Document 2Jy7XzNv0gBaQ9j9wE2meQ24p

Hon. Lee M. Zeldin March 31, 2025 Page 4 software systems and process changes to accommodate pollution prevention or other emission reduction measures." M. It is significant to note that in 2020, EPA conducted a residual risk and technology review for the taconite processing source category. 85 Fed. Reg. 45,476 (July 28, 2020). There, EPA determined that "risks from the Taconite Iron Ore Processing source category arc acceptable, that standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health, and that it is not necessary to set a more stringent standard to prevent, taking into consideration of relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect." Id. EPA further noted it "received no new data or other information during the public comment period that changed this determination. Therefore, we arc finalizing our determination that the existing standards protect public health with an ample margin of safety and that the standards protect against an adverse environmental effect and, thus, we are not requiring additional controls under CAA section 112(0(2)." hi In the 2020 final rule, EPA explained that it "proposed no changes to 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRRR, based on the technology review conducted pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Specifically, we determined that there are no developments in practices, processes, and control technologies for this source category. 'Ile EPA received no new data or other information during the public comment period that affected the technology review determination. Therefore, as proposed, we are not revising the MACT standards under CAA section 112(d)(6)." Id. Just three years later, without identifying any error in the original 2003 rule or 2020 residual risk and technology review, and while affirming the risks are acceptable and provide and ample margin of safety, EPA inexplicably and unjustly proposed a raft of revisions to Subpart RRRRR, asserting that the mercury, hydrogen chloride and hydrogen fluoride limits are necessary as a technology development under 1 12(d)(6). EPA asserted that several amendments were necessary due to a broad overarching interpretation of the D.C. Circuit's decision in Louisiana Environmental Action iVeiwork v. EPA, 955 F.3d 1088 (D.C. Cir. 2020) ("LEA:7\P'). It also made several revisions to existing standards in direct contrast to what it determined in 2020. The concerns noted herein are the subject of petitions for administrative reconsideration and stay of the Taconite RJR Rule that arc currently pending with EPA' as well as petitions for judicial review with the United States Court ofAppcals for the District of Columbia Circuit. U. S. Steel's comments on the proposed Taconite RTR Rule as well as our petition for reconsideration and application for stay are incorporated into by reference into this request. We respectfully urge EPA to expeditiously grant those petitions for reconsideration and to stay the effective date of the Taconite R-IR Rule pending the completion of judicial review and/or promulgation of regulations replacing the fatally flawed Taconite RTR Rule. Granting the Presidential exemption is in the interest of national security as it is critical to prevent disruption Sc'' U S Steel Petition for Reconsideration and for Stay of the National Emission Standards for I la7ardous Air Pollutants: Taconite Iron Ore Processing: EPA-IIQ-OAR-20 l 7-0664, 89 Fed. Reg. 16,408 (March 6, 2024), dated May 3, 2024: and Cleveland-Cliffs, Inc. Petition for Reconsideration and Request for Administrative Stay of the Final Rule Neniomil Emission Smmiare's for I rrious Air !Min,ains l'auomie Iron Ore' Processing, 89 Fed. Reg. 16,408 (March 6, 2024) dated May 6, 2024 Sierra Club FOIA 2025-EPA-04883 ED_018388_00000151-00004 SC_EVERSPLIT0005884