Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Taconite Iron Ore Processing rule (2024)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
New Administrative State Banner.png
What is a significant rule?

Significant regulatory action is a term used to describe an agency rule that has had or might have a large impact on the economy, environment, public health, or state or local governments. These actions may also conflict with other rules or presidential priorities. As part of its role in the regulatory review process, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) determines which rules meet this definition.


Administrative State
Administrative State Icon Gold.png
Five Pillars of the Administrative State
•Agency control
• Executive control
• Judicial control
•Legislative control
• Public Control
Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia.
Click here to access Ballotpedia's administrative state legislation tracker.


The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Taconite Iron Ore Processing rule is a significant rule issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) effective March 6, 2024, that regulated hazardous air pollution from the Taconite Iron Ore Processing source category. EPA issued the rule pursuant to its authority under the Clean Air Act.[1]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • Name: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Taconite Iron Ore Processing
  • Action: Final rule
  • Type of significant rule: Other significant rule

    • Timeline

    The following timeline details key rulemaking activity:

    Background

    The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit April 2020 ruling in Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. Environmental Protection Agency held that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must address gaps in hazardous air pollution emission standards pursuant to the Clean Air Act. EPA found that mercury (Hg) was emitted from taconite indurating furnaces, and that Hg emissions from the Taconite Iron Ore Processing source category were not regulated under the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants at the time EPA discovered the Hg emissions. Accordingly, EPA issued the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Taconite Iron Ore Processing rule to fulfill its regulation obligations under the Clean Air Act.[1]

    Summary of the rule

    The following is a summary of the rule from the rule's entry in the Federal Register:[1]

    “ The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Taconite Iron Ore Processing. Specifically, the EPA is finalizing maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards for mercury (Hg) and establishing revised emission standards for hydrogen chloride (HCl) and hydrogen fluoride (HF). This final action ensures that emissions of all hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emitted from the Taconite Iron Ore Processing source category are regulated.[2] ”

    Summary of provisions

    The following is a summary of the provisions from the rule's entry in the Federal Register:[1]

    “

    We are finalizing MACT standards for Hg for new and existing indurating furnaces that reflect the MACT floor level of control, based on the 99-percent UPL, of 1.4 × 10−5 lb/LT for existing sources and 2.6 × 10−6 lb/LT for new sources. We are also finalizing the emissions averaging compliance alternative that allows taconite iron ore processing facilities with more than one existing indurating furnace to comply with a Hg emissions limit of 1.3 × 10−5 lb/LT by averaging emissions on a production-weighted basis for two or more existing indurating furnaces located at the same facility.

    ...

    We are finalizing numerical emission limits for HCl and HF, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). We are finalizing as proposed the numerical emission limit for HCl for new indurating furnaces. We are finalizing a numerical emission limit for HCl for existing indurating furnaces which differs from the limit proposed because the final limit reflects a revision to the emissions data for the Hibbing facility, as discussed in section III.B.2 of this preamble. We are finalizing as proposed the numerical emission limits for HF for new and existing indurating furnaces. For existing indurating furnaces, we are finalizing an HCl emission limit of 4.6 × 10−2 lb/LT and are finalizing an HF emission limit of 1.2 × 10−2 lb/LT. For new indurating furnaces, we are finalizing an HCl emission limit of 4.4 × 10−4 lb/LT and are finalizing an HF emission limit of 3.3 × 10−4 lb/LT. Further discussion of the HCl and HF emission standards and the methodology used to develop the emission standards, as well as a discussion of costs, may be found in the memorandum, Final Revised Technology Review of Acid Gas Controls for Indurating Furnaces in the Taconite Iron Ore Processing Source Category, which is available in the docket for this action.

    We are also finalizing as proposed the requirement to complete performance testing for HCl and HF using EPA Method 26A and to establish operating limits for each control device used to comply with the HCl and HF standards, in accordance with the amended provisions of 40 CFR 63.9622. The final rule clarifies that the owner or operator must perform performance testing when the pellet production rate is equal to or greater than 90 percent of the capacity of the indurating furnace. If the performance testing cannot be performed at or above 90 percent of capacity of the indurating furnace, the owner or operator may complete testing at a lower production rate if they receive approval from the delegated authority. The owner or operator must install and operate CPMS in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 63.9633 and must prepare a preventive maintenance plan and keep records of calibration and accuracy checks of the CPMS to document proper operation and maintenance of each monitoring system. An owner or operator must take corrective action when an established operating limit is exceeded. The owner or operator must complete the initial performance tests within 180 calendar days of the compliance date for existing furnaces, or within 180 calendar days of startup for new furnaces. The performance tests must be repeated at least twice per 5-year permit term.[2]

    		”

    Significant impact

    See also: Significant regulatory action

    Executive Order 12866, issued by President Bill Clinton (D) in 1993, directed the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to determine which agency rules qualify as significant rules and thus are subject to OMB review.

    Significant rules have had or might have a large impact on the economy, environment, public health, or state or local governments. These actions may also conflict with other rules or presidential priorities. Executive Order 12866 further defined an economically significant rule as a significant rule with an associated economic impact of $100 million or more. Executive Order 14094, issued by President Joe Biden (D) on April 6, 2023, made changes to Executive Order 12866, including referring to economically significant rules as section 3(f)(1) significant rules and raising the monetary threshold for economic significance to $200 million or more.[1]


    The text of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Taconite Iron Ore Processing rule states that OMB deemed this rule significant, but not economically significant:

    “ This action is a 'significant regulatory action' as defined in Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094.[2] ”

    Text of the rule

    The full text of the rule is available below:[1]

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 Federal Register, "National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Taconite Iron Ore Processing," March 13, 2024.
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    v • e
    The Administrative State
    MainThe Administrative State Project Badge.png
    Pillars
    Reporting
    Laws
    Administrative Procedure Act • Antiquities Act • Civil Service Reform Act • Clayton Antitrust Act • Communications Act of 1934 • Congressional Review Act • Electronic Freedom of Information Act • Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 • Federal Housekeeping Statute • Federal Reserve Act • Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 • Freedom of Information Act • Government in the Sunshine Act • Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 • Information Quality Act • Interstate Commerce Act • National Labor Relations Act • Paperwork Reduction Act • Pendleton Act • Privacy Act of 1974 • Regulatory Flexibility Act • REINS Act • REINS Act (Wisconsin) • Securities Act of 1933 • Securities Exchange Act of 1934 • Sherman Antitrust Act • Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act • Truth in Regulating Act • Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    Cases
    Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner • A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States • Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp • Auer v. Robbins • Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe • Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Standard Oil Company of California • Field v. Clark • Food and Drug Administration v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation • Humphrey's Executor v. United States • Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) v. Chadha • J.W. Hampton Jr. & Company v. United States • Lucia v. SEC • Marshall v. Barlow's • Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency • Mistretta v. United States • National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius • National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning Company • National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. • Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan • Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation • Skidmore v. Swift & Co. • United States v. Lopez • United States v. Western Pacific Railroad Co. • Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board • Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Wayman v. Southard • Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service • Whitman v. American Trucking Associations • Wickard v. Filburn • Wiener v. United States
    Terms
    Adjudication (administrative state) • Administrative judge • Administrative law • Administrative law judge • Administrative state • Arbitrary-or-capricious test • Auer deference • Barrier to entry • Bootleggers and Baptists • Chevron deference (doctrine) • Civil servant • Civil service • Code of Federal Regulations • Codify (administrative state) • Comment period • Compliance costs • Congressional Record • Coordination (administrative state) • Deference (administrative state) • Direct and indirect costs (administrative state) • Enabling statute • Ex parte communication (administrative state) • Executive agency • Federal law • Federal Register • Federalism • Final rule • Formal rulemaking • Formalism (law) • Functionalism (law) • Guidance (administrative state) • Hybrid rulemaking • Incorporation by reference • Independent federal agency • Informal rulemaking • Joint resolution of disapproval (administrative state) • Major rule • Negotiated rulemaking • Nondelegation doctrine • OIRA prompt letter • Organic statute • Pragmatism (law) • Precautionary principle • Promulgate • Proposed rule • Publication rulemaking • Regulatory budget • Regulatory capture • Regulatory dark matter • Regulatory impact analysis • Regulatory policy officer • Regulatory reform officer • Regulatory review • Rent seeking • Retrospective regulatory review • Risk assessment (administrative state) • Rulemaking • Separation of powers • Significant regulatory action • Skidmore deference • Statutory authority • Substantive law and procedural law • Sue and settle • Sunset provision • Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions • United States Code • United States Statutes at Large
    Bibliography
    Agencies
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=National_Emission_Standards_for_Hazardous_Air_Pollutants:_Taconite_Iron_Ore_Processing_rule_(2024)&oldid=10361251"