nonparametric equation provided in 

paragraph (p) of this section. 

Compliance with the SO2 lbs/hr 

emission rate shall be determined on a 

30-day rolling average basis. EPA will 

take final agency action by publishing a 

confirmation or modification of the SO2

limit in the Federal Register no later 

than 39 months after May 12, 2016. EPA 

may adjust the 500 lbs SO2/hr limit 

downward to reflect the calculated SO2

emission rate; however, EPA will not 

increase the SO2 limit above 500 lbs 

SO2/hr. 

(4) Starting 26 months from May 12, 

2016, records shall be kept for any day 

during which fuel oil is burned as fuel 

(either alone or blended with other 

fuels) in Grate Kiln Line 1. These 

records must include, at a minimum, 

the gallons of fuel oil burned per hour, 

the sulfur content of the fuel oil, and the 

SO2 emissions in pounds per hour. 

(5) Starting 26 months from May 12, 

2016, the SO2 limit for Grate Kiln Line 

1 does not apply for any hour in which 

it is documented that there is a natural 

gas curtailment beyond Cliffs’ control 

necessitating that the supply of natural 

gas to Tilden’s Line 1 indurating furnace 

is restricted or eliminated. Records must 

be kept of the cause of the curtailment 

and duration of such curtailment. 

During such curtailment, the use of 

backup coal is restricted to coal with no 

greater than 0.60 percent sulfur by 

weight. 

(l) Testing and monitoring. (1) The 

owner or operator shall install, certify, 

calibrate, maintain, and operate a CEMS 

for NOX on Tilden Grate Kiln Line 1. 

Compliance with the emission limits for 

NOX shall be determined using data 

from the CEMS. 

(2) The owner or operator shall 

install, certify, calibrate, maintain, and 

operate a CEMS for SO2 on Tilden Grate 

Kiln Line 1. Compliance with the 

emission standard selected for SO2 shall 

be determined using data from the 

CEMS. 

(3) The owner or operator shall 

install, certify, calibrate, maintain, and 

operate one or more continuous diluent 

monitor(s) (O2 or CO2) and continuous 

flow rate monitor(s) on Tilden Grate 

Kiln Line 1 to allow conversion of the 

NOX and SO2 concentrations to units of 

the standard (lbs/MMBTU and lbs/hr, 

respectively) unless a demonstration is 

made that a diluent monitor and 

continuous flow rate monitor are not 

needed for the owner or operator to 

demonstrate compliance with 

applicable emission limits in units of 

the standards. 

(4) For purposes of this section, all 

CEMS required by this section must 

meet the requirements of paragraphs 

(l)(4)(i) through (xiv) of this section. 

(i) All CEMS must be installed, 

certified, calibrated, maintained, and 

operated in accordance with 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix B, Performance 

Specification 2 (PS–2) and appendix F, 

Procedure 1. 

(ii) All CEMS associated with 

monitoring NOX (including the NOX

monitor and necessary diluent and flow 

rate monitors) must be installed and 

operational upon May 12, 2016. All 

CEMS associated with monitoring SO2

must be installed and operational no 

later than six months after May 12, 

2016. Verification of the CEMS 

operational status shall, as a minimum, 

include completion of the 

manufacturer’s written requirements or 

recommendations for installation, 

operation, and calibration of the 

devices. 

(iii) The owner or operator must 

conduct a performance evaluation of 

each CEMS in accordance with 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix B, PS–2. The 

performance evaluations must be 

completed no later than 60 days after 

the respective CEMS installation. 

(iv) The owner or operator of each 

CEMS must conduct periodic Quality 

Assurance, Quality Control (QA/QC) 

checks of each CEMS in accordance 

with 40 CFR part 60, appendix F, 

Procedure 1. The first CEMS accuracy 

test will be a relative accuracy test audit 

(RATA) and must be completed no later 

than 60 days after the respective CEMS 

installation. 

(v) The owner or operator of each 

CEMS must furnish the Regional 

Administrator two, or upon request, 

more copies of a written report of the 

results of each performance evaluation 

and QA/QC check within 60 days of 

completion. 

(vi) The owner or operator of each 

CEMS must check, record, and quantify 

the zero and span calibration drifts at 

least once daily (every 24 hours) in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix F, Procedure 1, Section 4. 

(vii) Except for CEMS breakdowns, 

repairs, calibration checks, and zero and 

span adjustments, all CEMS required by 

this section shall be in continuous 

operation during all periods of process 

operation of the indurating furnaces, 

including periods of process unit 

startup, shutdown, and malfunction. 

(viii) All CEMS required by this 

section must meet the minimum data 

requirements at paragraphs (l)(4)(viii)(A) 

through (C) of this section. 

(A) Complete a minimum of one cycle 

of operation (sampling, analyzing, and 

data recording) for each successive 15- 

minute quadrant of an hour. 

(B) Sample, analyze, and record 

emissions data for all periods of process 

operation except as described in 

paragraph (l)(4)(viii)(C) of this section. 

(C) When emission data from CEMS 

are not available due to continuous 

monitoring system breakdowns, repairs, 

calibration checks, or zero and span 

adjustments, emission data must be 

obtained using other monitoring 

systems or emission estimation methods 

approved by the EPA. The other 

monitoring systems or emission 

estimation methods to be used must be 

incorporated into the monitoring plan 

required by this section and provide 

information such that emissions data are 

available for a minimum of 18 hours in 

each 24-hour period and at least 22 out 

of 30 successive unit operating days. 

(ix) Owners or operators of each 

CEMS required by this section must 

reduce all data to 1-hour averages. 

Hourly averages shall be computed 

using all valid data obtained within the 

hour but no less than one data point in 

each 15-minute quadrant of an hour. 

Notwithstanding this requirement, an 

hourly average may be computed from 

at least two data points separated by a 

minimum of 15 minutes (where the unit 

operates for more than one quadrant in 

an hour) if data are unavailable as a 

result of performance of calibration, 

quality assurance, preventive 

maintenance activities, or backups of 

data from data acquisition and handling 

systems and recertification events. 

(x) The 30-day rolling average 

emission rate determined from data 

derived from the CEMS required by this 

section (in lbs/MMBTU or lbs/hr 

depending on the emission standard 

selected) must be calculated in 

accordance with paragraphs (l)(4)(x)(A) 

through (F) of this section. 

(A) Sum the total pounds of the 

pollutant in question emitted from the 

unit during an operating day and the 

previous 29 operating days. 

(B) Sum the total heat input to the 

unit (in MMBTU) or the total actual 

hours of operation (in hours) during an 

operating day and the previous 29 

operating days. 

(C) Divide the total number of pounds 

of the pollutant in question emitted 

during the 30 operating days by the total 

heat input (or actual hours of operation 

depending on the emission limit 

selected) during the 30 operating days. 

(D) For purposes of this calculation, 

an operating day is any day during 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
21684 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

which fuel is combusted in the BART 

affected unit regardless of whether 

pellets are produced. Actual hours of 

operation are the total hours a unit is 

firing fuel regardless of whether a 

complete 24-hour operational cycle 

occurs (i.e., if the furnace is firing fuel 

for only five hours during a 24-hour 

period, then the actual operating hours 

for that day are five. Similarly, total 

number of pounds of the pollutant in 

question for that day is determined only 

from the CEMS data for the five hours 

during which fuel is combusted.) 

(E) If the owner or operator of the 

CEMS required by this section uses an 

alternative method to determine 30-day 

rolling averages, that method must be 

described in detail in the monitoring 

plan required by this section. The 

alternative method will only be 

applicable if the final monitoring plan 

and the alternative method are approved 

by EPA. 

(F) A new 30-day rolling average 

emission rate must be calculated for the 

period ending each new operating day. 

(xi) The 720-hour rolling average 

emission rate determined from data 

derived from the CEMS required by this 

section (in lbs/MMBTU) must be 

calculated in accordance with 

paragraphs (l)(4)(xi)(A) through (C) of 

this section. 

(A) Sum the total pounds of NOX

emitted from the unit every hour and 

the previous (not necessarily 

consecutive) 719 hours for which that 

type of fuel (either natural gas or mixed 

coal and natural gas) was used. 

(B) Sum the total heat input to the 

unit (in MMBTU) every hour and the 

previous (not necessarily consecutive) 

719 hours for which that type of fuel 

(either natural gas or mixed coal and 

natural gas) was used. 

(C) Divide the total number of pounds 

of NOX emitted during the 720 hours, as 

defined above, by the total heat input 

during the same 720-hour period. This 

calculation must be done separately for 

each fuel type (either for natural gas or 

mixed coal and natural gas). 

(xii) Data substitution must not be 

used for purposes of determining 

compliance under this regulation. 

(xiii) All CEMS data shall be reduced 

and reported in units of the applicable 

standard. 

(xiv) A Quality Control Program must 

be developed and implemented for all 

CEMS required by this section in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix F, Procedure 1, Section 3. The 

program will include, at a minimum, 

written procedures and operations for 

calibration checks, calibration drift 

adjustments, preventative maintenance, 

data collection, recording and reporting, 

accuracy audits/procedures, periodic 

performance evaluations, and a 

corrective action program for 

malfunctioning CEMS. 

(m) Recordkeeping requirements. 

(1)(i) Records required by this section 

must be kept in a form suitable and 

readily available for expeditious review. 

(ii) Records required by this section 

must be kept for a minimum of five 

years following the date of creation. 

(iii) Records must be kept on site for 

at least two years following the date of 

creation and may be kept offsite, but 

readily accessible, for the remaining 

three years. 

(2) The owner or operator of the 

BART affected unit must maintain the 

records identified in paragraphs 

(m)(2)(i) through (xi) of this section. 

(i) A copy of each notification and 

report developed for and submitted to 

comply with this section including all 

documentation supporting any initial 

notification or notification of 

compliance status submitted, according 

to the requirements of this section. 

(ii) Records of the occurrence and 

duration of each startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction of the BART affected unit, 

air pollution control equipment, and 

CEMS required by this section. 

(iii) Records of activities taken during 

each startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction of the BART affected unit, 

air pollution control equipment, and 

CEMS required by this section. 

(iv) Records of the occurrence and 

duration of all major maintenance 

conducted on the BART affected unit, 

air pollution control equipment, and 

CEMS required by this section. 

(v) Records of each excess emission 

report, including all documentation 

supporting the reports, dates and times 

when excess emissions occurred, 

investigations into the causes of excess 

emissions, actions taken to minimize or 

eliminate the excess emissions, and 

preventative measures to avoid the 

cause of excess emissions from 

occurring again. 

(vi) Records of all CEMS data 

including, as a minimum, the date, 

location, and time of sampling or 

measurement, parameters sampled or 

measured, and results. 

(vii) All records associated with 

quality assurance and quality control 

activities on each CEMS as well as other 

records required by 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix F, Procedure 1 including, but 

not limited to, the quality control 

program, audit results, and reports 

submitted as required by this section. 

(viii) Records of the NOX emissions 

during all periods of BART affected unit 

operation, including startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction, in the units of the 

standard. The owner or operator shall 

convert the monitored data into the 

appropriate unit of the emission 

limitation using appropriate conversion 

factors and F-factors. F-factors used for 

purposes of this section shall be 

documented in the monitoring plan and 

developed in accordance with 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A, Method 19. The 

owner or operator may use an alternate 

method to calculate the NOX emissions 

upon written approval from EPA. 

(ix) Records of the SO2 emissions or 

records of the removal efficiency (based 

on CEMS data), depending on the 

emission standard selected, during all 

periods of operation, including periods 

of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, 

in the units of the standard. 

(x) Records associated with the CEMS 

unit including type of CEMS, CEMS 

model number, CEMS serial number, 

and initial certification of each CEMS 

conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix B, Performance 

Specification 2 must be kept for the life 

of the CEMS unit. 

(xi) Records of all periods of fuel oil 

usage as required in paragraph (k)(4) of 

this section. 

(n) Reporting requirements. (1) All 

requests, reports, submittals, 

notifications, and other communications 

to the Regional Administrator required 

by this section shall be submitted, 

unless instructed otherwise, to the Air 

and Radiation Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5 (A–18J) at 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

References in this section to the 

Regional Administrator shall mean the 

EPA Regional Administrator for Region 

5. 

(2) The owner or operator of each 

BART affected unit identified in this 

section and CEMS required by this 

section must provide to the Regional 

Administrator the written notifications, 

reports, and plans identified at 

paragraphs (n)(2)(i) through (viii) of this 

section. If acceptable to both the 

Regional Administrator and the owner 

or operator of each BART affected unit 

identified in this section and CEMS 

required by this section the owner or 

operator may provide electronic 

notifications, reports, and plans. 

(i) A notification of the date 

construction of control devices and 

installation of burners required by this 

section commences postmarked no later 

than 30 days after the commencement 

date. 

(ii) A notification of the date the 

installation of each CEMS required by 

this section commences postmarked no 

later than 30 days after the 

commencement date. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 21685 

(iii) A notification of the date the 

construction of control devices and 

installation of burners required by this 

section is complete postmarked no later 

than 30 days after the completion date. 

(iv) A notification of the date the 

installation of each CEMS required by 

this section is complete postmarked no 

later than 30 days after the completion 

date. 

(v) A notification of the date control 

devices and burners installed by this 

section startup postmarked no later than 

30 days after the startup date. 

(vi) A notification of the date CEMS 

required by this section postmarked no 

later than 30 days after the startup date. 

(vii) A notification of the date upon 

which the initial CEMS performance 

evaluations are planned. This 

notification must be submitted at least 

60 days before the performance 

evaluation is scheduled to begin. 

(viii) A notification of initial 

compliance signed by the responsible 

official, who shall certify its accuracy, 

attesting to whether the source has 

complied with the requirements of this 

section, including, but not limited to, 

applicable emission standards, control 

device and burner installations, and 

CEMS installation and certification. 

This notification must be submitted 

before the close of business on the 60th 

calendar day following the completion 

of the compliance demonstration and 

must include, at a minimum, the 

information in paragraphs (n)(2)(viii)(A) 

through (F) of this section. 

(A) The methods used to determine 

compliance. 

(B) The results of any CEMS 

performance evaluations and other 

monitoring procedures or methods that 

were conducted. 

(C) The methods that will be used for 

determining continuing compliance, 

including a description of monitoring 

and reporting requirements and test 

methods. 

(D) The type and quantity of air 

pollutants emitted by the source, 

reported in units of the standard. 

(E) A description of the air pollution 

control equipment and burners installed 

as required by this section for each 

emission point. 

(F) A statement by the owner or 

operator as to whether the source has 

complied with the relevant standards 

and other requirements. 

(3) The owner or operator must 

develop and implement a written 

startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

plan for NOX and SO2. The plan must 

include, at a minimum, procedures for 

operating and maintaining the source 

during periods of startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction and a program of 

corrective action for a malfunctioning 

process and air pollution control and 

monitoring equipment used to comply 

with the relevant standard. The plan 

must ensure that, at all times, the owner 

or operator operates and maintains each 

affected source, including associated air 

pollution control and monitoring 

equipment, in a manner which satisfies 

the general duty to minimize or 

eliminate emissions using good air 

pollution control practices. The plan 

must ensure that owners or operators 

are prepared to correct malfunctions as 

soon as practicable after their 

occurrence. 

(4) The written reports of the results 

of each performance evaluation and QA/ 

QC check in accordance with and as 

required in paragraph (l)(4)(v) of this 

section. 

(5) Compliance reports. The owner or 

operator of each BART affected unit 

must submit semiannual compliance 

reports. The semiannual compliance 

reports must be submitted in accordance 

with paragraphs (n)(5)(i) through (iv) of 

this section, unless the Regional 

Administrator has approved a different 

schedule. 

(i) The first compliance report must 

cover the period beginning on the 

compliance date that is specified for the 

affected source through June 30 or 

December 31, whichever date comes 

first after the compliance date that is 

specified for the affected source. 

(ii) The first compliance report must 

be postmarked no later than 30 calendar 

days after the reporting period covered 

by that report (July 30 or January 30), 

whichever comes first. 

(iii) Each subsequent compliance 

report must cover the semiannual 

reporting period from January 1 through 

June 30 or the semiannual reporting 

period from July 1 through December 

31. 

(iv) Each subsequent compliance 

report must be postmarked no later than 

30 calendar days after the reporting 

period covered by that report (July 30 or 

January 30). 

(6) Compliance report contents. Each 

compliance report must include the 

information in paragraphs (n)(6)(i) 

through (vi) of this section. 

(i) Company name and address. 

(ii) Statement by a responsible 

official, with the official’s name, title, 

and signature, certifying the truth, 

accuracy, and completeness of the 

content of the report. 

(iii) Date of report and beginning and 

ending dates of the reporting period. 

(iv) Identification of the process unit, 

control devices, and CEMS covered by 

the compliance report. 

(v) A record of each period of a 

startup, shutdown, or malfunction 

during the reporting period and a 

description of the actions the owner or 

operator took to minimize or eliminate 

emissions arising as a result of the 

startup, shutdown, or malfunction and 

whether those actions were or were not 

consistent with the source’s startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction plan. 

(vi) A statement identifying whether 

there were or were not any deviations 

from the requirements of this section 

during the reporting period. If there 

were deviations from the requirements 

of this section during the reporting 

period, then the compliance report must 

describe in detail the deviations which 

occurred, the causes of the deviations, 

actions taken to address the deviations, 

and procedures put in place to avoid 

such deviations in the future. If there 

were no deviations from the 

requirements of this section during the 

reporting period, then the compliance 

report must include a statement that 

there were no deviations. For purposes 

of this section, deviations include, but 

are not limited to, emissions in excess 

of applicable emission standards 

established by this section, failure to 

continuously operate an air pollution 

control device in accordance with 

operating requirements designed to 

assure compliance with emission 

standards, failure to continuously 

operate CEMS required by this section, 

and failure to maintain records or 

submit reports required by this section. 

(7) Each owner or operator of a CEMS 

required by this section must submit 

quarterly excess emissions and 

monitoring system performance reports 

to the Regional Administrator for each 

pollutant monitored for each BART 

affected unit monitored. All reports 

must be postmarked by the 30th day 

following the end of each 3-month 

period of a calendar year (January– 

March, April–June, July–September, 

October–December) and must include, 

at a minimum, the requirements of 

paragraphs (n)(7)(i) through (xv) of this 

section. 

(i) Company name and address. 

(ii) Identification and description of 

the process unit being monitored. 

(iii) The dates covered by the 

reporting period. 

(iv) Total source operating hours for 

the reporting period. 

(v) Monitor manufacturer, monitor 

model number, and monitor serial 

number. 

(vi) Pollutant monitored. 

(vii) Emission limitation for the 

monitored pollutant. 

(viii) Date of latest CEMS certification 

or audit. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
21686 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

(ix) A description of any changes in 

continuous monitoring systems, 

processes, or controls since the last 

reporting period. 

(x) A table summarizing the total 

duration of excess emissions, as defined 

in paragraphs (n)(7)(x)(A) through (B) of 

this section, for the reporting period 

broken down by the cause of those 

excess emissions (startup/shutdown, 

control equipment problems, process 

problems, other known causes, 

unknown causes), and the total percent 

of excess emissions (for all causes) for 

the reporting period calculated as 

described in paragraph (n)(7)(x)(C) of 

this section. 

(A) For purposes of this section, an 

excess emission is defined as any 30- 

day or 720-hour rolling average period, 

including periods of startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction, during which the 30- 

day or 720-hour (as appropriate) rolling 

average emissions of either regulated 

pollutant (SO2 and NOX), as measured 

by a CEMS, exceeds the applicable 

emission standards in this section. 

(B)(1) For purposes of this section, if 

a facility calculates a 30-day rolling 

average emission rate in accordance 

with this section which exceeds the 

applicable emission standards of this 

section, then it will be considered 30 

days of excess emissions. If the 

following 30-day rolling average 

emission rate is calculated and found to 

exceed the applicable emission 

standards of this section as well, then it 

will add one more day to the total days 

of excess emissions (i.e. 31 days). 

Similarly, if an excess emission is 

calculated for a 30-day rolling average 

period and no additional excess 

emissions are calculated until 15 days 

after the first, then that new excess 

emission will add 15 days to the total 

days of excess emissions (i.e. 30 + 15 = 

45). For purposes of this section, if an 

excess emission is calculated for any 

period of time within a reporting period, 

there will be no fewer than 30 days of 

excess emissions but there should be no 

more than 121 days of excess emissions 

for a reporting period. 

(2) For purposes of this section, if a 

facility calculates a 720-hour rolling 

average emission rate in accordance 

with this section which exceeds the 

applicable emission standards of this 

section, then it will be considered 30 

days of excess emissions. If the 24th 

following 720-hour rolling average 

emission rate is calculated and found to 

exceed the applicable emission 

standards of the rule as well, then it will 

add one more day to the total days of 

excess emissions (i.e. 31 days). 

Similarly, if an excess emission is 

calculated for a 720-hour rolling average 

period and no additional excess 

emissions are calculated until 360 hours 

after the first, then that new excess 

emission will add 15 days to the total 

days of excess emissions (i.e. 30+15 = 

45). For purposes of this section, if an 

excess emission is calculated for any 

period of time with a reporting period, 

there will be no fewer than 30 days of 

excess emissions but there should be no 

more than 121 days of excess emissions 

for a reporting period. 

(C) For purposes of this section, the 

total percent of excess emissions will be 

determined by summing all periods of 

excess emissions (in days) for the 

reporting period, dividing that number 

by the total BART affected unit 

operating days for the reporting period, 

and then multiplying by 100 to get the 

total percent of excess emissions for the 

reporting period. An operating day, as 

defined previously, is any day during 

which fuel is fired in the BART affected 

unit for any period of time. Because of 

the possible overlap of 30-day rolling 

average excess emissions across 

quarters, there are some situations 

where the total percent of excess 

emissions could exceed 100 percent. 

This extreme situation would only 

result from serious excess emissions 

problems where excess emissions occur 

for nearly every day during a reporting 

period. 

(xi) A table summarizing the total 

duration of monitor downtime, as 

defined in paragraph (n)(7)(xi)(A) of this 

section, for the reporting period broken 

down by the cause of the monitor 

downtime (monitor equipment 

malfunctions, non-monitor equipment 

malfunctions, quality assurance 

calibration, other known causes, 

unknown causes), and the total percent 

of monitor downtime (for all causes) for 

the reporting period calculated as 

described in paragraph (n)(7)(xi)(B) of 

this section. 

(A) For purposes of this section, 

monitor downtime is defined as any 

period of time (in hours) during which 

the required monitoring system was not 

measuring emissions from the BART 

affected unit. This includes any period 

of CEMS QA/QC, daily zero and span 

checks, and similar activities. 

(B) For purposes of this section, the 

total percent of monitor downtime will 

be determined by summing all periods 

of monitor downtime (in hours) for the 

reporting period, dividing that number 

by the total number of BART affected 

unit operating hours for the reporting 

period, and then multiplying by 100 to 

get the total percent of excess emissions 

for the reporting period. 

(xii) A table which identifies each 

period of excess emissions for the 

reporting period and includes, at a 

minimum, the information in 

paragraphs (n)(7)(xii)(A) through (F) of 

this section. 

(A) The date of each excess emission. 

(B) The beginning and end time of 

each excess emission. 

(C) The pollutant for which an excess 

emission occurred. 

(D) The magnitude of the excess 

emission. 

(E) The cause of the excess emission. 

(F) The corrective action taken or 

preventative measures adopted to 

minimize or eliminate the excess 

emissions and prevent such excess 

emission from occurring again. 

(xiii) A table which identifies each 

period of monitor downtime for the 

reporting period and includes, at a 

minimum, the information in 

paragraphs (n)(7)(xiii)(A) through (D) of 

this section. 

(A) The date of each period of monitor 

downtime. 

(B) The beginning and end time of 

each period of monitor downtime. 

(C) The cause of the period of monitor 

downtime. 

(D) The corrective action taken or 

preventative measures adopted for 

system repairs or adjustments to 

minimize or eliminate monitor 

downtime and prevent such downtime 

from occurring again. 

(xiv) If there were no periods of 

excess emissions during the reporting 

period, then the excess emission report 

must include a statement which says 

there were no periods of excess 

emissions during this reporting period. 

(xv) If there were no periods of 

monitor downtime, except for daily zero 

and span checks, during the reporting 

period, then the excess emission report 

must include a statement which says 

there were no periods of monitor 

downtime during this reporting period 

except for the daily zero and span 

checks. 

(8) The owner or operator of each 

CEMS required by this section must 

develop and submit for review and 

approval by the Regional Administrator 

a site specific monitoring plan. The 

purpose of this monitoring plan is to 

establish procedures and practices 

which will be implemented by the 

owner or operator in its effort to comply 

with the monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements of this section. 

The monitoring plan must include, at a 

minimum, the information in 

paragraphs (n)(8)(i) through (x) of this 

section. 

(i) Site specific information including 

the company name, address, and contact 

information. 

(ii) The objectives of the monitoring 

program implemented and information 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 21687 

describing how those objectives will be 

met. 

(iii) Information on any emission 

factors used in conjunction with the 

CEMS required by this section to 

calculate emission rates and a 

description of how those emission 

factors were determined. 

(iv) A description of methods to be 

used to calculate emission rates when 

CEMS data are not available due to 

downtime associated with QA/QC 

events. 

(v) A description of the QA/QC 

program to be implemented by the 

owner or operator of CEMS required by 

this section. This can be the QA/QC 

program developed in accordance with 

40 CFR part 60, appendix F, Procedure 

1, Section 3. 

(vi) A list of spare parts for CEMS 

maintained on site for system 

maintenance and repairs. 

(vii) A description of the procedures 

to be used to calculate 30-day rolling 

averages and 720-hour rolling averages 

and example calculations which show 

the algorithms used by the CEMS to 

calculate 30-day rolling averages and 

720-hour rolling averages. 

(viii) A sample of the document to be 

used for the quarterly excess emission 

reports required by this section. 

(ix) A description of the procedures to 

be implemented to investigate root 

causes of excess emissions and monitor 

downtime and the proposed corrective 

actions to address potential root causes 

of excess emissions and monitor 

downtime. 

(x) A description of the sampling and 

calculation methodology for 

determining the percent sulfur by 

weight as a monthly block average for 

coal used during that month. 

(p) Equations for establishing the 

upper predictive limit—(1) Equation for 

normal distribution and statistically 

independent data. 

Where: 

x = average or mean of hourly test run data; 

t[(n¥1),(0.95)] = t score, the one-tailed t value of 

the Student’s t distribution for a specific 

degree of freedom (n¥1) and a 

confidence level (0.95; 0.99 for Tilden 

SO2) 

s2 = variance of the hourly data set; 

n = number of values (e.g. 5,760 if 8 months 

of valid lbs NOX/MMBTU hourly values) 

m = number of values used to calculate the 

test average (m = 720 as per averaging 

time) 

(i) To determine if statistically 

independent, use the Rank von 

Neumann Test on p. 137 of data Quality 

Assessment: Statistical Methods for 

Practitioners EPA QA/G–9S. 

(ii) Alternative to Rank von Neumann 

test to determine if data are dependent, 

data are dependent if t test value is 

greater than t critical value, where: 

r = correlation between data points 

t critical = t[(n¥2),(0.95)] = t score, the twotailed t value of the Student’s t 

distribution for a specific degree of 

freedom (n¥2) and a confidence level 

(0.95) 

(iii) The Anderson-Darling normality 

test is used to establish whether the data 

are normally distributed. That is, a 

distribution is considered to be 

normally distributed when p > 0.05. 

(2) Non-parametric equation for data 

not normally distributed and normally 

distributed but not statistically 

independent. 

m = (n + 1) * a 

m = the rank of the ordered data point, when 

data are sorted smallest to largest. The 

data points are 720-hour averages for 

establishing NOX limits. 

n = number of data points (e.g., 5040 720- 

hourly averages for eight months of valid 

NOX lbs/MMBTU values) 

a = 0.95, to reflect the 95th percentile 

If m is a whole number, then the 

limit, UPL, shall be computed as: 

UPL = Xm

Where: 

Xm = value of the mth data point in terms of 

lbs SO2/hr or lbs NOX/MMBTU, when 

the data are sorted smallest to largest. 

If m is not a whole number, the limit 

shall be computed by linear 

interpolation according to the following 

equation. 

UPL = xm = xmi

·md = xmi + 0.md

(xmi∂1¥xmi

) 

Where: 

mi = the integer portion of m, i.e., m 

truncated at zero decimal places, and 

md = the decimal portion of m 

■ 3. Section 52.1235 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b)(1)(ii), (b)(1)(iv), 

(b)(1)(v), (b)(2)(iv), (c), (d), and (e) and 

by adding paragraph (f) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.1235 Regional haze. 

* * * * * 

(b) 

(1) * * * 

(ii) Hibbing Taconite Company—(A) 

Hibbing Line 1. (1) An emission limit of 

1.2 lbs NOX/MMBTU, based on a 30-day 

rolling average, shall apply to Hibbing 

Line 1 when burning natural gas. This 

emission limit will become enforceable 

37 months after May 12, 2016 and only 

after EPA’s confirmation or modification 

of the emission limit in accordance with 

the procedures set forth in paragraphs 

(b)(1)(ii)(A)(2) through (7) of this 

section. 

(2) Compliance with this emission 

limit will be demonstrated with data 

collected by a continuous emissions 

monitoring system (CEMS) for NOX. The 

owner or operator of Hibbing Line 1 

must install a CEMS for NOX and SO2

within six months from May 12, 2016. 

The owner or operator must start 

collecting CEMS data and submit the 

data to EPA no later than 30 days from 

the end of each calendar quarter after 

that installation deadline. Any 

remaining data through the end of the 

34th month from May 12, 2016, that 

does not fall within a calendar quarter, 

must be submitted to EPA no later than 

30 days from the end of the 34th month. 

Although CEMS data must continue to 

be collected, it does not need to be 

submitted to EPA starting 34 months 

after May 12, 2016. 

(3) No later than 24 months after May 

12, 2016 the owner or operator must 

submit to EPA a report, including any 

final report(s) completed by the selected 

NOX reduction technology supplier and 

furnace retrofit engineer, containing a 

detailed engineering analysis and 

modeling of the NOX reduction control 

technology being installed on Hibbing 

Line 1. The NOX reduction control 

technology must be designed to meet an 

emission limit of 1.2 lbs NOX/MMBTU. 

This report must include a list of all 

process and control technology 

variables that can reasonably be 

expected to have an impact on NOX

emissions control technology 

performance, as well as a description of 

how these variables can be adjusted to 

reduce NOX emissions to meet the NOX

design emission limit. 

(4) The NOX reduction control 

technology shall be installed on Hibbing 

Line 1 furnace no later than 26 months 

after May 12, 2016. 

(5) Commencing on the earlier of: Six 

months from the installation of the NOX

reduction control technology; or 26 

months from May 12, 2016, the owner 

or operator must provide to EPA the 

results from pellet quality analyses. The 

owner or operator shall provide the 

results from pellet quality analyses no 

later than 30 days from the end of each 

calendar quarter up until 34 months 

after May 12, 2016. Any remaining 

results through the end of the 34th 

month from May 12, 2016, that do not 

fall within a calendar quarter, must be 

submitted to EPA no later than 30 days 

from the end of the 34th month. The 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULESER12AP16.000</GPH> ER12AP16.001</GPH>
21688 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

pellet quality analyses shall include 

results for the following factors: 

Compression, reducibility, before 

tumble, after tumble, low temperature 

disintegration, and swelling. For each of 

the pellet quality analysis factors, the 

owner or operator must explain the 

pellet quality analysis factor, as well as 

the defined acceptable range for each 

factor using the applicable product 

quality standards based upon 

customers’ pellet specifications that are 

contained in Hibbing’s ISO 9001 quality 

management system. The owner or 

operator shall provide pellet quality 

analysis testing results that state the 

date and time of the analysis and, in 

order to define the time period when 

pellets were produced outside of the 

defined acceptable range for the pellet 

quality factors listed, provide copies of 

the production logs that document the 

starting and ending times for such 

periods. The owner or operator shall 

provide an explanation of causes for 

pellet samples that fail to meet the 

acceptable range for any pellet quality 

analysis factor. Pellet quality 

information and data may be submitted 

to EPA as Confidential Business 

Information. 

(6) No later than 34 months after May 

12, 2016, the owner or operator may 

submit to EPA a report to either confirm 

or modify the NOX limits for Hibbing 

Line 1 furnace within the upper and 

lower bounds described below. EPA 

will review the report and either 

confirm or modify the NOX limits. If the 

CEMS data collected during operating 

periods between months 26 and 34 that 

both meet pellet quality specifications 

and proper furnace/burner operation is 

normally distributed, the limit 

adjustment determination shall be based 

on the appropriate (depending upon 

whether data are statistically 

independent or dependent) 95% upper 

predictive limit (UPL) equations in 

paragraph (f) of this section. If the CEMS 

data collected during operating periods 

between months 26 and 34 that both 

meet pellet quality specifications and 

proper furnace/burner operation are not 

normally distributed, the limit 

adjustment determination shall be based 

on the non-parametric equation 

provided in paragraph (f) of this section. 

The data set for the determination shall 

exclude periods when pellet quality did 

not fall within the defined acceptable 

ranges of the pellet quality factors 

identified pursuant to paragraph 

(b)(1)(ii)(E) of this section and for any 

subsequent period when production has 

been reduced in response to pellet 

quality concerns consistent with 

Hibbing’s ISO 9001 operating standards. 

Any excluded period will commence at 

the time documented on the production 

log demonstrating that pellet quality did 

not fall within the defined acceptable 

range and shall end when pellet quality 

within the defined acceptable range has 

been re-established at planned 

production levels, which will be 

presumed to be the level that existed 

immediately prior to the reduction in 

production due to pellet quality 

concerns. EPA may also exclude data 

where operations are inconsistent with 

the reported design parameters of the 

NOX reduction control technology 

installed. 

(7) EPA will take final agency action 

by publishing its final confirmation or 

modification of the NOX limit in the 

Federal Register no later than 37 

months after May 12, 2016. The 

confirmed or modified NOX limit for 

Hibbing Line 1 when burning only 

natural gas may be no lower than 1.2 lbs 

NOX/MMBTU, based on a 30-day rolling 

average, and may not exceed 1.8 lbs 

NOX/MMBTU, based on a 30-day rolling 

average. 

(B) Hibbing Line 2. (1) An emission 

limit of 1.2 lbs NOX/MMBTU, based on 

a 30-day rolling average, shall apply to 

Hibbing Line 2 when burning natural 

gas. This emission limit will become 

enforceable 55 months after May 12, 

2016 and only after EPA’s confirmation 

or modification of the emission limit in 

accordance with the procedures set 

forth in paragraphs (b)(1)(ii)(B)(2) 

through (7) of this section. 

(2) Compliance with this emission 

limit will be demonstrated with data 

collected by a continuous emissions 

monitoring system (CEMS) for NOX. The 

owner or operator of Hibbing Line 2 

must install a CEMS for NOX and SO2

within six months from May 12, 2016. 

The owner or operator must start 

collecting CEMS data and submit the 

data to EPA no later than 30 days from 

the end of each calendar quarter after 

that installation deadline. Any 

remaining data through the end of the 

52nd month from May 12, 2016, that 

does not fall within a calendar quarter, 

must be submitted to EPA no later than 

30 days from the end of the 52nd 

month. Although CEMS data must 

continue to be collected, it does not 

need to be submitted to EPA starting 52 

months after May 12, 2016. 

(3) No later than 42 months after May 

12, 2016 the owner or operator must 

submit to EPA a report, including any 

final report(s) completed by the selected 

NOX reduction technology supplier and 

furnace retrofit engineer, containing a 

detailed engineering analysis and 

modeling of the NOX reduction control 

technology being installed on Hibbing 

Line 2. The NOX reduction control 

technology must be designed to meet an 

emission limit of 1.2 lbs NOX/MMBTU. 

This report must include a list of all 

process and control technology 

variables that can reasonably be 

expected to have an impact on NOX

emissions control technology 

performance, as well as a description of 

how these variables can be adjusted to 

reduce NOX emissions to meet the NOX

design emission limit. 

(4) The NOX reduction control 

technology shall be installed on Hibbing 

Line 2 furnace no later than 44 months 

after May 12, 2016. 

(5) Commencing on the earlier of: Six 

months from the installation of the NOX

reduction control technology; or 44 

months from May 12, 2016, the owner 

or operator must provide to EPA the 

results from pellet quality analyses. The 

owner or operator shall provide the 

results from pellet quality analyses no 

later than 30 days from the end of each 

calendar quarter up until 52 months 

after May 12, 2016. Any remaining 

results through the end of the 52nd 

month from May 12, 2016, that do not 

fall within a calendar quarter, must be 

submitted to EPA no later than 30 days 

from the end of the 52nd month. The 

pellet quality analyses shall include 

results for the following factors: 

Compression, reducibility, before 

tumble, after tumble, low temperature 

disintegration, and swelling. For each of 

the pellet quality analysis factors, the 

owner or operator must explain the 

pellet quality analysis factor, as well as 

the defined acceptable range for each 

factor using the applicable product 

quality standards based upon 

customers’ pellet specifications that are 

contained in Hibbing’s ISO 9001 quality 

management system. The owner or 

operator shall provide pellet quality 

analysis testing results that state the 

date and time of the analysis and, in 

order to define the time period when 

pellets were produced outside of the 

defined acceptable range for the pellet 

quality factors listed, provide copies of 

the production logs that document the 

starting and ending times for such 

periods. The owner or operator shall 

provide an explanation of causes for 

pellet samples that fail to meet the 

acceptable range for any pellet quality 

analysis factor. Pellet quality 

information and data may be submitted 

to EPA as Confidential Business 

Information. 

(6) No later than 52 months after May 

12, 2016, the owner or operator may 

submit to EPA a report to either confirm 

or modify the NOX limits for Hibbing 

Line 2 furnace within the upper and 

lower bounds described below. EPA 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 21689 

will review the report and either 

confirm or modify the NOX limits. If the 

CEMS data collected during operating 

periods between months 44 and 52 that 

both meet pellet quality specifications 

and proper furnace/burner operation is 

normally distributed, the limit 

adjustment determination shall be based 

on the appropriate (depending upon 

whether data are statistically 

independent or dependent) 95% upper 

predictive limit (UPL) equations in 

paragraph (f) of this section. If the CEMS 

data collected during operating periods 

between months 44 and 52 that both 

meet pellet quality specifications and 

proper furnace/burner operation are not 

normally distributed, the limit 

adjustment determination shall be based 

on the non-parametric equation 

provided in paragraph (f) of this section. 

The data set for the determination shall 

exclude periods when pellet quality did 

not fall within the defined acceptable 

ranges of the pellet quality factors 

identified pursuant to paragraph 

(b)(1)(ii)(E) of this section and for any 

subsequent period when production has 

been reduced in response to pellet 

quality concerns consistent with 

Hibbing’s ISO 9001 operating standards. 

Any excluded period will commence at 

the time documented on the production 

log demonstrating that pellet quality did 

not fall within the defined acceptable 

range and shall end when pellet quality 

within the defined acceptable range has 

been re-established at planned 

production levels, which will be 

presumed to be the level that existed 

immediately prior to the reduction in 

production due to pellet quality 

concerns. EPA may also exclude data 

where operations are inconsistent with 

the reported design parameters of the 

NOX reduction control technology 

installed. 

(7) EPA will take final agency action 

by publishing its final confirmation or 

modification of the NOX limit in the 

Federal Register no later than 55 

months after May 12, 2016. The 

confirmed or modified NOX limit for 

Hibbing Line 2 when burning only 

natural gas may be no lower than 1.2 lbs 

NOX/MMBTU, based on a 30-day rolling 

average, and may not exceed 1.8 lbs 

NOX/MMBTU, based on a 30-day rolling 

average. 

(C) Hibbing Line 3. (1) An emission 

limit of 1.2 lbs NOX/MMBTU, based on 

a 30-day rolling average, shall apply to 

Hibbing Line 3 when burning natural 

gas. This emission limit will become 

enforceable 60 months after May 12, 

2016 and only after EPA’s confirmation 

or modification of the emission limit in 

accordance with the procedures set 

forth in paragraphs (b)(1)(ii)(C)(2) 

through (7) of this section. 

(2) Compliance with this emission 

limit will be demonstrated with data 

collected by a continuous emissions 

monitoring system (CEMS) for NOX. The 

owner or operator of Hibbing Line 3 

must install a CEMS for NOX and SO2

within six months from May 12, 2016. 

The owner or operator must start 

collecting CEMS data and submit the 

data to EPA no later than 30 days from 

the end of each calendar quarter after 

that installation deadline. Any 

remaining data through the end of the 

57th month from May 12, 2016, that 

does not fall within a calendar quarter, 

must be submitted to EPA no later than 

30 days from the end of the 57th month. 

Although CEMS data must continue to 

be collected, it does not need to be 

submitted to EPA starting 57 months 

after May 12, 2016. 

(3) No later than 48 months after May 

12, 2016 the owner or operator must 

submit to EPA a report, including any 

final report(s) completed by the selected 

NOX reduction technology supplier and 

furnace retrofit engineer, containing a 

detailed engineering analysis and 

modeling of the NOX reduction control 

technology being installed on Hibbing 

Line 3. The NOX reduction control 

technology must be designed to meet an 

emission limit of 1.2 lbs NOX/MMBTU. 

This report must include a list of all 

process and control technology 

variables that can reasonably be 

expected to have an impact on NOX

emissions control technology 

performance, as well as a description of 

how these variables can be adjusted to 

reduce NOX emissions to meet the NOX

design emission limit. 

(4) The NOX reduction control 

technology shall be installed on Hibbing 

Line 3 furnace no later than 50 months 

after May 12, 2016. 

(5) Commencing on the earlier of: Six 

months from the installation of the NOX

reduction control technology; or 50 

months from May 12, 2016, the owner 

or operator must provide to EPA the 

results from pellet quality analyses. The 

owner or operator shall provide the 

results from pellet quality analyses no 

later than 30 days from the end of each 

calendar quarter up until 57 months 

after May 12, 2016. Any remaining 

results through the end of the 57th 

month from May 12, 2016, that do not 

fall within a calendar quarter, must be 

submitted to EPA no later than 30 days 

from the end of the 57th month. The 

pellet quality analyses shall include 

results for the following factors: 

Compression, reducibility, before 

tumble, after tumble, low temperature 

disintegration, and swelling. For each of 

the pellet quality analysis factors, the 

owner or operator must explain the 

pellet quality analysis factor, as well as 

the defined acceptable range for each 

factor using the applicable product 

quality standards based upon 

customers’ pellet specifications that are 

contained in Hibbing’s ISO 9001 quality 

management system. The owner or 

operator shall provide pellet quality 

analysis testing results that state the 

date and time of the analysis and, in 

order to define the time period when 

pellets were produced outside of the 

defined acceptable range for the pellet 

quality factors listed, provide copies of 

the production logs that document the 

starting and ending times for such 

periods. The owner or operator shall 

provide an explanation of causes for 

pellet samples that fail to meet the 

acceptable range for any pellet quality 

analysis factor. Pellet quality 

information and data may be submitted 

to EPA as Confidential Business 

Information. 

(6) No later than 57 months after May 

12, 2016, the owner or operator may 

submit to EPA a report to either confirm 

or modify the NOX limits for Hibbing 

Line 3 furnace within the upper and 

lower bounds described below. EPA 

will review the report and either 

confirm or modify the NOX limits. If the 

CEMS data collected during operating 

periods between months 50 and 57 that 

both meet pellet quality specifications 

and proper furnace/burner operation is 

normally distributed, the limit 

adjustment determination shall be based 

on the appropriate (depending upon 

whether data are statistically 

independent or dependent) 95% upper 

predictive limit (UPL) equations in 

paragraph (f) of this section. If the CEMS 

data collected during operating periods 

between months 50 and 57 that both 

meet pellet quality specifications and 

proper furnace/burner operation are not 

normally distributed, the limit 

adjustment determination shall be based 

on the non-parametric equation 

provided in paragraph (f) of this section. 

The data set for the determination shall 

exclude periods when pellet quality did 

not fall within the defined acceptable 

ranges of the pellet quality factors 

identified pursuant to paragraph 

(b)(1)(ii)(E) of this section and for any 

subsequent period when production has 

been reduced in response to pellet 

quality concerns consistent with 

Hibbing’s ISO 9001 operating standards. 

Any excluded period will commence at 

the time documented on the production 

log demonstrating that pellet quality did 

not fall within the defined acceptable 

range and shall end when pellet quality 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
21690 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

within the defined acceptable range has 

been re-established at planned 

production levels, which will be 

presumed to be the level that existed 

immediately prior to the reduction in 

production due to pellet quality 

concerns. EPA may also exclude data 

where operations are inconsistent with 

the reported design parameters of the 

NOX reduction control technology 

installed. 

(7) EPA will take final agency action 

by publishing its final confirmation or 

modification of the NOX limit in the 

Federal Register no later than 60 

months after May 12, 2016. The 

confirmed or modified NOX limit for 

Hibbing Line 3 when burning only 

natural gas may be no lower than 1.2 lbs 

NOX/MMBTU, based on a 30-day rolling 

average, and may not exceed 1.8 lbs 

NOX/MMBTU, based on a 30-day rolling 

average. 

* * * * * 

(iv) United Taconite—(A) United 

Taconite Line 1. (1) An emission limit 

of 2.8 lbs NOX/MMBTU, based on a 720- 

hour rolling average, shall apply to 

United Taconite Grate Kiln Line 1 when 

burning natural gas, and an emission 

limit of 1.5 lbs NOX/MMBTU, based on 

a 720-hour rolling average, shall apply 

to United Taconite Grate Kiln Line 1 

when burning coal or a mixture of coal 

and natural gas. These emission limits 

will become enforceable 37 months after 

May 12, 2016 and only after EPA’s 

confirmation or modification of the 

emission limit in accordance with the 

procedures set forth in paragraphs 

(b)(1)(iv)(A)(2) through (8) of this 

section. 

(2) Compliance with these emission 

limits shall be demonstrated with data 

collected by a continuous emissions 

monitoring system (CEMS) for NOX. The 

owner or operator must start collecting 

CEMS data for NOX on May 12, 2016 

and submit the data to EPA no later than 

30 days from the end of each calendar 

quarter. Any remaining data through the 

end of the 34th month from May 12, 

2016, that does not fall within a 

calendar quarter, must be submitted to 

EPA no later than 30 days from the end 

of the 34th month. Although CEMS data 

must continue to be collected, it does 

not need to be submitted to EPA starting 

34 months after May 12, 2016. 

(3) No later than 24 months from May 

12, 2016, the owner or operator must 

submit to EPA a report, including any 

final report(s) completed by the selected 

NOX reduction technology supplier and 

furnace retrofit engineer, containing a 

detailed engineering analysis and 

modeling of the NOX reduction control 

technology being installed on United 

Taconite Grate Kiln Line 1. This report 

must include a list of all variables that 

can reasonably be expected to have an 

impact on NOX emission control 

technology performance, as well as a 

description of how these variables can 

be adjusted to reduce NOX emissions to 

meet the NOX design emission limit. 

This NOX reduction control technology 

must be designed to meet emission 

limits of 2.8 lbs NOX/MMBTU when 

burning natural gas and 1.5 lbs NOX/

MMBTU when burning coal or a 

mixture of coal and natural gas. 

(4) The NOX reduction control 

technology shall be installed on United 

Taconite Grate Kiln Line 1 furnace no 

later than 26 months from May 12, 2016. 

(5) Commencing on the earlier of: Six 

months from the installation of the NOX

reduction control technology or 26 

months from May 12, 2016, the owner 

or operator must provide to EPA the 

results from pellet quality analyses. The 

owner or operator shall provide the 

results from pellet quality analyses no 

later than 30 days from the end of each 

calendar quarter up until 34 months 

after May 12, 2016. Any remaining 

results through the end of the 34th 

month, that do not fall within a calendar 

quarter, must be submitted to EPA no 

later than 30 days from the end of the 

34th month. The pellet quality analyses 

shall include results for the following 

factors: Compression, reducibility, 

before tumble, after tumble, and low 

temperature disintegration. For each of 

the pellet quality analysis factors, the 

owner or operator must explain the 

pellet quality analysis factor, as well as 

the defined acceptable range for each 

factor using the applicable product 

quality standards based upon 

customers’ pellet specifications that are 

contained in United Taconite’s ISO 

9001 quality management system. The 

owner or operator shall provide pellet 

quality analysis testing results that state 

the date and time of the analysis and, in 

order to define the time period when 

pellets were produced outside of the 

defined acceptable range for the pellet 

quality factors listed, provide copies of 

the production logs that document the 

starting and ending times for such 

periods. The owner or operator shall 

provide an explanation of causes for 

pellet samples that fail to meet the 

acceptable range for any pellet quality 

analysis factor. Pellet quality 

information and data may be submitted 

to EPA as Confidential Business 

Information. 

(6) No later than 34 months after May 

12, 2016, the owner or operator may 

submit to EPA a report to either confirm 

or modify the NOX limits for United 

Taconite Grate Kiln Line 1 within the 

upper and lower bounds described 

below. EPA will review the report and 

either confirm or modify the NOX limits. 

If the CEMS data collected during 

operating periods between months 26 

and 34 that both meet pellet quality 

specifications and proper furnace/

burner operation is normally 

distributed, the limit adjustment 

determination shall be based on the 

appropriate (depending upon whether 

data are statistically independent or 

dependent) 95% upper predictive limit 

(UPL) equations in paragraph (f) of this 

section. If the CEMS data collected 

during operating periods between 

months 26 and 34 that both meet pellet 

quality specifications and proper 

furnace/burner operation are not 

normally distributed, the limit 

adjustment determination shall be based 

on the non-parametric equation 

provided in paragraph (f) of this section. 

The data set for the determination shall 

exclude periods when pellet quality did 

not fall within the defined acceptable 

ranges of the pellet quality factors 

identified pursuant to paragraph 

(b)(1)(iv)(A)(5) of this section and for 

any subsequent period when production 

had been reduced in response to pellet 

quality concerns consistent with United 

Taconite’s ISO 9001 operating 

standards. Any excluded period will 

commence at the time documented on 

the production log demonstrating pellet 

quality did not fall within the defined 

acceptable range, and shall end when 

pellet quality within the defined 

acceptable range has been re-established 

at planned production levels, which 

will be presumed to be the level that 

existed immediately prior to the 

reduction in production due to pellet 

quality concerns. EPA may also exclude 

data where operations are inconsistent 

with the reported design parameters of 

the NOX reduction control technology 

that were installed. 

(7) EPA will take final agency action 

by publishing its final confirmation or 

modification of the NOX limits in the 

Federal Register no later than 37 

months after May 12, 2016. The 

confirmed or modified NOX limit for 

United Taconite Grate Kiln Line 1 when 

burning only natural gas may be no 

lower than 2.8 lbs NOX/MMBTU, based 

on a 720-hour rolling average, and may 

not exceed 3.0 lbs NOX/MMBTU, based 

on a 720-hour rolling average. The 

confirmed or modified NOX limit for 

United Taconite Grate Kiln Line 1 when 

burning coal or a mixture of coal and 

natural gas may be no lower than 1.5 lbs 

NOX/MMBTU, based on a 720-hour 

rolling average, and may not exceed 2.5 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 21691 

lbs NOX/MMBTU, based on a 720-hour 

rolling average. 

(8) If the owner or operator submits a 

report proposing a single NOX limit for 

all fuels, EPA may approve the 

proposed NOX limit for all fuels based 

on a 30-day rolling average. The 

confirmed or modified limit will be 

established and enforceable within 37 

months from May 12, 2016. 

(B) United Taconite Line 2. (1) An 

emission limit of 2.8 lbs NOX/MMBTU, 

based on a 720-hour rolling average, 

shall apply to United Taconite Grate 

Kiln Line 2 when burning natural gas, 

and an emission limit of 1.5 lbs NOX/ 

MMBTU, based on a 720-hour rolling 

average, shall apply to United Taconite 

Grate Kiln Line 2 when burning coal or 

a mixture of coal and natural gas. These 

emission limits will become enforceable 

55 months after May 12, 2016 and only 

after EPA’s confirmation or modification 

of the emission limit in accordance with 

the procedures set forth in paragraphs 

(b)(1)(iv)(B)(2) through (8) of this 

section. 

(2) Compliance with these emission 

limits shall be demonstrated with data 

collected by a continuous emissions 

monitoring system (CEMS) for NOX. The 

owner or operator must start collecting 

CEMS data for NOX on May 12, 2016 

and submit the data to EPA no later than 

30 days from the end of each calendar 

quarter. Any remaining data through the 

end of the 52nd month from May 12, 

2016, that does not fall within a 

calendar quarter, must be submitted to 

EPA no later than 30 days from the end 

of the 52nd month. Although CEMS 

data must continue to be collected, it 

does not need to be submitted to EPA 

starting 52 months after May 12, 2016. 

(3) No later than 42 months from May 

12, 2016, the owner or operator must 

submit to EPA a report, including any 

final report(s) completed by the selected 

NOX reduction technology supplier and 

furnace retrofit engineer, containing a 

detailed engineering analysis and 

modeling of the NOX reduction control 

technology being installed on United 

Taconite Grate Kiln Line 2. This report 

must include a list of all variables that 

can reasonably be expected to have an 

impact on NOX emission control 

technology performance, as well as a 

description of how these variables can 

be adjusted to reduce NOX emissions to 

meet the NOX design emission limit. 

This NOX reduction control technology 

must be designed to meet emission 

limits of 2.8 lbs NOX/MMBTU when 

burning natural gas and 1.5 lbs NOX/

MMBTU when burning coal or a 

mixture of coal and natural gas. 

(4) The NOX reduction control 

technology shall be installed on United 

Taconite Grate Kiln Line 2 furnace no 

later than 44 months from May 12, 2016. 

(5) Commencing on the earlier of: Six 

months from the installation of the NOX

reduction control technology or 44 

months from May 12, 2016, the owner 

or operator must provide to EPA the 

results from pellet quality analyses. The 

owner or operator shall provide the 

results from pellet quality analyses no 

later than 30 days from the end of each 

calendar quarter up until 52 months 

after May 12, 2016. Any remaining 

results through the end of the 52nd 

month, that do not fall within a calendar 

quarter, must be submitted to EPA no 

later than 30 days from the end of the 

52nd month. The pellet quality analyses 

shall include results for the following 

factors: Compression, reducibility, 

before tumble, after tumble, and low 

temperature disintegration. For each of 

the pellet quality analysis factors, the 

owner or operator must explain the 

pellet quality analysis factor, as well as 

the defined acceptable range for each 

factor using the applicable product 

quality standards based upon 

customers’ pellet specifications that are 

contained in United Taconite’s ISO 

9001 quality management system. The 

owner or operator shall provide pellet 

quality analysis testing results that state 

the date and time of the analysis and, in 

order to define the time period when 

pellets were produced outside of the 

defined acceptable range for the pellet 

quality factors listed, provide copies of 

the production logs that document the 

starting and ending times for such 

periods. The owner or operator shall 

provide an explanation of causes for 

pellet samples that fail to meet the 

acceptable range for any pellet quality 

analysis factor. Pellet quality 

information and data may be submitted 

to EPA as Confidential Business 

Information. 

(6) No later than 52 months after May 

12, 2016, the owner or operator may 

submit to EPA a report to either confirm 

or modify the NOX limits for United 

Taconite Grate Kiln Line 2 within the 

upper and lower bounds described 

below. EPA will review the report and 

either confirm or modify the NOX limits. 

If the CEMS data collected during 

operating periods between months 44 

and 52 that both meet pellet quality 

specifications and proper furnace/

burner operation is normally 

distributed, the limit adjustment 

determination shall be based on the 

appropriate (depending upon whether 

data are statistically independent or 

dependent) 95% upper predictive limit 

(UPL) equations in paragraph (f) of this 

section. If the CEMS data collected 

during operating periods between 

months 44 and 52 that both meet pellet 

quality specifications and proper 

furnace/burner operation are not 

normally distributed, the limit 

adjustment determination shall be based 

on the non-parametric equation 

provided in paragraph (f) of this section. 

The data set for the determination shall 

exclude periods when pellet quality did 

not fall within the defined acceptable 

ranges of the pellet quality factors 

identified pursuant to paragraph 

(b)(1)(iv)(B)(5) of this section and for 

any subsequent period when production 

had been reduced in response to pellet 

quality concerns consistent with United 

Taconite’s ISO 9001 operating 

standards. Any excluded period will 

commence at the time documented on 

the production log demonstrating pellet 

quality did not fall within the defined 

acceptable range, and shall end when 

pellet quality within the defined 

acceptable range has been re-established 

at planned production levels, which 

will be presumed to be the level that 

existed immediately prior to the 

reduction in production due to pellet 

quality concerns. EPA may also exclude 

data where operations are inconsistent 

with the reported design parameters of 

the NOX reduction control technology 

that were installed. 

(7) EPA will take final agency action 

by publishing its final confirmation or 

modification of the NOX limits in the 

Federal Register no later than 55 

months after May 12, 2016. The 

confirmed or modified NOX limit for 

United Taconite Grate Kiln Line 2 when 

burning only natural gas may be no 

lower than 2.8 lbs NOX/MMBTU, based 

on a 720-hour rolling average, and may 

not exceed 3.0 lbs NOX/MMBTU, based 

on a 720-hour rolling average. The 

confirmed or modified NOX limit for 

United Taconite Grate Kiln Line 2 when 

burning coal or a mixture of coal and 

natural gas may be no lower than 1.5 lbs 

NOX/MMBTU, based on a 720-hour 

rolling average, and may not exceed 2.5 

lbs NOX/MMBTU, based on a 720-hour 

rolling average. 

(8) If the owner or operator submits a 

report proposing a single NOX limit for 

all fuels, EPA may approve the 

proposed NOX limit for all fuels based 

on a 30-day rolling average. The 

confirmed or modified limit will be 

established and enforceable within 55 

months from May 12, 2016. 

(v) ArcelorMittal USA—(A) 

ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine. (1) An 

emission limit of 1.2 lbs NOX/MMBTU, 

based on a 30-day rolling average, shall 

apply to the ArcelorMittal Minorca 

Mine indurating furnace when burning 

natural gas. This emission limit will 

become enforceable 55 months after 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
21692 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

May 12, 2016 and only after EPA’s 

confirmation or modification of the 

emission limit in accordance with the 

procedures set forth in paragraphs 

(b)(1)(v)(A)(2) through (7) of this 

section. 

(2) Compliance with this emission 

limit will be demonstrated with data 

collected by a continuous emissions 

monitoring system (CEMS) for NOX. The 

owner or operator of the ArcelorMittal 

Minorca Mine indurating furnace must 

install a CEMS for NOX and SO2 within 

six months from May 12, 2016. The 

owner or operator must start collecting 

CEMS data and submit the data to EPA 

no later than 30 days from the end of 

each calendar quarter after that 

installation deadline. Any remaining 

data through the end of the 52nd month 

from May 12, 2016, that does not fall 

within a calendar quarter, must be 

submitted to EPA no later than 30 days 

from the end of the 52nd month. 

Although CEMS data must continue to 

be collected, it does not need to be 

submitted to EPA starting 52 months 

after May 12, 2016. 

(3) No later than 42 months after May 

12, 2016 the owner or operator must 

submit to EPA a report, including any 

final report(s) completed by the selected 

NOX reduction technology supplier and 

furnace retrofit engineer, containing a 

detailed engineering analysis and 

modeling of the NOX reduction control 

technology being installed on the 

ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine indurating 

furnace. The NOX reduction control 

technology must be designed to meet an 

emission limit of 1.2 lbs NOX/MMBTU. 

This report must include a list of all 

process and control technology 

variables that can reasonably be 

expected to have an impact on NOX

emissions control technology 

performance, as well as a description of 

how these variables can be adjusted to 

reduce NOX emissions to meet the NOX

design emission limit. 

(4) The NOX reduction control 

technology shall be installed on the 

ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine indurating 

furnace no later than 44 months after 

May 12, 2016. 

(5) Commencing on the earlier of: Six 

months from the installation of the NOX

reduction control technology; or 44 

months from May 12, 2016, the owner 

or operator must provide to EPA the 

results from pellet quality analyses. The 

owner or operator shall provide the 

results from pellet quality analyses no 

later than 30 days from the end of each 

calendar quarter up until 52 months 

after May 12, 2016. Any remaining 

results through the end of the 52nd 

month from May 12, 2016, that do not 

fall within a calendar quarter, must be 

submitted to EPA no later than 30 days 

from the end of the 52nd month. The 

pellet quality analyses shall include 

results for the following factors: 

Compression, reducibility, before 

tumble, after tumble, low temperature 

disintegration, and contraction. For each 

of the pellet quality analysis factors, the 

owner or operator must explain the 

pellet quality analysis factor, as well as 

the defined acceptable range for each 

factor using the applicable product 

quality standards based upon 

customers’ pellet specifications that are 

contained in the ArcelorMittal Minorca 

Mine’s Standard Product Parameters. 

The owner or operator shall provide 

pellet quality analysis testing results 

that state the date and time of the 

analysis and, in order to define the time 

period when pellets were produced 

outside of the defined acceptable range 

for the pellet quality factors listed, 

provide copies of production or scale 

data that document the starting and 

ending times for such periods. The 

owner or operator shall provide an 

explanation of causes for pellet samples 

that fail to meet the acceptable range for 

any pellet quality analysis factor. Pellet 

quality information and data may be 

submitted to EPA as Confidential 

Business Information. 

(6) No later than 52 months after May 

12, 2016, the owner or operator may 

submit to EPA a report to either confirm 

or modify the NOX limits for the 

ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine indurating 

furnace within the upper and lower 

bounds described below. EPA will 

review the report and either confirm or 

modify the NOX limits. If the CEMS data 

collected during operating periods 

between months 44 and 52 that both 

meet pellet quality specifications and 

proper furnace/burner operation is 

normally distributed, the limit 

adjustment determination shall be based 

on the appropriate (depending upon 

whether data are statistically 

independent or dependent) 95% upper 

predictive limit (UPL) equations in 

paragraph (f) of this section. If the CEMS 

data collected during operating periods 

between months 44 and 52 that both 

meet pellet quality specifications and 

proper furnace/burner operation are not 

normally distributed, the limit 

adjustment determination shall be based 

on the non-parametric equation 

provided in paragraph (f) of this section. 

The data set for the determination shall 

exclude periods when pellet quality did 

not fall within the defined acceptable 

ranges of the pellet quality factors 

identified pursuant to paragraph 

(b)(1)(v)(A)(5) of this section and for any 

subsequent period when production has 

been reduced in response to pellet 

quality concerns consistent with the 

ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine’s Standard 

Product Parameters. Any excluded 

period will commence at the time 

documented in related quality reports 

demonstrating that pellet quality did not 

fall within the defined acceptable range 

and shall end when pellet quality 

within the defined acceptable range has 

been re-established at planned 

production levels, which will be 

presumed to be the level that existed 

immediately prior to the reduction in 

production due to pellet quality 

concerns. EPA may also exclude data 

where operations are inconsistent with 

the reported design parameters of the 

NOX reduction control technology 

installed. 

(7) EPA will take final agency action 

by publishing its final confirmation or 

modification of the NOX limit in the 

Federal Register no later than 55 

months after May 12, 2016. The 

confirmed or modified NOX limit for the 

ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine indurating 

furnace when burning only natural gas 

may be no lower than 1.2 lbs NOX/

MMBTU, based on a 30-day rolling 

average, and may not exceed 1.8 lbs 

NOX/MMBTU, based on a 30-day rolling 

average. 

(B) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iv) United Taconite: An aggregate 

emission limit of 529.0 lbs SO2/hr, 

based on a 30-day rolling average, shall 

apply to the Line 1 pellet furnace 

(EU040) and Line 2 pellet furnace 

(EU042) beginning six months after May 

12, 2016. Compliance with this 

aggregate emission limit shall be 

demonstrated with data collected by a 

continuous emissions monitoring 

system (CEMS) for SO2. The owner or 

operator must start collecting CEMS 

data for SO2 beginning six months after 

May 12, 2016 and submit the data to 

EPA no later than 30 days from the end 

of each calendar quarter. Beginning six 

months after May 12, 2016, any coal 

burned on UTAC Grate Kiln Line 1 or 

Line 2 shall have no more than 1.5 

percent sulfur by weight based on a 

monthly block average. The sampling 

and calculation methodology for 

determining the sulfur content of coal 

must be described in the monitoring 

plan required for this furnace. 

* * * * * 

(c) Testing and monitoring. (1) The 

owner or operator of the respective 

facility shall install, certify, calibrate, 

maintain and operate continuous 

emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) 

for NOX on United States Steel 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 21693 

Corporation, Keetac unit EU030; 

Hibbing Taconite Company units 

EU020, EU021, and EU022; United 

States Steel Corporation, Minntac units 

EU225, EU261, EU282, EU315, and 

EU334; United Taconite units EU040 

and EU042; ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine 

unit EU026; and Northshore Mining 

Company-Silver Bay units Furnace 11 

(EU100/EU104) and Furnace 12 (EU110/ 

EU114). Compliance with the emission 

limits for NOX shall be determined 

using data from the CEMS. 

(2) The owner or operator shall 

install, certify, calibrate, maintain, and 

operate CEMS for SO2 on United States 

Steel Corporation, Keetac unit EU030; 

Hibbing Taconite Company units 

EU020, EU021, and EU022; United 

States Steel Corporation, Minntac units 

EU225, EU261, EU282, EU315, and 

EU334; United Taconite units EU040 

and EU042; ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine 

unit EU026; and Northshore Mining 

Company-Silver Bay units Furnace 11 

(EU100/EU104) and Furnace 12 (EU110/ 

EU114). 

(3) The owner or operator shall 

install, certify, calibrate, maintain, and 

operate one or more continuous diluent 

monitor(s) (O2 or CO2) and continuous 

flow rate monitor(s) on the BART 

affected units to allow conversion of the 

NOX and SO2 concentrations to units of 

the standard (lbs/MMBTU and lbs/hr, 

respectively) unless a demonstration is 

made that a diluent monitor and 

continuous flow rate monitor are not 

needed for the owner or operator to 

demonstrate compliance with 

applicable emission limits in units of 

the standards. 

(4) For purposes of this section, all 

CEMS required by this section must 

meet the requirements of paragraphs 

(c)(4)(i) through (xiv) of this section. 

(i) All CEMS must be installed, 

certified, calibrated, maintained, and 

operated in accordance with 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix B, Performance 

Specification 2 (PS–2) and appendix F, 

Procedure 1. 

(ii) CEMS must be installed and 

operational as follows: 

(A) All CEMS associated with 

monitoring NOX (including the NOX

monitor and necessary diluent and flow 

rate monitors) at the following facilities: 

U.S. Steel Keetac, U.S. Steel Minntac, 

and Northshore Mining Company-Silver 

Bay, must be installed and operational 

no later than the unit specific 

compliance dates for the emission limits 

identified at paragraphs (b)(1)(i), (iii) 

and (vi) of this section, respectively. 

(B) All CEMS associated with 

monitoring NOX (including the NOX

monitor and necessary diluent and flow 

rate monitors) at the following facilities: 

Hibbing Taconite Company, United 

Taconite, and ArcelorMittal Minorca 

Mine, must be installed and operational 

no later than the unit specific 

installation dates for the installation and 

operation of CEMS identified at 

paragraphs (b)(1)(ii), (iv) and (v) of this 

section, respectively. 

(C) All CEMS associated with 

monitoring SO2 at the following 

facilities: U.S. Steel Keetac, U.S. Steel 

Minntac, and Northshore Mining 

Company-Silver Bay, must be installed 

and operational no later than six months 

after May 12, 2016. 

(D) All CEMS associated with 

monitoring SO2 at the following 

facilities: Hibbing Taconite Company, 

United Taconite, and ArcelorMittal 

Minorca Mine, must be installed and 

operational no later than six months 

after May 12, 2016. 

(E) The operational status of the 

CEMS identified in paragraphs (c)(1) 

and (2) of this section shall be verified 

by, as a minimum, completion of the 

manufacturer’s written requirements or 

recommendations for installation, 

operation, and calibration of the 

devices. 

(iii) The owner or operator must 

conduct a performance evaluation of 

each CEMS in accordance with 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix B, PS–2. The 

performance evaluations must be 

completed no later than 60 days after 

the respective CEMS installation. 

(iv) The owner or operator of each 

CEMS must conduct periodic Quality 

Assurance, Quality Control (QA/QC) 

checks of each CEMS in accordance 

with 40 CFR part 60, appendix F, 

Procedure 1. The first CEMS accuracy 

test will be a relative accuracy test audit 

(RATA) and must be completed no later 

than 60 days after the respective CEMS 

installation. 

(v) The owner or operator of each 

CEMS must furnish the Regional 

Administrator two, or upon request, 

more copies of a written report of the 

results of each performance evaluation 

and QA/QC check within 60 days of 

completion. 

(vi) The owner or operator of each 

CEMS must check, record, and quantify 

the zero and span calibration drifts at 

least once daily (every 24 hours) in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix F, Procedure 1, Section 4. 

(vii) Except for CEMS breakdowns, 

repairs, calibration checks, and zero and 

span adjustments, all CEMS required by 

this section shall be in continuous 

operation during all periods of BART 

affected process unit operation, 

including periods of process unit 

startup, shutdown, and malfunction. 

(viii) All CEMS required by this 

section must meet the minimum data 

requirements at paragraphs 

(c)(4)(viii)(A) through (C) of this section. 

(A) Complete a minimum of one cycle 

of operation (sampling, analyzing, and 

data recording) for each successive 15- 

minute quadrant of an hour. 

(B) Sample, analyze, and record 

emissions data for all periods of process 

operation except as described in 

paragraph (c)(4)(viii)(C) of this section. 

(C) When emission data from CEMS 

are not available due to continuous 

monitoring system breakdowns, repairs, 

calibration checks, or zero and span 

adjustments, emission data must be 

obtained using other monitoring 

systems or emission estimation methods 

approved by the EPA. The other 

monitoring systems or emission 

estimation methods to be used must be 

incorporated into the monitoring plan 

required by this section and provide 

information such that emissions data are 

available for a minimum of 18 hours in 

each 24-hour period and at least 22 out 

of 30 successive unit operating days. 

(ix) Owners or operators of each 

CEMS required by this section must 

reduce all data to 1-hour averages. 

Hourly averages shall be computed 

using all valid data obtained within the 

hour but no less than one data point in 

each 15-minute quadrant of an hour. 

Notwithstanding this requirement, an 

hourly average may be computed from 

at least two data points separated by a 

minimum of 15 minutes (where the unit 

operates for more than one quadrant in 

an hour) if data are unavailable as a 

result of performance of calibration, 

quality assurance, preventive 

maintenance activities, or backups of 

data from data acquisition and handling 

systems and recertification events. 

(x) The 30-day rolling average 

emission rate determined from data 

derived from the CEMS required by this 

section (in lbs/MMBTU or lbs/hr 

depending on the emission standard 

selected) must be calculated in 

accordance with paragraphs (c)(4)(x)(A) 

through (F) of this section. 

(A) Sum the total pounds of the 

pollutant in question emitted from the 

unit during an operating day and the 

previous 29 operating days. 

(B) Sum the total heat input to the 

unit (in MMBTU) or the total actual 

hours of operation (in hours) during an 

operating day and the previous 29 

operating days. 

(C) Divide the total number of pounds 

of the pollutant in question emitted 

during the 30 operating days by the total 

heat input (or actual hours of operation 

depending on the emission limit 

selected) during the 30 operating days. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
21694 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

(D) For purposes of this calculation, 

an operating day is any day during 

which fuel is combusted in the BART 

affected unit regardless of whether 

pellets are produced. Actual hours of 

operation are the total hours a unit is 

firing fuel regardless of whether a 

complete 24-hour operational cycle 

occurs (i.e. if the furnace is firing fuel 

for only five hours during a 24-hour 

period, then the actual operating hours 

for that day are five. Similarly, total 

number of pounds of the pollutant in 

question for that day is determined only 

from the CEMS data for the five hours 

during which fuel is combusted.) 

(E) If the owner or operator of the 

CEMS required by this section uses an 

alternative method to determine 30-day 

rolling averages, that method must be 

described in detail in the monitoring 

plan required by this section. The 

alternative method will only be 

applicable if the final monitoring plan 

and the alternative method are approved 

by EPA. 

(F) A new 30-day rolling average 

emission rate must be calculated for 

each new operating day. 

(xi) The 720-hour rolling average 

emission rate determined from data 

derived from the CEMS required by this 

section (in lbs/MMBTU) must be 

calculated in accordance with 

(c)(4)(xi)(A) through (C). 

(A) Sum the total pounds of NOX

emitted from the unit every hour and 

the previous (not necessarily 

consecutive) 719 hours for which that 

type of fuel (either natural gas or mixed 

coal and natural gas) was used. 

(B) Sum the total heat input to the 

unit (in MMBTU) every hour and the 

previous (not necessarily consecutive) 

719 hours for which that type of fuel 

(either natural gas or mixed coal and 

natural gas) was used. 

(C) Divide the total number of pounds 

of NOX emitted during the 720 hours, as 

defined above, by the total heat input 

during the same 720 hour period. This 

calculation must be done separately for 

each fuel type (either for natural gas or 

mixed coal and natural gas). 

(xii) Data substitution must not be 

used for purposes of determining 

compliance under this section. 

(xiii) All CEMS data shall be reduced 

and reported in units of the applicable 

standard. 

(xiv) A Quality Control Program must 

be developed and implemented for all 

CEMS required by this section in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix F, Procedure 1, Section 3. The 

program will include, at a minimum, 

written procedures and operations for 

calibration checks, calibration drift 

adjustments, preventative maintenance, 

data collection, recording and reporting, 

accuracy audits/procedures, periodic 

performance evaluations, and a 

corrective action program for 

malfunctioning CEMS. 

(d) Recordkeeping requirements. (1)(i) 

Records required by this section must be 

kept in a form suitable and readily 

available for expeditious review. 

(ii) Records required by this section 

must be kept for a minimum of five 

years following the date of creation. 

(iii) Records must be kept on site for 

at least two years following the date of 

creation and may be kept offsite, but 

readily accessible, for the remaining 

three years. 

(2) The owner or operator of the 

BART affected units must maintain the 

records at paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through 

(xi) of this section. 

(i) A copy of each notification and 

report developed for and submitted to 

comply with this section including all 

documentation supporting any initial 

notification or notification of 

compliance status submitted according 

to the requirements of this section. 

(ii) Records of the occurrence and 

duration of startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction of the BART affected units, 

air pollution control equipment, and 

CEMS required by this section. 

(iii) Records of activities taken during 

each startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction of the BART affected unit, 

air pollution control equipment, and 

CEMS required by this section. 

(iv) Records of the occurrence and 

duration of all major maintenance 

conducted on the BART affected units, 

air pollution control equipment, and 

CEMS required by this section. 

(v) Records of each excess emission 

report, including all documentation 

supporting the reports, dates and times 

when excess emissions occurred, 

investigations into the causes of excess 

emissions, actions taken to minimize or 

eliminate the excess emissions, and 

preventative measures to avoid the 

cause of excess emissions from 

occurring again. 

(vi) Records of all CEMS data 

including, as a minimum, the date, 

location, and time of sampling or 

measurement, parameters sampled or 

measured, and results. 

(vii) All records associated with 

quality assurance and quality control 

activities on each CEMS as well as other 

records required by 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix F, Procedure 1 including, but 

not limited to, the quality control 

program, audit results, and reports 

submitted as required by this section. 

(viii) Records of the NOX emissions 

during all periods of BART affected unit 

operation, including startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction in the units of the 

standard. The owner or operator shall 

convert the monitored data into the 

appropriate unit of the emission 

limitation using appropriate conversion 

factors and F-factors. F-factors used for 

purposes of this section shall be 

documented in the monitoring plan and 

developed in accordance with 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A, Method 19. The 

owner or operator may use an alternate 

method to calculate the NOX emissions 

upon written approval from EPA. 

(ix) Records of the SO2 emissions in 

lbs/MMBTUs or lbs/hr(based on CEMS 

data), depending on the emission 

standard selected, during all periods of 

operation, including periods of startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction, in the units 

of the standard. 

(x) Records associated with the CEMS 

unit including type of CEMS, CEMS 

model number, CEMS serial number, 

and initial certification of each CEMS 

conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix B, Performance 

Specification 2 must be kept for the life 

of the CEMS unit. 

(xi) Records of all periods of fuel oil 

usage as required at paragraph (b)(2)(vii) 

of this section. 

(e) Reporting requirements. (1) All 

requests, reports, submittals, 

notifications, and other communications 

to the Regional Administrator required 

by this section shall be submitted, 

unless instructed otherwise, to the Air 

and Radiation Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5 (A–18J), at 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

(2) The owner or operator of each 

BART affected unit identified in this 

section and CEMS required by this 

section must provide to the Regional 

Administrator the written notifications, 

reports and plans identified at 

paragraphs (e)(2)(i) through (viii) of this 

section. If acceptable to both the 

Regional Administrator and the owner 

or operator of each BART affected unit 

identified in this section and CEMS 

required by this section the owner or 

operator may provide electronic 

notifications, reports, and plans. 

(i) A notification of the date 

construction of control devices and 

installation of burners required by this 

section commences postmarked no later 

than 30 days after the commencement 

date. 

(ii) A notification of the date the 

installation of each CEMS required by 

this section commences postmarked no 

later than 30 days after the 

commencement date. 

(iii) A notification of the date the 

construction of control devices and 

installation of burners required by this 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 21695 

section is complete postmarked no later 

than 30 days after the completion date. 

(iv) A notification of the date the 

installation of each CEMS required by 

this section is complete postmarked no 

later than 30 days after the completion 

date. 

(v) A notification of the date control 

devices and burners installed by this 

section startup postmarked no later than 

30 days after the startup date. 

(vi) A notification of the date CEMS 

required by this section startup 

postmarked no later than 30 days after 

the startup date. 

(vii) A notification of the date upon 

which the initial CEMS performance 

evaluations are planned. This 

notification must be submitted at least 

60 days before the performance 

evaluation is scheduled to begin. 

(viii) A notification of initial 

compliance, signed by the responsible 

official who shall certify its accuracy, 

attesting to whether the source has 

complied with the requirements of this 

section, including, but not limited to, 

applicable emission standards, control 

device and burner installations, CEMS 

installation and certification. This 

notification must be submitted before 

the close of business on the 60th 

calendar day following the completion 

of the compliance demonstration and 

must include, at a minimum, the 

information at paragraphs (e)(2)(viii)(A) 

through (F) of this section. 

(A) The methods used to determine 

compliance. 

(B) The results of any CEMS 

performance evaluations, and other 

monitoring procedures or methods that 

were conducted. 

(C) The methods that will be used for 

determining continuing compliance, 

including a description of monitoring 

and reporting requirements and test 

methods. 

(D) The type and quantity of air 

pollutants emitted by the source, 

reported in units of the standard. 

(E) A description of the air pollution 

control equipment and burners installed 

as required by this section, for each 

emission point. 

(F) A statement by the owner or 

operator as to whether the source has 

complied with the relevant standards 

and other requirements. 

(3) The owner or operator must 

develop and implement a written 

startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

plan for NOX and SO2. The plan must 

include, at a minimum, procedures for 

operating and maintaining the source 

during periods of startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction; and a program of 

corrective action for a malfunctioning 

process and air pollution control and 

monitoring equipment used to comply 

with the relevant standard. The plan 

must ensure that, at all times, the owner 

or operator operates and maintains each 

affected source, including associated air 

pollution control and monitoring 

equipment, in a manner which satisfies 

the general duty to minimize or 

eliminate emissions using good air 

pollution control practices. The plan 

must ensure that owners or operators 

are prepared to correct malfunctions as 

soon as practicable after their 

occurrence. 

(4) The written reports of the results 

of each performance evaluation and QA/ 

QC check in accordance with and as 

required by paragraph (c)(4)(v) of this 

section. 

(5) Compliance reports. The owner or 

operator of each BART affected unit 

must submit semiannual compliance 

reports. The semiannual compliance 

reports must be submitted in accordance 

with paragraphs (e)(5)(i) through (iv) of 

this section, unless the Administrator 

has approved a different schedule. 

(i) The first compliance report must 

cover the period beginning on the 

compliance date that is specified for the 

affected source through June 30 or 

December 31, whichever date comes 

first after the compliance date that is 

specified for the affected source. 

(ii) The first compliance report must 

be postmarked no later than 30 calendar 

days after the reporting period covered 

by that report (July 30 or January 30), 

whichever comes first. 

(iii) Each subsequent compliance 

report must cover the semiannual 

reporting period from January 1 through 

June 30 or the semiannual reporting 

period from July 1 through December 

31. 

(iv) Each subsequent compliance 

report must be postmarked no later than 

30 calendar days after the reporting 

period covered by that report (July 30 or 

January 30). 

(6) Compliance report contents. Each 

compliance report must include the 

information in paragraphs (e)(6)(i) 

through (vi) of this section. 

(i) Company name and address. 

(ii) Statement by a responsible 

official, with the official’s name, title, 

and signature, certifying the truth, 

accuracy, and completeness of the 

content of the report. 

(iii) Date of report and beginning and 

ending dates of the reporting period. 

(iv) Identification of the process unit, 

control devices, and CEMS covered by 

the compliance report. 

(v) A record of each period of startup, 

shutdown, or malfunction during the 

reporting period and a description of the 

actions the owner or operator took to 

minimize or eliminate emissions arising 

as a result of the startup, shutdown or 

malfunction and whether those actions 

were or were not consistent with the 

source’s startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction plan. 

(vi) A statement identifying whether 

there were or were not any deviations 

from the requirements of this section 

during the reporting period. If there 

were deviations from the requirements 

of this section during the reporting 

period, then the compliance report must 

describe in detail the deviations which 

occurred, the causes of the deviations, 

actions taken to address the deviations, 

and procedures put in place to avoid 

such deviations in the future. If there 

were no deviations from the 

requirements of this section during the 

reporting period, then the compliance 

report must include a statement that 

there were no deviations. For purposes 

of this section, deviations include, but 

are not limited to, emissions in excess 

of applicable emission standards 

established by this section, failure to 

continuously operate an air pollution 

control device in accordance with 

operating requirements designed to 

assure compliance with emission 

standards, failure to continuously 

operate CEMS required by this section, 

and failure to maintain records or 

submit reports required by this section. 

(7) Each owner or operator of a CEMS 

required by this section must submit 

quarterly excess emissions and 

monitoring system performance reports 

for each pollutant monitored for each 

BART affected unit monitored. All 

reports must be postmarked by the 30th 

day following the end of each threemonth period of a calendar year 

(January-March, April-June, JulySeptember, October-December) and 

must include, at a minimum, the 

requirements at paragraphs (e)(7)(i) 

through (xv) of this section. 

(i) Company name and address. 

(ii) Identification and description of 

the process unit being monitored. 

(iii) The dates covered by the 

reporting period. 

(iv) Total source operating hours for 

the reporting period. 

(v) Monitor manufacturer, monitor 

model number, and monitor serial 

number. 

(vi) Pollutant monitored. 

(vii) Emission limitation for the 

monitored pollutant. 

(viii) Date of latest CEMS certification 

or audit. 

(ix) A description of any changes in 

continuous monitoring systems, 

processes, or controls since the last 

reporting period. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
21696 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

(x) A table summarizing the total 

duration of excess emissions, as defined 

at paragraphs (e)(7)(x)(A) through (B) of 

this section, for the reporting period 

broken down by the cause of those 

excess emissions (startup/shutdown, 

control equipment problems, process 

problems, other known causes, 

unknown causes), and the total percent 

of excess emissions (for all causes) for 

the reporting period calculated as 

described at paragraph (e)(7)(x)(C) of 

this section. 

(A) For purposes of this section, an 

excess emission is defined as any 30- 

day or 720-hour rolling average period, 

including periods of startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction, during which the 30- 

day or 720-hour (as appropriate) rolling 

average emissions of either regulated 

pollutant (SO2 and NOX), as measured 

by a CEMS, exceeds the applicable 

emission standards in this section. 

(B)(1) For purposes of this rule, if a 

facility calculates a 30-day rolling 

average emission rate in accordance 

with this rule which exceeds the 

applicable emission standards of this 

rule, then it will be considered 30 days 

of excess emissions. If the following 30- 

day rolling average emission rate is 

calculated and found to exceed the 

applicable emission standards of this 

rule as well, then it will add one more 

day to the total days of excess emissions 

(i.e. 31 days). Similarly, if an excess 

emission is calculated for a 30-day 

rolling average period and no additional 

excess emissions are calculated until 15 

days after the first, then that new excess 

emission will add 15 days to the total 

days of excess emissions (i.e. 30 + 15 = 

45). For purposes of this section, if an 

excess emission is calculated for any 

period of time within a reporting period, 

there will be no fewer than 30 days of 

excess emissions but there should be no 

more than 121 days of excess emissions 

for a reporting period. 

(2) For purposes of this section, if a 

facility calculates a 720-hour rolling 

average emission rate in accordance 

with this rule which exceeds the 

applicable emission standards of this 

section, then it will be considered 30 

days of excess emissions. If the 24th 

following 720-hour rolling average 

emission rate is calculated and found to 

exceed the applicable emission 

standards of the rule as well, then it will 

add one more day to the total days of 

excess emissions (i.e. 31 days). 

Similarly, if an excess emission is 

calculated for a 720-hour rolling average 

period and no additional excess 

emissions are calculated until 360 hours 

after the first, then that new excess 

emission will add 15 days to the total 

days of excess emissions (i.e. 30+15 = 

45). For purposes of this section, if an 

excess emission is calculated for any 

period of time with a reporting period, 

there will be no fewer than 30 days of 

excess emissions but there should be no 

more than 121 days of excess emissions 

for a reporting period. 

(C) For purposes of this section, the 

total percent of excess emissions will be 

determined by summing all periods of 

excess emissions (in days) for the 

reporting period, dividing that number 

by the total BART affected unit 

operating days for the reporting period, 

and then multiplying by 100 to get the 

total percent of excess emissions for the 

reporting period. An operating day, as 

defined previously, is any day during 

which fuel is fired in the BART affected 

unit for any period of time. Because of 

the possible overlap of 30-day rolling 

average excess emissions across 

quarters, there are some situations 

where the total percent of excess 

emissions could exceed 100 percent. 

This extreme situation would only 

result from serious excess emissions 

problems where excess emissions occur 

for nearly every day during a reporting 

period. 

(xi) A table summarizing the total 

duration of monitor downtime, as 

defined at paragraph (e)(7)(xi)(A) of this 

section, for the reporting period broken 

down by the cause of the monitor 

downtime (monitor equipment 

malfunctions, non-monitor equipment 

malfunctions, quality assurance 

calibration, other known causes, 

unknown causes), and the total percent 

of monitor downtime (for all causes) for 

the reporting period calculated as 

described at paragraph (e)(7)(xi)(B) of 

this section. 

(A) For purposes of this section, 

monitor downtime is defined as any 

period of time (in hours) during which 

the required monitoring system was not 

measuring emissions from the BART 

affected unit. This includes any period 

of CEMS QA/QC, daily zero and span 

checks, and similar activities. 

(B) For purposes of this section, the 

total percent of monitor downtime will 

be determined by summing all periods 

of monitor downtime (in hours) for the 

reporting period, dividing that number 

by the total number of BART affected 

unit operating hours for the reporting 

period, and then multiplying by 100 to 

get the total percent of excess emissions 

for the reporting period. 

(xii) A table which identifies each 

period of excess emissions for the 

reporting period and includes, at a 

minimum, the information in 

paragraphs (e)(7)(xii)(A) through (F) of 

this section. 

(A) The date of each excess emission. 

(B) The beginning and end time of 

each excess emission. 

(C) The pollutant for which an excess 

emission occurred. 

(D) The magnitude of the excess 

emission. 

(E) The cause of the excess emission. 

(F) The corrective action taken or 

preventative measures adopted to 

minimize or eliminate the excess 

emissions and prevent such excess 

emission from occurring again. 

(xiii) A table which identifies each 

period of monitor downtime for the 

reporting period and includes, at a 

minimum, the information in 

paragraphs (e)(7)(xiii)(A) through (D) of 

this section. 

(A) The date of each period of monitor 

downtime. 

(B) The beginning and end time of 

each period of monitor downtime. 

(C) The cause of the period of monitor 

downtime. 

(D) The corrective action taken or 

preventative measures adopted for 

system repairs or adjustments to 

minimize or eliminate monitor 

downtime and prevent such downtime 

from occurring again. 

(xiv) If there were no periods of 

excess emissions during the reporting 

period, then the excess emission report 

must include a statement which says 

there were no periods of excess 

emissions during this reporting period. 

(xv) If there were no periods of 

monitor downtime, except for daily zero 

and span checks, during the reporting 

period, then the excess emission report 

must include a statement which says 

there were no periods of monitor 

downtime during this reporting period 

except for the daily zero and span 

checks. 

(8) The owner or operator of each 

CEMS required by this section must 

develop and submit for review and 

approval by the Regional Administrator 

a site specific monitoring plan. The 

purpose of this monitoring plan is to 

establish procedures and practices 

which will be implemented by the 

owner or operator in its effort to comply 

with the monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements of this section. 

The monitoring plan must include, at a 

minimum, the information at 

paragraphs (e)(8)(i) through (x) of this 

section. 

(i) Site specific information including 

the company name, address, and contact 

information. 

(ii) The objectives of the monitoring 

program implemented and information 

describing how those objectives will be 

met. 

(iii) Information on any emission 

factors used in conjunction with the 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 21697 

CEMS required by this section to 

calculate emission rates and a 

description of how those emission 

factors were determined. 

(iv) A description of methods to be 

used to calculate emission rates when 

CEMS data are not available due to 

downtime associated with QA/QC 

events. 

(v) A description of the QA/QC 

program to be implemented by the 

owner or operator of CEMS required by 

this section. This can be the QA/QC 

program developed in accordance with 

40 CFR part 60, appendix F, Procedure 

1, Section 3. 

(vi) A list of spare parts for CEMS 

maintained on site for system 

maintenance and repairs. 

(vii) A description of the procedures 

to be used to calculate 30-day rolling 

averages and 720-hour rolling averages 

and example calculations which show 

the algorithms used by the CEMS to 

calculate 30-day rolling averages and 

720-hour rolling averages. 

(viii) A sample of the document to be 

used for the quarterly excess emission 

reports required by this section. 

(ix) A description of the procedures to 

be implemented to investigate root 

causes of excess emissions and monitor 

downtime and the proposed corrective 

actions to address potential root causes 

of excess emissions and monitor 

downtime. 

(x) A description of the sampling and 

calculation methodology for 

determining the percent sulfur by 

weight as a monthly block average for 

coal used during that month. 

(f) Equations for establishing the 

upper predictive limit—(1) Equation for 

normal distribution and statistically 

independent data. 

Where: 

x = average or mean of hourly test run data; 

t[(n¥1),(0.95)] = t score, the one-tailed t value of 

the Student’s t distribution for a specific 

degree of freedom (n¥1) and a 

confidence level (0.95; 0.99 for Tilden 

SO2) 

s2 = variance of the hourly data set; 

n = number of values (e.g. 5,760 if 8 months 

of valid lbs NOX/MMBTU hourly values) 

m = number of values used to calculate the 

test average (m = 720 as per averaging 

time) 

(i) To determine if statistically 

independent, use the Rank von 

Neumann Test on p. 137 of data Quality 

Assessment: Statistical Methods for 

Practitioners EPA QA/G–9S. 

(ii) Alternative to Rank von Neumann 

test to determine if data are dependent, 

data are dependent if t test value is 

greater than t critical value, where: 

r = correlation between data points 

t critical = t[(n¥2),(0.95)] = t score, the twotailed t value of the Student’s t 

distribution for a specific degree of 

freedom (n¥2) and a confidence level 

(0.95) 

(iii) The Anderson-Darling normality 

test is used to establish whether the data 

are normally distributed. That is, a 

distribution is considered to be 

normally distributed when p > 0.05. 

(2) Non-parametric equation for data 

not normally distributed and normally 

distributed but not statistically 

independent. 

m = (n + 1) * a 

m = the rank of the ordered data point, when 

data are sorted smallest to largest. The 

data points are 720-hour averages for 

establishing NOX limits. 

n = number of data points (e.g., 5040 720- 

hourly averages for eight months of valid 

NOX lbs/MMBTU values) 

a = 0.95, to reflect the 95th percentile 

If m is a whole number, then the 

limit, UPL, shall be computed as: 

UPL = Xm

Where: 

Xm = value of the mth data point in terms of 

lbs SO2/hr or lbs NOX/MMBTU, when 

the data are sorted smallest to largest. 

If m is not a whole number, the limit 

shall be computed by linear 

interpolation according to the following 

equation. 

UPL = xm = xmi

·md = xmi + 0.md (xmi∂1 ¥ 

xmi

) 

Where: 

mi = the integer portion of m, i.e., m 

truncated at zero decimal places, and 

md = the decimal portion of m 

[FR Doc. 2016–07818 Filed 4–11–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULESER12AP16.002</GPH> ER12AP16.003</GPH>