Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES

12104

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 39 / Tuesday, March 2, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
for BART emission limits for the taconite facilities. Among the regional haze plan elements approved was Minnesotas long-term strategy for making reasonable progress toward visibility goals. Minnesotas long-term strategy did not rely on the achievement of any particular degree of emission control from the taconite plants to achieve reasonable progress goals.
Therefore, the revised NOX limits for Minntac represent greater control than was assumed in Minnesotas approved long-term strategy SIP and does not interfere with the reasonable progress goals required by 40 CFR 51.308d1.
Thus, the proposed FIP revision would not interfere with any regional haze program requirements.
Comment 21: The CAA requires that EPA provide a public hearing when proposing a FIP. 42 U.S.C. 7607d5
EPA failed to comply with this legislative mandate, since its proposal neither provided information regarding a public hearing, nor asked the public if they were interested in a hearing.
Response: In response to this comment, EPA held a virtual public hearing on the proposed rule to provide interested persons an opportunity for the oral presentation of data, views, or arguments concerning the proposed rule. EPA also reopened the comment period on the proposed rule.
Specifically, on September 29, 2020, EPA published a NPRM in the Federal Register announcing the virtual public hearing on the proposed rule to be held on October 14, 2020 and reopening the public comment period on the proposed rule. 85 FR 60942. EPA held the virtual public hearing on October 14, 2020. EPA accepted public comments on the proposed rule for 30 days following the virtual public hearing, and the public comment period closed on November 13, 2020. No individuals presented at the virtual public hearing and EPA did not receive any comments during the reopened comment period.
The docket has been updated with a transcript of the virtual public hearing.17
Comment 22: The CAA and Regional Haze Rule grant the FLMs, regardless of whether a FLM manages a Class I area within or beyond the state, a special role in the review of regional haze implementation plans. There are obligations to consult on plan revisions under 40 CFR 51.308i3 and EPA has not demonstrated it consulted with the 17 Minnesota; Revision to Taconite Federal Implementation Plan; October 14, 2020 Public Hearing Transcript, Docket ID EPAR05OAR
201000370117, available at https
www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-R05-OAR2010-0037-0117.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:15 Mar 01, 2021

Jkt 253001

Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service on the proposed FIP revision. Therefore, EPA has not met its obligations under the Act.
Response: In response to this comment, EPA contacted the FLMs to provide the FLMs an opportunity to consult on the proposed action. EPA
reached out to representatives from the National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Each representative indicated that they did not have any comments on the proposed rule. EPA has updated the docket to include the relevant communications with the FLMs.18
Comment 23: Should EPA wish to pursue this FIP revision, the agency must prepare the required information and analyses, including a comprehensive optimization study at Minntac, and then repropose its action.
Response: As noted in responses to Comments 1, 9 and 16, the five-step BART analysis for Minntac in the August 15, 2012 proposed FIP 77 FR
4931249313, established low NOX
burners as the basis for BART emission limits. That analysis and EPAs determination that BART is based upon the use of low NOX main burners remains valid and EPA continues to rely on the BART analysis set forth in the August 15, 2012 proposal concerning the selection of low NOX burners as the appropriate BART technology. However, since EPA promulgated the FIP limits, U.S. Steel has continued to operate low NOX burners and to collect CEMS data on Lines 6 and 7. Since promulgation of the FIP, U.S. Steel has also installed low NOX burners and collected CEMS data on Lines 4 and 5. Therefore, there are significantly more data available now from which to evaluate the emissions limits actually achievable through the use of low NOX burners at Minntac than there were at the time the FIP was promulgated. As discussed in greater detail in response to Comments 1 and 6, it is this combined data set, which has been included in the docket, that provides the basis for the revision to the NOX BART emission limit for Minntac.
In addition, as described in greater detail in responses to Comments 9 and 14, U.S. Steels final burner reports for Lines 4 and 5, 6, and 7 provide detailed explanations of its efforts to optimize NOX reduction at each line. As discussed in the reports, U.S. Steel has made physical and operational changes and tuned each low NOX burner to 18 See emails from March 23, 2020 to June 30, 2020 included in the docket as 3232020 email from K. DAgostino to D. Shepherd, T. Wickman, T.
Allen, etc.

PO 00000

Frm 00026

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

ensure each can operate in a manner that reduces NOX emissions while making pellets that meet quality specifications. In each report, U.S. Steel discusses the process of optimizing the low NOX burners and tuning each burner and ancillary equipment to achieve optimal stoichiometric air to fuel ratios. For each line, U.S. Steel determined achieving optimal air to fuel ratios requires monitoring the atomizing air and gas split between the core and annulus gas to reduce flame turbulence in order to create a tight flame shape at each burner. In addition, in some cases, U.S. Steel modified capacities of combustion fans and added blowers and annulus rings to improve thrust and air to fuel ratioseach of which served to minimize NOX emissions as demonstrated by CEMS data.
This action is limited to revising the FIP emission limit for Minntac to reflect the level of NOX control achievable for the source based on the use of low NOX
burners. Regarding commenters assertion that EPA was required to prepare certain information and analysis and repropose this action, as noted above, at the time of our February 4, 2020 proposal, EPA already had the information and analyses necessary to determine the appropriate revised emission limit for Minntac. This information included CEMS data for Minntac Lines 4 through 7 provided by U.S. Steel and EPAs analysis of that information. In addition, U.S. Steel provided to EPA final burner reports detailing U.S. Steels efforts to optimize the low NOX burners on Minntac Lines 4 through 7.
As discussed in response to Comment 1, in the 2013 FIP, EPA determined that low NOX burners reflect the appropriate level of BART control for Minntac.
EPAs analysis and proposed determination that BART is based upon the use of low NOX burners remains valid. 78 FR 8706. However, the emission limits established in the 2013
FIP were based on limited CEMS data.
Since promulgation of the 2013 FIP, U.S. Steel has continued to collect CEMS data on Minntac Lines 6 and 7.
U.S. Steel has also installed low NOX
burners on Lines 4 and 5 and has collected CEMS data reflecting the operation of low NOX burners on these lines. To determine emission rates that would be consistently achievable at each line, EPA evaluated all available CEMS data for 20122017, which covered a wide range of different operating scenarios.
Comment 24: How is the increase in NOX emissions at this source not affecting nonattainment areas in downwind states such as New York or
E:FRFM02MRR1.SGM

02MRR1