[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 224 (Monday, November 21, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 83144-83152]
[FR Doc No: 2016-27422]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0846; FRL-9955-17-Region 9]

Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona;
Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan; Reconsideration

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is revising portions
of the Arizona Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan (2014 FIP)
applicable to the Phoenix Cement Company (PCC) Clarkdale Plant and the
CalPortland Cement (CPC) Rillito Plant. This 2014 FIP was adopted
earlier under the provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA). We are
finalizing without change our proposal to replace the control
technology demonstration requirements for nitrogen oxides
(NOX) applicable to Kiln 4 at the Clarkdale Plant and Kiln 4
at the Rillito Plant with a series of revised recordkeeping and
reporting requirements. When EPA finalized the 2014 FIP, we had limited
operating data for the use of Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR)
on cement plants. Therefore, we required that PCC and CPC perform
control technology demonstration projects to support the control
efficiencies for SNCR in the 2014 FIP, as well as to determine if more
stringent control efficiencies were achievable. In early 2015, a
control technology demonstration project was performed on the SNCR
installed at another CalPortland Cement facility, the Mojave Plant. Our
analysis of the SNCR control efficiency data from that project
indicated that more stringent SNCR control efficiencies were not
achievable at PCC and CPC. As a result, the additional information from
the control technology demonstration projects required by the 2014 FIP
is no longer needed because the PCC and CPC SNCR control efficiencies
in the 2014 FIP are consistent with the SNCR performance at the Mojave
Plant. In addition, the EPA is making a minor technical correction to
change an equation to match the language in the regulatory text.

DATES: This rule will be effective December 21, 2016.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0846. All documents in the docket are
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colleen McKaughan, U.S. EPA, Region 9,
Air Division, Air-1, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Definitions
II. Background
III. Proposed Action
IV. Public Comments and EPA Responses
V. Final Action
VI. Environmental Justice Considerations
VII. 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 words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the
Clean Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
     The initials ADEQ mean or refer to the Arizona Department
of Environmental Quality.
     The words Arizona and State mean the State of Arizona.
     The initials BART mean or refer to Best Available Retrofit
Technology.
     The term Class I area refers to a mandatory Class I
Federal area.
     The initials CBI mean or refer to Confidential Business
Information.
     The initials CPC mean or refer to CalPortland Cement.

     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 NOX mean or refer to nitrogen
oxides.
     The initials PCC mean or refer to Phoenix Cement Company.
     The initials SCR mean or refer to selective catalytic
reduction.
     The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation
Plan.
     The initials SNCR mean or refer to selective non-catalytic
reduction.
     The initials SRPMIC mean or refer to Salt River Pima-
Maricopa Indian Community.

II. Background

A. Summary of Statutory and Regulatory Requirements

    This section provides a brief overview of the requirements of the
CAA and the EPA's Regional Haze Rule, as they apply to this particular
action. Please refer to our previous rulemakings on the Arizona
Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) for additional background
regarding the visibility protection provisions of the CAA and the
Regional Haze Rule.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 77 FR 42834, 42837-42839 (July 20, 2012), (Arizona Regional
Haze ``Phase 1'' Rule); 77 FR 75704, 75709-75712 (December 21,
2012), (Arizona Regional Haze ``Phase 2'' Rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Congress created a program for protecting visibility in the
nation's national parks and wilderness areas in section 169A of the
1977 Amendments to the CAA. 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
which impairment results from man-made air pollution.'' \2\
Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states to
revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to make
reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal. In the 1990
CAA Amendments, Congress amended the visibility provisions in the CAA
to focus attention on the problem of regional haze, which is visibility
impairment produced by a multitude of sources and activities located
across a broad geographic area.\3\ The Regional Haze Rule was
promulgated in 1999 and is in the process of being revised.\4\ It
requires states to develop and implement SIPs to ensure reasonable
progress toward improving visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas
\5\ (``Class I area'') by reducing emissions that cause or contribute
to regional haze.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 42 U.S.C. 7491(a)(1).
    \3\ See CAA section 169B, 42 U.S.C. 7492.
    \4\ 81 FR 26942, May 4, 2016.
    \5\ Areas 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).
    \6\ See generally 40 CFR 51.308.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. History of FIP Requirements for the State of Arizona

    The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) submitted a
Regional Haze SIP to the EPA on February 28, 2011. The EPA acted on
ADEQ's Regional Haze SIP in three separate rulemakings. Specifically,
the first final rule approved in part and disapproved in part the
State's Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) determinations for
three power plants (Apache Generating Station, Cholla Power Plant, and
Coronado Generating Station), and promulgated a FIP for NOX
BART as well as the compliance requirements for all three power
plants.\7\ The second final rule, which addressed the remaining
elements of the Arizona Regional Haze SIP, included our disapproval of
the State's analysis of reasonable progress measures for point sources
of NOX.\8\ In the third final rule, the EPA promulgated a
FIP in 2014 (2014 FIP) addressing the requirements of the Regional Haze
Rule and interstate visibility transport for the remainder of the
disapproved portions of Arizona's Regional Haze SIP.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 77 FR 72512 (December 5, 2012).
    \8\ 78 FR 46142 (July 30, 2013).
    \9\ 79 FR 52420 (September 3, 2014) (The 2014 FIP final rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Among other things, the 2014 FIP includes requirements for
NOX emission controls applicable to PCC Clarkdale Plant Kiln
4 and CPC Rillito Plant Kiln 4 under the reasonable progress
requirements of the Regional Haze Rule. In particular, the EPA
established two alternative emission limits for NOX on Kiln
4 of the Clarkdale Plant: An emission limit of 2.12 pounds per ton (lb/
ton) of clinker produced or an emission limit of 810 tons/year. The
2.12 lb/ton limit is achievable through installation of selective non-
catalytic reduction (SNCR), based on a 50 percent control efficiency,
while the 810 ton/year limit could be met either by installing SNCR or
by maintaining recent production levels.10 11 12 13 We set
an emission limit for NOX at the Rillito Plant of 3.46 lb/
ton of clinker produced, based on a 35 percent control efficiency.\14\
The 2014 FIP also includes monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements and a compliance deadline for the final NOX
emission limits of December 31, 2018. Finally, in response to comments
asserting that SNCR control efficiencies of 50 percent for Kiln 4 at
the Clarkdale Plant and 35 percent for Kiln 4 at the Rillito Plant were
unsupported and that SNCR was capable of achieving higher control
efficiencies, we included in the final 2014 FIP requirements for a
control technology demonstration project for the SNCR system at each
plant, which entailed the collection of data and preparation of a SNCR
optimization protocol that would be used to determine if a higher
control efficiency would be achievable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Memorandum dated November 19, 2012, from John Summerhays
(EPA), Subject: ``Review of Cost Effectiveness of Selective
Noncatalytic Reduction (SNCR) at St. Mary's Cement's (SMC) Facility
in Charlevoix (SMC-Charlevoix).''
    \11\ De-NOX Technologies, LLC, ``Report of
NOX Removal Measurements from an SNCR System at the St.
Mary's Cement Dixon IL Facility,'' October 2005.
    \12\ 77 FR 181 (September 18, 2012) (Ash Grove Cement and Holcim
Cement BART 5-factor analysis).
    \13\ Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment,
``Colorado Regional Haze SIP'', January 2011; See Reasonable
Progress (RP) Four-Factor Analysis of Control Options for Holcim
Portland Plant, Florence, Colorado.
    \14\ Letter dated March 31, 2014 from Jay Grady (CPC) to Thomas
Webb (EPA) and Exhibit 1, ``Evaluation of EPA's Reasonable Progress
Analysis for Kiln 4 at CalPortland Company's Rillito Cement Plant.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Petitions for Reconsideration and Stay

    PCC and CPC each submitted a petition to the EPA on November 3,
2014, seeking administrative reconsideration and a partial stay of the
2014 FIP under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) and the Administrative
Procedure Act.\15\ In their petitions, both companies raised multiple
objections to the control technology demonstration requirements in the
2014 FIP. CPC asserted that the requirements were burdensome,
expensive, and unnecessary, given that CPC had already ``evaluated
fuels, fuel fineness, and the other characteristics listed in the
Optimization Protocol'' as part of its effort to reduce energy
usage.\16\ PCC stated that the requirements ``would be burdensome to
implement'' and ``would

substantially interfere with the cement manufacturing operations'' at
the Clarkdale Plant.\17\ PCC further asserted that requirements would
harm the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community (SRPMIC), which
relies on revenue from the Clarkdale Plant.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Letter dated November 3, 2014, from Verle C. Martz (PCC) to
Regina McCarthy (EPA); letter dated November 3, 2014 from Jay Grady
(CPC) to Regina McCarthy (EPA).
    \16\ Letter November 3, 2014, from Jay Grady (CPC) to Regina
McCarthy (EPA) with attachment ``Petition of CalPortland Company for
Partial Reconsideration and Request for Administrative Stay of EPA
Final Rule, Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Arizona; Regional Haze and Interstate Visibility Transport Federal
Implementation Plan Published at 79 FR 52420'' at 4.
    \17\ Letter dated November 3, 2014, from Verle C. Martz (PCC) to
Regina McCarthy (EPA) at 2.
    \18\ We note that while the Clarkdale Plant is tribally owned,
it is not located on tribal land. It is subject to State
jurisdiction and is regulated by ADEQ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA sent letters to PCC and CPC on January 16, 2015 and January
27, 2015, respectively, granting reconsideration of the control
technology demonstration project requirements pursuant to CAA section
307(d)(7)(B).\19\ Although we did not act on the companies' request for
a stay at that time, we subsequently granted a stay of the control
technology demonstration project requirements under CAA section
307(d)(7)(B), effective from August 15, 2016 to November 14, 2016.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Letter dated January 16, 2015, from Jared Blumenfeld (EPA)
to Verle C. Martz, PCC; letter dated January 27, 2015, from Jared
Blumenfeld (EPA) to Jay Grady (CPC).
    \20\ 81 FR 53929 (Aug. 15, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proposed Action

    On June 30, 2016, the EPA proposed to revise the 2014 FIP based on
our reconsideration of the control technology demonstration
requirements for the PCC Clarkdale Plant and CPC Rillito Plant.\21\ In
particular, we proposed to replace these requirements, applicable to
Kiln 4 at the Clarkdale Plant and to Kiln 4 at the Rillito Plant, with
a series of revised recordkeeping and reporting conditions. We also
proposed to find that these revisions to the 2014 FIP would comply with
CAA section 110(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 81 FR 42600 (June 30, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. The EPA's Evaluation of Control Technology Demonstration
Requirements

1. Rillito Plant Kiln 4
    In light of the objections to the control technology demonstration
requirements raised by CPC and PCC, we re-evaluated the necessity of
these requirements for the Rillito and Clarkdale plants once additional
information became available on the performance of SNCR at cement
kilns. Although one of the objections to the control technology
demonstration requirements raised in the petitions for reconsideration
was that EPA lacks authority to impose such a requirement in a regional
haze FIP, we disagree with that narrow interpretation of our authority.
We note that the EPA's authority in promulgating a regional haze FIP
derives not only from the visibility protection provisions of the CAA
and our implementing regulations, but also from other provisions of the
CAA. CAA section 302(y) defines a FIP, in pertinent part, as a plan (or
portion thereof) promulgated by the EPA ``to fill all or a portion of a
gap or otherwise correct all or a portion of an inadequacy'' in a SIP,
``and which includes enforceable emission limitations or other control
measures, means or techniques (including economic incentives, such as
marketable permits or auctions or emissions allowances).'' CAA section
302(k), in turn, defines ``emission limitation'' to include (among
other things) ``any design, equipment, work practice or operational
standard promulgated under [the CAA].'' Therefore, the EPA has
authority to include design, equipment, work practice and operational
standards, such as those included in the control technology
demonstration requirements, in a FIP. Furthermore, CAA section 114
provides that in order to develop any SIP or FIP, or to ``carry[] out
any provision of [the CAA],'' the EPA may require owners or operators
of emission sources to install monitoring equipment, sample emissions,
and ``provide such other information as the [EPA] may reasonably
require.'' Accordingly, the EPA also has authority to require
collection and submittal of emission and operating data in the manner
set forth in the control technology demonstration requirements.
Nonetheless, we are now finalizing our action to remove the control
technology demonstration requirements, including the requirement for an
optimization protocol, from the 2014 FIP for the reasons set out in our
proposal and elsewhere in this document.
    The EPA proposed to remove the control technology demonstration
requirements for Kiln 4 at the CPC Rillito Plant after we evaluated
NOX emission data from a SNCR system operating at a similar
kiln at another CPC facility, the Mojave Plant in California, which
gave us the information that we were seeking regarding SNCR
performance. The data from the Mojave Plant demonstrated that the
installed SNCR system could only achieve a control efficiency of 40
percent. In our proposed action to revise the FIP, we specifically
noted several site-specific factors indicating that a SNCR system at
CPC Rillito Kiln 4 would underperform the SNCR system at the Mojave
Plant. Given the relatively low SNCR effectiveness on the Mojave Plant,
we proposed to find that a SNCR control efficiency more stringent than
the 35 percent required by the 2014 FIP was not achievable at CPC.
Therefore, the additional information from the 2014 FIP control
technology demonstration project is no longer needed because the CPC
SNCR control efficiency in the 2014 FIP is consistent with the SNCR
performance at Mojave. Based on our analysis of emissions data and
control efficiencies from the Mojave Plant, we proposed to find that it
is no longer necessary for CPC to meet the relatively detailed and
prescriptive control technology demonstration requirements in the 2014
FIP, including submittal of a SNCR optimization protocol. We therefore
proposed to remove the control technology demonstration requirements.
As explained in section III.B below, we proposed to replace these
requirements with a set of revised recordkeeping and reporting
conditions.
2. Clarkdale Plant Kiln 4
    In our proposed action to revise the 2014 FIP, we noted that the 50
percent control efficiency for PCC Clarkdale Kiln 4 is already more
stringent than the control efficiency demonstrated at the Mojave Plant,
and we proposed to find that the 50 percent control efficiency
specified in the 2014 FIP for PCC Clarkdale was supported by the
available data. Therefore, the additional information from the 2014 FIP
control technology demonstration project is no longer needed because
the PCC SNCR control efficiency in the 2014 FIP is more stringent than
the SNCR performance at Mojave. The EPA proposed to remove the control
technology demonstration requirements for Kiln 4 at the PCC Clarkdale
Plant and replace them with revised recordkeeping and reporting
conditions.

B. Revised Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

    As described in III.A above, we proposed to find that it is no
longer necessary for CPC and PCC to comply with the relatively
prescriptive and detailed control technology demonstration requirements
established in our 2014 FIP, and we are replacing those provisions with
a set of revised recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

C. Non-Interference With Applicable Requirements

    The CAA requires that any revision to an implementation plan shall
not be approved by the Administrator if the revision would interfere
with any applicable requirement concerning

attainment and reasonable further progress or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA.\22\ We proposed to find that the revisions to
the 2014 FIP would not affect any applicable requirements of the CAA
because they would not alter the amount or timing of emission
reductions from the Clarkdale Plant or the Rillito Plant. In
particular, the replacement of the control technology demonstration
requirements with revised recordkeeping and reporting conditions would
not alter any of the applicable emission limitations, compliance
determination methodologies, or compliance deadlines. Therefore, we
proposed to find that these revisions would comply with CAA section
110(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    Our proposed action provided a 45-day public comment period. During
this period, we received three comments: A comment letter from PCC,\23\
a comment letter from CPC,\24\ and a comment letter from Earthjustice
on behalf of National Parks Conservation Association and Sierra
Club.\25\ The significant comments and our responses are set forth
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Letter dated July 13, 2016, from Verle C. Martz (PCC) to
Vijay Limaye (EPA).
    \24\ Letter dated August 15, 2016, from Jay M. Grady (CPC) to
Vijay Limaye (EPA).
    \25\ Letter dated August 12, 2016, from Michael Hiatt
(Earthjustice) to Vijay Limaye (EPA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: PCC commented that the EPA's reconsideration rulemaking is
necessary for the reasons stated in PCC's petition for reconsideration
and in its opening and reply briefs filed with Ninth Circuit in
litigation over the Arizona Regional Haze FIP. PCC included each of
these documents as attachments to its comments and incorporated them by
reference into its comments. PCC also requested that the rulemaking be
finalized as soon as possible.
    Response: We acknowledge PCC's support for our action on
reconsideration. However, PCC's references to and incorporation of the
documents it has filed in litigation concerning the Arizona Regional
Haze FIP go far beyond the narrow scope of the revisions to the 2014
FIP that we are considering in this action. For example, PCC's
arguments regarding the adequacy of notice and the EPA's reasoning
concerning the inclusion of the optimization provisions in the FIP are
not relevant to this action because the EPA has already completed its
proceeding for reconsideration of these provisions under CAA section
307(d)(7)(B) (i.e., this rulemaking action).
    Comment: CPC expressed support for this reconsideration action to
replace control technology demonstration requirements at CPC with a
series of revised recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
    Response: We acknowledge CPC's support for our action on
reconsideration.
    Comment: Earthjustice submitted comments on behalf of the National
Parks Conservation Association and Sierra Club (collectively referred
to as Earthjustice). The comment letter asserts that the EPA should
require PCC and CPC to install Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)
rather than SNCR technology as reasonable progress controls in our
final action. Earthjustice states that the EPA rejected SCR in our
initial action in the 2014 FIP because SCR was not being used in the
United States to control cement manufacturing facilities. The comment
letter indicates that two cement manufacturing facilities in the United
States have installed SCR technology since our 2014 FIP. Noting that
the EPA proposed reconsideration of the control technology
demonstration requirements based on data from the CPC Mojave Plant in
California, Earthjustice states:

    If EPA is going to revise the existing FIP's requirements based
on recent data from a cement plant in California, it should also
examine the recent success of SCR controls at the cement plants in
Illinois and Texas. Reconsidering the FIP's requirements based on
recent data from other plants should not be a one-way ratchet toward
weakening the FIP's requirements. Instead, in order to make a
reasonable and fully-informed decision on reconsideration, EPA
should also re-examine whether more stringent SCR controls are
warranted. [Footnote omitted] \26\

    \26\ Ibid.

The comment letter concludes: ``Given this recent information
documenting the success of SCR at cement plants, EPA should reconsider
whether SCR at the Rillito and Clarkdale plants is necessary to ensure
reasonable progress.'' \27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: Our proposed revision to the FIP in this action is very
limited in scope. The proposed FIP revision followed petitions for
reconsideration filed by PCC and CPC in November 2014. The EPA granted
reconsideration in January 2015, at which time we stated that the scope
of our reconsideration of the 2014 FIP was narrowly limited to the
control technology demonstration requirements for SNCR at the Clarkdale
and Rillito facilities. When we proposed to revise the FIP, we proposed
only ``to replace the control technology optimization requirements at
the PCC Clarkdale Plant and CPC Rillito Plant with a series of
recordkeeping and reporting requirements.'' 81 FR 42600, 42603 (June
30, 2016).
    Contrary to Earthjustice's contention, our evaluation of the data
from the Mojave Plant does not justify re-examining all other cement
manufacturing facilities in the United States to establish whether a
NOX emission limit achievable through installation of SNCR
or SCR should be required for reasonable progress at PCC or CPC. The
scope of our revision to the 2014 FIP was limited to evaluating the
need for the control technology demonstration requirements to ensure
that the NOX emission limits at the Clarkdale and Rillito
facilities are appropriate and to ensure that the performance of the
SNCR systems at these facilities is optimized. As explained in our
proposal, the data from the Mojave Plant demonstrated that SNCR could
only achieve a control efficiency of 40 percent. The analysis of data
from the Mojave Plant indicated that more stringent SNCR control
efficiencies were not achievable at PCC and CPC. Therefore, the
additional information from the 2014 FIP control technology
demonstration projects is no longer needed because the PCC and CPC SNCR
control efficiencies are consistent with the SNCR performance at
Mojave. As a result, we no longer consider the SNCR control technology
demonstration provisions in the 2014 FIP to be necessary. Therefore, we
disagree with Earthjustice that we should consider SCR technology in
the context of the FIP revision at issue in this action.
    Comment: Earthjustice also commented that the NOX
emission data from the Mojave plant's SNCR demonstration period does
not warrant elimination of the control technology optimization project
requirements for CPC and PCC. Specifically, Earthjustice asserts that
because optimization of the SNCR system is a site-specific inquiry, the
fact that the Mojave plant's optimization did not result in significant
improvement does not mean that SNCR optimization at CPC and PCC would
be similarly unsuccessful. As a result, the control technology
optimization project requirements should remain in place.
    Response: We disagree with the commenter's assertion. We
acknowledge that control technology determinations for cement kilns are
site specific in nature; however, while a site-specific analysis
involves consideration of special circumstances and

characteristics pertinent to the source under review, it does not
require excluding information from other, similar facilities, and
information from these facilities can be highly relevant. For many
control technologies with a wide range of performance levels, it is
important to take into account their performance at other, similar
sources.
    In our proposed action to revise the FIP, we specifically noted
several site-specific factors indicating that a SNCR system at CPC
Rillito Kiln 4 would underperform the SNCR system at the kiln at the
Mojave Plant. Given the relatively low SNCR effectiveness on the Mojave
Plant, we noted in our proposed action that the final NOX
limit for CPC Rillito Kiln 4 was adequately supported by the available
data. Aside from a general assertion about the site-specific nature of
SNCR optimization, the commenter has not provided any additional
information suggesting that retaining the control technology
demonstration requirements for Rillito Kiln 4 would result in a more
stringent NOX limit, or that a comparison to the Mojave
Plant is inappropriate.
    Similarly, in our proposed action to revise the 2014 FIP, we noted
that the final NOX limit for PCC Clarkdale Kiln 4 is already
more stringent than the NOX limit demonstrated at the Mojave
Plant, both in terms of emission limit and control effectiveness. Given
that a more stringent limit was not demonstrated at the Mojave Plant,
we find that the 50 percent control efficiency specified in the 2014
FIP for PCC Clarkdale is still supported, and we do not consider that
the information from the control technology demonstration project will
support re-evaluating the final NOX limit for PCC Clarkdale
Kiln 4. Aside from a general assertion about the site specific nature
of SNCR optimization, the commenter has not provided any additional
information or detail indicating that information from the control
technology demonstration requirements will support re-evaluation of the
NOX limit that is achievable, or that a comparison to the
Mojave Plant is inappropriate.
    Comment: Earthjustice also states that our proposed revision of the
2014 FIP is a ``one-way ratchet toward weakening the FIP
requirements,'' that we are replacing ``existing `control optimization'
requirements for the two Arizona plants with less stringent
recordkeeping and reporting requirements'' and that we should not
eliminate the control optimization provisions. The comment letter
states:

    In the current rulemaking, EPA proposes to relax the existing
FIP requirements for the Rillito and Clarkdale cement plants because
of recent information regarding SNCR performance on other cements
kilns in the United States. 81 FR at 42602-03. Specifically, EPA has
reviewed recent SNCR performance data from the Mojave cement plant
in California. EPA believes this recent SNCR data from California
justifies replacing the existing ``control optimization''
requirements for the two Arizona plants with less stringent
recordkeeping and reporting requirements.\28\

    \28\ Ibid.

    Response: We do not agree that today's rule will ``relax'' the
relevant requirements of the 2014 FIP. When we finalized the 2014 FIP,
we acknowledged that data being collected at the Mojave Plant could
potentially support more stringent NOX emission limits at
the Rillito and Clarkdale facilities. However, data obtained from the
Mojave Plant in early 2015 did not support any re-evaluation of the
NOX emission limits in the 2014 FIP at the Rillito and
Clarkdale facilities. Accordingly, we proposed and are now finalizing
the removal of the control technology demonstration requirements in the
2014 FIP. This action does not weaken or relax the NOX
emission limits in the 2014 FIP or the requirement to achieve the
specified control efficiency when SNCR controls are used. This FIP
revision merely removes a process that EPA has determined is no longer
necessary. There will not be any additional NOX emissions
from these facilities and the 2014 FIP requirements remain fully
enforceable.

V. Final Action

    The EPA is taking final action to revise portions of the Arizona
Regional Haze FIP to replace the control technology demonstration
requirements at the PCC Clarkdale Plant and the CPC Rillito Plant with
a series of recordkeeping and reporting requirements. The revisions to
the reporting and recordkeeping conditions we are finalizing in this
action, exactly as we proposed them, require documenting and submitting
certain design and optimization activities that are part of a typical
SNCR system installation. These revisions are detailed in the
regulatory text at 40 CFR 52.145(k).
    We are also making a minor technical correction to the regulatory
text for this action by correcting the equation provided in 40 CFR
52.145(k)(7)(ii)(B)(1) to make the equation consistent with the text in
that section.
    We find that today's revision will not interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning attainment, reasonable further
progress, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA, because the
FIP revision will not alter the amount or timing of emission reductions
from the Clarkdale Plant or the Rillito Plant.
    Finally, the EPA granted a 90-day administrative stay on August 15,
2016 that expires on November 14, 2016.\29\ In this action, we are
deleting the regulatory text in 40 CFR 52.145(n) establishing the
administrative stay. We are deleting the regulatory provision because
the stay will no longer be in effect after the effective date of our
final action on the FIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 40 CFR 52.145(n); 81 FR 53929 (Aug. 15, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Environmental Justice Considerations

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Today's revisions to portions of the Arizona Regional Haze FIP will not
alter the amount or timing of emission reductions from the Clarkdale
Plant or the Rillito Plant.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/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 applies to only two facilities and is therefore
not a rule of general applicability.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA. This rule applies to only two facilities. Therefore, its
recordkeeping and reporting provisions do not constitute a ``collection
of information'' as defined under 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c).

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. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. For purposes
of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities,

small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the
Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201;
(2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city,
county, town, school district or special district with a population of
less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field. Pursuant to 13 CFR 121.201, footnote 1, a firm
is small if it is in NAICS 327310 (cement manufacturing) and the
concern and its affiliates have no more than 750 employees. CPC is
owned by Taiheiyo Cement Corporation, which has more than 750
employees.\30\ PCC is a division of SRPMIC.\31\ For the purposes of the
RFA, tribal governments are not considered small governments. 5 U.S.C.
601(5). Therefore, SRPMIC is not a small entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Taiheiyo Cement Corporation Annual Report 2015 at 1 and
36.
    \31\ Letter dated December 20, 2012, from Diane Enos (SRPMIC) to
Jared Blumenfield (EPA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538. This action may
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. As a tribal
government, SRPMIC is considered a ``small government'' under UMRA. See
2 U.S.C. 658(11) and (13). The EPA consulted with SRPMIC concerning the
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect
it.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Memorandum dated June 15, 2016, from Charlotte Withey (EPA)
to Rulemaking Docket EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0846, Subject: ``Summary of
Consultation with SRPMIC Regarding Regional Haze FIP
Reconsideration.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 has tribal implications. However, it will neither
impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized
tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. This action eliminates the
SNCR optimization requirements that currently apply to the PCC
Clarkdale Plant. The profits from the Clarkdale Plant are used to
provide government services to SRPMIC's members.
    The EPA consulted with tribal officials under the EPA Policy on
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes early in the process
of developing this regulation to permit them to have meaningful and
timely input into its development.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks that the EPA has
reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the
definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in section 2-202 of the
Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045
because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety
risk.

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

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. The EPA is
not revising any technical standards or imposing any new technical
standards in this action.

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

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The
documentation for this decision is contained in section VI above.

K. Determination Under Section 307(d)

    Pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(1)(B), this action is subject to the
requirements of CAA section 307(d), as it revises a FIP under CAA
section 110(c).

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This rule is exempt from the CRA because it is a rule of particular
applicability.

M. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 20, 2017. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule 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 CAA section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen oxides, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Visibility.

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

    Dated: November 4, 2016.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart D--Arizona

0
2. Amend Sec.  52.145 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (k); and
0
b . Removing ``Appendix A to Sec.  52.145--Cement Kiln Control
Technology Demonstration Requirements''.
    The revision reads as follows:

Sec.  52.145   Visibility protection.

* * * * *
    (k) Source-specific federal implementation plan for regional haze
at Clarkdale Cement Plant and Rillito Cement Plant--(1) Applicability.
This paragraph (k) applies to each owner/operator of the following
cement kilns in the state of Arizona: Kiln 4 located at the cement
plant in Clarkdale, Arizona, and kiln 4 located at the cement plant in
Rillito, Arizona.
    (2) Definitions. Terms not defined in this paragraph (k)(2) shall
have the meaning given them in the Clean Air Act or EPA's regulations
implementing the Clean Air Act. For purposes of this paragraph (k):

    Ammonia injection shall include any of the following: Anhydrous
ammonia, aqueous ammonia or urea injection.
    Continuous emission monitoring system or CEMS means the equipment
required by this section to sample, analyze, measure, and provide, by
means of readings recorded at least once every 15 minutes (using an
automated data acquisition and handling system), a permanent record of
NOX emissions, diluent, or stack gas volumetric flow rate.
    Kiln operating day means a 24-hour period between 12 midnight and
the following midnight during which the kiln operates at any time.
    Kiln operation means any period when any raw materials are fed into
the kiln or any period when any combustion is occurring or fuel is
being fired in the kiln.
    NOX means nitrogen oxides.
    Owner/operator means any person who owns or who operates, controls,
or supervises a cement kiln identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this
section.
    Unit means a cement kiln identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this
section.
    (3) Emissions limitations. (i) The owner/operator of kiln 4 of the
Clarkdale Plant, as identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this section,
shall not emit or cause to be emitted from kiln 4 NOX in
excess of 2.12 pounds of NOX per ton of clinker produced,
based on a rolling 30-kiln operating day basis.
    (ii) The owner/operator of kiln 4 of the Rillito Plant, as
identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this section, shall not emit or cause
to be emitted from kiln 4 NOX in excess of 3.46 pounds of
NOX per ton of clinker produced, based on a rolling 30-kiln
operating day basis.
    (4) Alternative emissions limitation. In lieu of the emission
limitation listed in paragraph (k)(3)(i) of this section, the owner/
operator of kiln 4 of the Clarkdale Plant may choose to comply with the
following limitation by providing notification per paragraph
(k)(13)(iv) of this section. The owner/operator of kiln 4 of the
Clarkdale Plant, as identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this section,
shall not emit or cause to be emitted from kiln 4 NOX in
excess of 810 tons per year, based on a rolling 12-month basis.
    (5) Compliance date. (i) The owner/operator of each unit identified
in paragraph (k)(1) of this section shall comply with the
NOX emissions limitations and other NOX-related
requirements of this paragraph (k)(3) of this section no later than
December 31, 2018.
    (ii) If the owner/operator of the Clarkdale Plant chooses to comply
with the emission limit of paragraph (k)(4) of this section in lieu of
paragraph (k)(3)(i) of this section, the owner/operator shall comply
with the NOX emissions limitations and other NOX-
related requirements of paragraph (k)(4) of this section no later than
December 31, 2018.
    (6) [Reserved]
    (7) Compliance determination--

(i) Continuous emission monitoring system. (A) At all times after the
compliance date specified in paragraph (k)(5) of this section, the
owner/operator of the unit at the Clarkdale Plant shall maintain,
calibrate, and operate a CEMS, in full compliance with the requirements
found at 40 CFR 60.63(f) and (g), to accurately measure concentration
by volume of NOX, diluent, and stack gas volumetric flow
rate from the in-line/raw mill stack, as well as the stack gas
volumetric flow rate from the coal mill stack. The CEMS shall be used
by the owner/operator to determine compliance with the emission
limitation in paragraph (k)(3) of this section, in combination with
data on actual clinker production. The owner/operator must operate the
monitoring system and collect data at all required intervals at all
times the affected unit is operating, except for periods of monitoring
system malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system
malfunctions, and required monitoring system quality assurance or
quality control activities (including, as applicable, calibration
checks and required zero and span adjustments).
    (B) At all times after the compliance date specified in paragraph
(k)(5) of this section, the owner/operator of the unit at the Rillito
Plant shall maintain, calibrate, and operate a CEMS, in full compliance
with the requirements found at 40 CFR 60.63(f) and (g), to accurately
measure concentration by volume of NOX, diluent, and stack
gas volumetric flow rate from the unit. The CEMS shall be used by the
owner/operator to determine compliance with the emission limitation in
paragraph (k)(3) of this section, in combination with data on actual
clinker production. The owner/operator must operate the monitoring
system and collect data at all required intervals at all times the
affected unit is operating, except for periods of monitoring system
malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions,
and required monitoring system quality assurance or quality control
activities (including, as applicable, calibration checks and required
zero and span adjustments).
    (ii) Methods. (A) The owner/operator of each unit shall record the
daily clinker production rates.
    (B)(1) The owner/operator of each unit shall calculate and record
the 30-kiln operating day average emission rate of NOX, in
pounds per ton (lb/ton) of clinker produced, as the total of all hourly
emissions data for the cement kiln in the preceding 30-kiln operating
days, divided by the total tons of clinker produced in that kiln during
the same 30-day operating period, using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21NO16.024

Where:

E[D] = 30 kiln operating day average emission rate of
NOX, lb/ton of clinker;
C[i] = Concentration of NOX for hour i as recorded by the
CEMS required by paragraph (k)(7)(i) of this section, ppm;
Q[i] = volumetric flow rate of effluent gas for hour i as recorded
by the CEMS required by paragraph (k)(7)(i) of this section, where
C[i] and Q[i] are on the same basis (either wet or dry), scf/hr;
P[i] = total kiln clinker produced during production hour i, ton/hr;
k = conversion factor, 1.194 x 10-\7\ for NOX;
and
n = number of kiln operating hours over 30 kiln operating days, n =
1 up to 720.

    (2) For each kiln operating hour for which the owner/operator does
not have at least one valid 15-minute CEMS data value, the owner/
operator must use the average emissions rate in pounds per ton (lb/hr)
from the most recent previous hour for which valid data are available.
Hourly clinker production shall be determined by the owner/operator in
accordance with the requirements found at 40 CFR 60.63(b).
    (C) At the end of each kiln operating day, the owner/operator shall
calculate and record a new 30-day rolling average emission rate in lb/
ton clinker from the arithmetic average of all valid hourly emission
rates for the current kiln operating day and the previous 29 successive
kiln operating days.
    (D) Upon and after the completion of installation of ammonia
injection on a unit, the owner/operator shall install, and thereafter
maintain and operate, instrumentation to continuously monitor and
record levels of ammonia injection for that unit.
    (8) Alternative compliance determination. If the owner/operator of
the Clarkdale Plant chooses to comply with the emission limits of
paragraph (k)(4) of this section, this paragraph may be used in lieu of
paragraph (k)(7) of this section to demonstrate compliance with the
emission limits in paragraph (k)(4) of this section.
    (i) Continuous emission monitoring system. At all times after the
compliance date specified in paragraph (k)(5) of this

section, the owner/operator of the unit at the Clarkdale Plant shall
maintain, calibrate, and operate a CEMS, in full compliance with the
requirements found at 40 CFR 60.63(f) and (g), to accurately measure
concentration by volume of NOX, diluent, and stack gas
volumetric flow rate from the in-line/raw mill stack, as well as the
stack gas volumetric flow rate from the coal mill stack. The CEMS shall
be used by the owner/operator to determine compliance with the emission
limitation in paragraph (k)(4) of this section. The owner/operator must
operate the monitoring system and collect data at all required
intervals at all times the affected unit is operating, except for
periods of monitoring system malfunctions, repairs associated with
monitoring system malfunctions, and required monitoring system quality
assurance or quality control activities (including, as applicable,
calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments).
    (ii) Method. Compliance with the ton per year NOX
emission limit described in paragraph (k)(4) of this section shall be
determined based on a rolling 12-month basis. The rolling 12-month
NOX emission rate for the kiln shall be calculated within 30
days following the end of each calendar month in accordance with the
following procedure: Step one, sum the hourly pounds of NOX
emitted for the month just completed and the eleven (11) months
preceding the month just completed, to calculate the total pounds of
NOX emitted over the most recent twelve (12) month period
for that kiln; Step two, divide the total pounds of NOX
calculated from Step one by two thousand (2,000) to calculate the total
tons of NOX. Each rolling 12-month NOX emission
rate shall include all emissions that occur during all periods within
the 12-month period, including emissions from startup, shutdown and
malfunction.
    (iii) Upon and after the completion of installation of ammonia
injection on the unit, the owner/operator shall install, and thereafter
maintain and operate, instrumentation to continuously monitor and
record levels of ammonia injection for that unit.
    (9) Recordkeeping. The owner/operator of each unit shall maintain
the following records for at least five years:
    (i) All CEMS data, including the date, place, and time of sampling
or measurement; emissions and parameters sampled or measured; and
results.
    (ii) All records of clinker production.
    (iii) Daily 30-day rolling emission rates of NOX,
calculated in accordance with paragraph (k)(7)(ii) of this section.
    (iv) Records of quality assurance and quality control activities
for emissions measuring systems including, but not limited to, any
records specified by 40 CFR part 60, Appendix F, Procedure 1.
    (v) Records of ammonia injection, as recorded by the
instrumentation required in paragraph (k)(7)(ii)(D) of this section.
    (vi) Records of all major maintenance activities conducted on
emission units, air pollution control equipment, CEMS and clinker
production measurement devices.
    (vii) Any other records specified by 40 CFR part 60, subpart F, or
40 CFR part 60, Appendix F, Procedure 1.
    (10) Alternative recordkeeping requirements. If the owner/operator
of the Clarkdale Plant chooses to comply with the emission limits of
paragraph (k)(4) of this section, the owner/operator shall maintain the
records listed in this paragraph in lieu of the records contained in
paragraph (k)(9) of this section. The owner or operator shall maintain
the following records for at least five years:
    (i) All CEMS data, including the date, place, and time of sampling
or measurement; emissions and parameters sampled or measured; and
results.
    (ii) Monthly rolling 12-month emission rates of NOX,
calculated in accordance with paragraph (k)(8)(ii) of this section.
    (iii) Records of quality assurance and quality control activities
for emissions measuring systems including, but not limited to, any
records specified by 40 CFR part 60, Appendix F, Procedure 1.
    (iv) Records of ammonia injection, as recorded by the
instrumentation required in paragraph (k)(8)(iii) of this section.
    (v) Records of all major maintenance activities conducted on
emission units, air pollution control equipment, and CEMS measurement
devices.
    (vi) Any other records specified by 40 CFR part 60, subpart F, or
40 CFR part 60, Appendix F, Procedure 1.
    (11) Reporting. All reports and notifications required under this
paragraph (k) shall be submitted by the owner/operator to U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, Enforcement Division via
electronic mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and to Air Division via electronic
mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Reports required under this paragraph
(k)(11)(iii) through (k)(11)(vii) of this section shall be submitted
within 30 days after the applicable compliance date in paragraph (k)(5)
of this section and at least semiannually thereafter, within 30 days
after the end of a semiannual period. The owner/operator may submit
reports more frequently than semiannually for the purposes of
synchronizing reports required under this section with other reporting
requirements, such as the title V monitoring report required by 40 CFR
70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), but at no point shall the duration of a semiannual
period exceed six months.
    (i) Prior to commencing construction of the ammonia injection
system, the owner/operator shall submit to the EPA a report describing
the design of the SNCR system. This report shall include: reagent type,
description of the locations selected for reagent injection, reagent
injection rate (expressed as a molar ratio of reagent to exhaust gas),
equipment list, equipment arrangement, and a summary of kiln
characteristics that were relied upon as the design basis for the SNCR
system.
    (ii) Within 30 days following the NOX compliance date in
paragraph (k)(5)(i) of this section, the owner/operator shall submit to
the EPA a report of any process improvement or debugging activities
that were performed on the SNCR system. This report shall include: a
description of each process adjustment performed on the SNCR system or
the kiln, a discussion of whether the adjustment affected
NOX emission rates, a description of the range (if
applicable) over which the adjustment was examined, and a discussion of
how the adjustment will be reflected or accounted for in kiln operating
practices. If CEMS data or kiln operating data were recorded during
process improvement or debugging activities, the owner/operator shall
submit the recorded CEMS and kiln operating data with the report. The
data shall be submitted in an electronic format consistent with and
able to be manipulated by a spreadsheet program such as Microsoft
Excel.
    (iii) The owner/operator shall submit a report that lists the daily
30-day rolling emission rates for NOX.
    (iv) The owner/operator shall submit excess emissions reports for
NOX limits. Excess emissions means emissions that exceed the
emissions limits specified in paragraph (k)(3) of this section. The
reports shall include the magnitude, date(s), and duration of each
period of excess emissions, specific identification of each period of
excess emissions that occurs during startups, shutdowns, and
malfunctions of the unit, the nature and cause of any malfunction (if
known), and the corrective action taken or preventative measures
adopted.
    (v) The owner/operator shall submit CEMS performance reports, to
include dates and duration of each period during which the CEMS was
inoperative

(except for zero and span adjustments and calibration checks),
reason(s) why the CEMS was inoperative and steps taken to prevent
recurrence, and any CEMS repairs or adjustments.
    (vi) The owner/operator shall also submit results of any CEMS
performance tests specified by 40 CFR part 60, Appendix F, Procedure 1
(Relative Accuracy Test Audits, Relative Accuracy Audits, and Cylinder
Gas Audits).
    (vii) When no excess emissions have occurred or the CEMS has not
been inoperative, repaired, or adjusted during the reporting period,
the owner/operator shall state such information in the reports required
by paragraph (k)(9)(ii) of this section.
    (12) Alternative reporting requirements. If the owner/operator of
the Clarkdale Plant chooses to comply with the emission limits of
paragraph (k)(4) of this section, the owner/operator shall submit the
reports listed in this paragraph in lieu of the reports contained in
paragraph (k)(11) of this section. All reports required under this
paragraph (k)(12) shall be submitted within 30 days after the
applicable compliance date in paragraph (k)(5) of this section and at
least semiannually thereafter, within 30 days after the end of a
semiannual period. The owner/operator may submit reports more
frequently than semiannually for the purposes of synchronizing reports
required under this section with other reporting requirements, such as
the title V monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A),
but at no point shall the duration of a semiannual period exceed six
months.
    (i) The owner/operator shall submit a report that lists the monthly
rolling 12-month emission rates for NOX.
    (ii) The owner/operator shall submit excess emissions reports for
NOX limits. Excess emissions means emissions that exceed the
emissions limits specified in paragraph (k)(3) of this section. The
reports shall include the magnitude, date(s), and duration of each
period of excess emissions, specific identification of each period of
excess emissions that occurs during startups, shutdowns, and
malfunctions of the unit, the nature and cause of any malfunction (if
known), and the corrective action taken or preventative measures
adopted.
    (iii) The owner/operator shall submit CEMS performance reports, to
include dates and duration of each period during which the CEMS was
inoperative (except for zero and span adjustments and calibration
checks), reason(s) why the CEMS was inoperative and steps taken to
prevent recurrence, and any CEMS repairs or adjustments.
    (iv) The owner/operator shall also submit results of any CEMS
performance tests specified by 40 CFR part 60, Appendix F, Procedure 1
(Relative Accuracy Test Audits, Relative Accuracy Audits, and Cylinder
Gas Audits).
    (v) When no excess emissions have occurred or the CEMS has not been
inoperative, repaired, or adjusted during the reporting period, the
owner/operator shall state such information in the reports required by
paragraph (k)(9)(ii) of this section.
    (13) Notifications. (i) The owner/operator shall submit
notification of commencement of construction of any equipment which is
being constructed to comply with the NOX emission limits in
paragraph (k)(3) of this section.
    (ii) The owner/operator shall submit semiannual progress reports on
construction of any such equipment.
    (iii) The owner/operator shall submit notification of initial
startup of any such equipment.
    (iv) By June 30, 2018, the owner/operator of the Clarkdale Plant
shall notify EPA Region 9 by letter whether it will comply with the
emission limits in paragraph (k)(3)(i) of this section or whether it
will comply with the emission limits in paragraph (k)(4) of this
section. In the event that the owner/operator does not submit timely
and proper notification by June 30, 2018, the owner/operator of the
Clarkdale Plant may not choose to comply with the alternative emission
limits in paragraph (k)(4) of this section and shall comply with the
emission limits in paragraph (k)(3)(i) of this section.
    (14) Equipment operation. (i) At all times, including periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction, the owner or operator shall, to the
extent practicable, maintain and operate the unit including associated
air pollution control equipment in a manner consistent with good air
pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. Pollution control
equipment shall be designed and capable of operating properly to
minimize emissions during all expected operating conditions.
Determination of whether acceptable operating and maintenance
procedures are being used will be based on information available to the
Regional Administrator which may include, but is not limited to,
monitoring results, review of operating and maintenance procedures, and
inspection of the unit.
    (ii) After completion of installation of ammonia injection on a
unit, the owner or operator shall inject sufficient ammonia to achieve
compliance with NOX emission limits set forth in paragraph
(k)(3) of this section for that unit while preventing excessive ammonia
emissions.
    (15) Enforcement. Notwithstanding any other provision in this
implementation plan, any credible evidence or information relevant as
to whether the unit would have been in compliance with applicable
requirements if the appropriate performance or compliance test had been
performed, can be used to establish whether or not the owner or
operator has violated or is in violation of any standard or applicable
emission limit in the plan.

[FR Doc. 2016-27422 Filed 11-18-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 19, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 28602]
[FR Doc No: 2019-12926]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-86104; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2018-98]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proceedings To
Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change, as
Modified by Amendment No. 3, To List and Trade Shares of the iShares
Commodity Multi-Strategy ETF Under NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E

June 13, 2019.
    On December 21, 2018, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to list and trade shares of the iShares Commodity
Multi-Strategy ETF under NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E. On February 1, 2019,
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Act,\3\ the Commission noticed the
proposed rule change and, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\4\
designated a longer period within which to approve the proposed rule
change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings
to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule
change.\5\ On March 6, 2019, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change, which replaced and superseded the proposed rule
change as originally filed.\6\ On March 14, 2019, the Exchange filed
Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change, which replaced and
superseded the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1.\7\
On March 20, 2019, the Commission instituted proceedings under Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \8\ to determine whether to approve or
disapprove the proposed rule change.\9\ On March 29, 2019, the Exchange
filed Amendment No. 3 to the proposed rule change, which replaced and
superseded the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No.
2.\10\ The Commission has received no comment letters on the proposed
rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85033, 84 FR 2618
(February 7, 2019).
    \6\ Amendment No. 1 is available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysearca-2018-98/srnysearca201898-5031693-183046.pdf.
    \7\ Amendment No. 2 is available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysearca-2018-98/srnysearca201898-5123714-183326.pdf.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85375, 84 FR 11375
(March 26, 2019). Specifically, the Commission instituted
proceedings to allow for additional analysis of the proposed rule
change's consistency with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which
requires, among other things, that the rules of a national
securities exchange be ``designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade,'' and ``to protect investors and the public
interest.'' See id. at 11378 (citing 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5)).
    \10\ Amendment No. 3 is available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysearca-2018-98/srnysearca201898-5271215-183729.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \11\ provides that, after initiating
disapproval proceedings, the Commission shall issue an order approving
or disapproving the proposed rule change not later than 180 days after
the date of publication of notice of filing of the proposed rule
change. The Commission may extend the period for issuing an order
approving or disapproving the proposed rule change, however, by not
more than 60 days if the Commission determines that a longer period is
appropriate and publishes the reasons for such determination. The date
of publication of notice of filing of the proposed rule change was
December 21, 2018. June 19, 2019, is 180 days from that date, and
August 18, 2019, is 240 days from that date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the proposed
rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider this proposed
rule change. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)
of the Act,\12\ designates August 18, 2019, as the date by which the
Commission shall either approve or disapprove the proposed rule change
(File No. SR-NYSEArca-2018-98).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id.
    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-12926 Filed 6-18-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 189 (Friday, September 28, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59686-59687]
[FR Doc No: 2012-24064]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a technology and trading roundtable
discussion on Tuesday, October 2, 2012, in the Multipurpose Room, L-
006. The meeting will begin at 10 a.m. and will be open to the public.
Seating will be on a first-come, first served basis. Doors will be open
at 9:30 a.m. Visitors will be subject to security checks. The
roundtable will be Webcast on the

Commission's Web site at www.sec.gov and will be archived for later
viewing.
    On August 24, 2012, the Commission published notice of the
roundtable discussion (Release No. 34-67725), indicating that the event
is open to the public and inviting the public to submit written
comments to the Commission staff. This Sunshine Act notice is being
issued because a majority of the Commission may attend the roundtable
discussion.
    The agenda for the roundtable includes opening remarks followed by
two panel discussions. The first panel will focus on the prevention of
errors through robust system design, deployment, and operation. The
second panel will focus on the responses to errors and malfunctions and
managing crises in real-time.
    For further information, please contact the Office of the Secretary
at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: September 25, 2012.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-24064 Filed 9-26-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 139 (Thursday, July 19, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 34165]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15376]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549-2736

Extension:
    Rule 11a1-1(T); SEC File No. 270-428, OMB Control No. 3235-0478

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (``OMB'') a request for approval of extension of the
previously approved collection of information provided for in Rule
11a1-1(T) (17 CFR 240.11a1-1(T)), under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) (``Exchange Act'').
    On January 27, 1976, the Commission adopted Rule 11a1-1(T) to
exempt certain exempt transactions of exchange members for their own
accounts that would otherwise be prohibited under Section 11(a) of the
Exchange Act. The rule provides that a member's proprietary order may
be executed on the exchange of which the trader is a member, if, among
other things: (1) The member discloses that a bid or offer for its
account is for its account to any member with whom such bid or offer is
placed or to whom it is communicated; (2) any such member through whom
that bid or offer is communicated discloses to others participating in
effecting the order that it is for the account of a member; and (3)
immediately before executing the order, a member (other than a
specialist in such security) presenting any order for the account of a
member on the exchange clearly announces or otherwise indicates to the
specialist and to other members then present that he is presenting an
order for the account of a member.
    Without these requirements, it would not be possible for the
Commission to monitor its mandate under the Exchange Act to promote
fair and orderly markets and ensure that exchange members have, as the
principle purpose of their exchange memberships, the conduct of a
public securities business.
    There are approximately 592 respondents that require an aggregate
total of 17 hours to comply with this rule. Each of these approximately
592 respondents makes an estimated 20 annual responses, for an
aggregate of 11,840 responses per year. Each response takes
approximately 5 seconds to complete. Thus, the total compliance burden
per year is 17 hours (11,840 x 5 seconds/60 seconds per minute/60
minutes per hour = 17 hours). The approximate internal cost of
compliance per hour is $336, resulting in a total internal cost of
compliance for of $5,712 (17 hours @$336).
    Compliance with Rule 11a-1(T) is necessary for exchange members to
make transactions for their own accounts under a specific exemption
from the general prohibition of such transactions under Section 11(a)
of the Exchange Act. Compliance with Rule 11a-1(T) does not involve the
collection of confidential information. Rule 11a-1(T) does not have a
record retention requirement per se. However, responses made pursuant
to Rule 11a-1(T) may be subject to the recordkeeping requirements of
Rules 17a-3 and 17a-4.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following website: www.reginfo.gov. Comments should
be directed to (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building,
Washington, DC 20503 or by sending an email to:
[email protected]; and (ii) Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Candace
Kenner, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or send an email to:
[email protected]. Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days
of this notice.

    Dated: July 13, 2018.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-15376 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 10, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 61592]
[FR Doc No: 2012-24830]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL12-110-000]

Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation; Mississippi Delta
Energy Agency; Clarksdale Public Utilities Commission; Public Service
Commission of Yazoo City; South Mississippi Electric Power Association
v. Entergy Services, Inc.; Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on September 28, 2012, pursuant to sections 206
and 212 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)
Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206 and 385.212 and
sections 206, 306, and 309 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 USC
824(e) and Sec.  825(h), Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation,
Mississippi Delta Energy Agency, and its two members, Clarksdale Public
Utilities Commission of the City of Clarksdale, Mississippi, and Public
Service Commission of Yazoo City of the City of Yazoo City,
Mississippi, and South Mississippi Electric Power Association
(Complainants) filed a formal complaint against Entergy Services, Inc.
(Respondent) alleging that, Respondent has not properly implemented the
rate redetermination (Update) procedures contained in its Open Access
Transmission Tariff (OATT), and, therefore, the 2012 Update filed in
Docket No. ER12-1895-000 would impose rates and charges that are
contrary to the OATT on file with the Commission and are unjust and
unreasonable in violation of the FPA.
    The Complainants certify that copies of the complaint were served
on the contacts for the Respondent as listed on the Commission's list
of Corporate Officials.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on October 18, 2012.

    Dated: October 1, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-24830 Filed 10-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


From<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:	Tuesday, August 10, 2010 9:56 AM
To<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:	revised MACT floor memo
Attachments:	SI RICE NESHAP MACT floor 8-10-10.doc

(See attached file: SI RICE NESHAP MACT floor 8-10-10.doc)

Melanie King
Energy Strategies Group
Sector Policies and Programs Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency

Mail Code D243-01
RTP, NC  27711

Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 201 (Thursday, October 19, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48717-48718]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22702]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-0677; FRL-9968-58]

Receipt of Information Under the Toxic Substances Control Act

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is announcing its receipt of information submitted
pursuant to a rule, order, or consent agreement issued under the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA). As required by TSCA, this document
identifies each chemical substance and/or mixture for which information
has been received; the uses or intended uses of such chemical substance
and/or mixture; and describes the nature of the information received.
Each chemical substance and/or mixture related to this announcement is
identified in Unit I. under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For technical information contact: John Schaeffer, Chemical Control
Division (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Chemical Substances and/or Mixtures

    Information received about the following chemical substance(s) and/
or mixture(s) is provided in Unit IV.: 1,3,5-Triazine-1,3,5(2H,4H,6H)-
triethanol (CASRN 4719-04-4).

II. Authority

    Section 4(d) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2603(d)) requires EPA to publish a
notice in the Federal Register reporting the receipt of information
submitted pursuant to a rule, order, or consent agreement promulgated
under TSCA section 4 (15 U.S.C. 2603).

III. Docket Information

    A docket, identified by the docket identification (ID) number EPA-
HQ-OPPT-2013-0677, has been established for this Federal Register
document, which announces the receipt of the information. Upon EPA's
completion of its quality assurance review, the information received
will be added to the docket identified in Unit IV., which represents
the docket used for the TSCA section 4 rule, order, and/or consent
agreement. In addition, once completed, EPA reviews of the information
received will be added to the same docket. Use the docket ID number
provided in Unit IV. to access the information received and any
available EPA review.
    EPA's dockets are available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-
0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

IV. Information Received

    As specified by TSCA section 4(d), this unit identifies the
information received by EPA: 1,3,5-Triazine-1,3,5(2H,4H,6H)-triethanol
(CASRN 4719-04-4).
    1. Chemical Use(s): 1,3,5-Triazine-1,3,5(2H,4H,6H)-triethanol is
used in the manufacture of bactericides and biocides, with uses as a
disinfectant in cleaners and detergents.
    2. Applicable Rule, Order, or Consent Agreement: Chemical testing
requirements for second group of high production volume chemicals
(HPV2), 40 CFR 799.5087.
    3. Information Received: EPA received the following information:
     Request for exemption from testing requirements.
    The docket ID number assigned to this information is EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2007-0531.

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

    Dated: October 5, 2017.
Maria J. Doa,
Director, Chemical Control Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics.
[FR Doc. 2017-22702 Filed 10-18-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 125 (Thursday, June 28, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30451-30453]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13881]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2018-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1835]

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard
determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any
Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the
supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities
listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek
general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and

where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and
FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the
community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in
effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS
report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to
calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings
and the contents of those buildings.

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before September 26, 2018.

ADDRESSES: The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report
for each community are available for inspection at both the online
location https://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata and the
respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below.
Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each
community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1835, to
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email) [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
[email protected]; or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA proposes to make flood hazard
determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with
section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the
floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum
that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the
community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent
in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any
time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies
established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood
hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management
requirements of the NFIP and are used to calculate the appropriate
flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM
and FIS report become effective.
    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are
provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the
revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS
report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b)
is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard
determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report
become effective.
    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to
communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are
independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other
pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and
technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the
SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been
engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days
without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional
information regarding the SRP process can be found online at https://www.floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_overview.pdf.
    The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables
below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each
community are available for inspection at both the online location
https://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata and the respective
Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities
with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be
identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date
listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS
report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map
Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

David I. Maurstad,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department
of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Richmond County, Georgia and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Project: 16-04-5708S Preliminary Date: September 15, 2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Augusta........................  Planning and Development
                                          Department, 535 Telfair
                                          Street, Suite 300, Augusta, GA
                                          30901.
City of Blythe.........................  City of Blythe Planning and
                                          Development Department, 535
                                          Telfair Street, Suite 300,
                                          Augusta, GA 30901.
City of Hephzibah......................  City of Hephzibah Planning and
                                          Development Department, 535
                                          Telfair Street, Suite 300,
                                          Augusta, GA 30901.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Hancock County, Mississippi and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Project: 13-04-3757S Preliminary Date: February 29, 2016
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unincorporated Areas of Hancock County.  Hancock County Government Annex
                                          Building, 854 Highway 90,
                                          Suite A, Bay St. Louis, MS
                                          39520.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Lamar County, Mississippi and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Project: 13-04-3757S Preliminary Date: March 28, 2016
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unincorporated Areas of Lamar County...  Lamar County Courthouse, 403
                                          Main Street, Purvis, MS 39475.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Marion County, Mississippi and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Project: 13-04-3757S Preliminary Date: March 28, 2016
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Columbia.......................  City Hall, 201 2nd Street,
                                          Columbia, MS 39429.
Unincorporated Areas of Marion County..  217 Broad Street, Columbia, MS
                                          39429.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Pearl River County, Mississippi and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Project: 13-04-3757S Preliminary Date: February 29, 2016
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Picayune.......................  Intermodal and Tourist Center,
                                          200 Highway 11 South,
                                          Picayune, MS 39466.
Unincorporated Areas of Pearl River....  Pearl River County Planning and
                                          Development Department, 402
                                          South Main Street,
                                          Poplarville, MS 39470.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Walthall County, Mississippi and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Project: 13-04-3757S Preliminary Date: March 28, 2016
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unincorporated Areas of Walthall County  Walthall County Courthouse, 200
                                          Ball Avenue, Suite B,
                                          Tylertown, MS 39667.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2018-13881 Filed 6-27-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-12-P