Restoration Plan (VRP), there are significant limitations in the data
on which the VRP is based.\245\ Furthermore, the average apportionment
provided in the VRP is based on the highest 10 daily-average
PM2.5 concentrations,\246\ rather than the 20 percent most
impaired days and the 20 percent least impaired days, on which RPGs are
based. Therefore, the NPCA Report does not provide an adequate
technical basis for revising our findings regarding the relative
contribution of area sources at Arizona's Class I areas. Accordingly,
for the reasons described in our proposal, we conclude that it is not
reasonable to require additional controls on Arizona's area sources at
this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \245\ NPCA Report, section C.2 at 10 (``While we have currently
accepted these findings for the purposes of developing the example
VRP for the GCNP, the accuracy of these findings is questionable and
a thorough analysis of the many emission inventories and modeling
assumptions made in the WestJump study would be a necessary task in
developing an actual VRP for any Class I area'').
    \246\ NPCA Report, Attachment B Development of Extinction Source
Apportionment Data for the Visibility Restoration Plan, Particulate
Matter Species Apportionment (``The average apportionment during the
highest ten daily-average PM2.5 concentrations was
created for the six PM species corresponding to the six pollutants
that account for the controllable contributions to Bext
(PMC, EC, NO3, SOA, SO4, and
PM2.5)'').

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

    Comment: EPNG said that it agrees with EPA's assessment that the
potential visibility benefits from applying NOX controls at
natural gas compressor stations would be relatively small.

    Response: We agree with this comment on a per-engine basis, but we
strongly encourage the State to consider development of a statewide
rule to regulate the categories of natural gas engines and sewage
treatment plants in the next planning period.

E. Comments on Reasonable Progress Goals and Uniform Rate of Progress

    Comment: Two commenters objected to the lack of numerical RPGs,
expressed in deciviews, in EPA's proposed FIP. CPC asserted that
because EPA disapproved Arizona's RPGs, EPA is required to establish
its own RPGs, under 40 CFR 51.308(d). CPC noted that there is no
statutory or regulatory provision that excuses compliance with
51.308(d)(1) due to time and resource limitations. CPC added that EPA
would not approve a SIP that did not include numerical RPGs. For these
reasons, CPC asserted that the FIP cannot be approved as proposed.
    CPC also stated that there is no statutory or regulatory support
for EPA's assertion that emission limitations are more critical
components of an RH plan than RPGs. CPC stated that establishing RPGs,
not emission limits, is the first ``core requirement'' listed in
51.308(d), and that other components, including emission limits
established as part of an LTS, must be developed in consideration of
RPGs.
    CPC stated that future RH plans will be unable to comply with 40
CFR 51.308(f), (g), and (h) unless numerical RPGs are established now.
Citing 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2) and (3), CPC noted that Arizona must
evaluate the effectiveness of its LTS for achieving RPGs and affirm or
revise its RPGs as part of the next 10-year RH SIP. CPC also noted that
Arizona must submit a report to the Administrator every five years
evaluating progress toward RPGs. CPC stated that such provisions are
predicated on the establishment of numerical RPGs and that without
this, the proposed FIP does not comply with the RHR today and prevents
Arizona from complying with the RHR in the future.
    Earthjustice also asserted that EPA should quantify its RPGs.
Earthjustice stated that EPA's contention that it has limited time and
resources to conduct this task is not justified because Arizona
completed its analysis within months of EPA's request. Earthjustice
further pointed out that EPA did analysis to determine RPGs in other
haze FIPs, such as Hawaii and Montana. Earthjustice also found EPA's
claim of insufficient time and resources weak considering the multiple
extensions it has received on the consent decree deadlines to complete
the FIP. Therefore, Earthjustice asserted that EPA's claim is not
warranted and the Agency should have conducted this critical analysis.
Earthjustice strongly urged EPA to conduct this analysis during this
rulemaking to meet the RHR requirements and for the purpose of
identifying emission reductions needed for future planning periods.
Earthjustice contended that EPA and the public must have this
information available in order to determine how progress will be made
and how reasonable EPA's plan is.
    Response: We agree that, having disapproved Arizona's RPGs, EPA is
required to establish new RPGs under 40 CFR 51.308(d). Therefore, we
proposed non-quantified RPGs consistent with the combination of
approved control measures in the Arizona RH SIP, the Phase 1 RH FIP,
and the proposed Phase 3 RH FIP.\247\ We explained that ``[w]hile we
would prefer to quantify these proposed RPGs for each of Arizona's 12
Class I areas based on the new State and Federal plans, we lack
sufficient time and resources to conduct the type of regional-scale
modeling required to develop such numerical RPGs.'' \248\ The
commenters underestimate the difficulty and time required for this
task. While Earthjustice points to the effort of Arizona to provide for
new RPGs, the State's effort was based on an extrapolation of
historical monitoring trends into the future without any evaluation of
whether these trends could reasonably be expected to continue through
2018.\249\ Further, the RPGs that EPA promulgated for Hawaii and
Montana are not directly comparable to the situation in Arizona. For
Montana, EPA relied on WRAP modeling to set RPGs without updating the
modeling to reflect additional controls included in the FIP.\250\ For
Hawaii, EPA employed unique, island-specific emission inventories to
develop RPGs.\251\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \247\ 79 FR 9363.
    \248\ Id.
    \249\ The State's analysis included monitored data for 2000
through 2010, i.e. including several years after the 2000-2004
baseline, during which the effect of emission changes from new
controls and other causes might be expected to manifest. We did not
find the evidence for downward trends compelling, partly because the
year to year variability was comparable to the claimed decreases in
visibility impairment. 78 FR 29297. A portion of the State analysis
attempted to explain some periods of anomalously high sulfate
impairment, with back trajectories suggesting that they were due to
out-of-State sources. The difficulty of this analysis illustrates
why recent monitored trends by themselves are not a reliable basis
for projecting progress, and why multistate photochemical modeling
is needed. Unlike trend analysis, such modeling accounts for out-of-
State and other sources, along with the varying meteorology and
atmospheric chemistry conditions encountered by the pollution plumes
from these sources. In any case, the State's analysis and recent
trend data do not provide us a basis for establishing numerical
RPGs.
    \250\ 77 FR 23988, 24053.
    \251\ See 77 FR 31693, 31708.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Development of more refined numerical RPGs for each of Arizona's 12
Class 1 would require photochemical grid modeling of a multistate area,
involving thousands of emission sources, unlike the comparatively
simple single-source CALPUFF modeling used for individual BART
assessments. In order to accurately reflect all emissions reductions
expected to occur during this planning period, the new modeling would
require an update of the emissions inventory for Arizona and the
surrounding states to include not just the actions under this FIP, but
all EPA and state regulatory actions on point, area, and mobile
sources. After the inventory is developed and reviewed by the affected
states for accuracy, it must be converted to a model-ready format
before air quality modeling can be used to estimate the future
visibility levels at the Class I areas.\252\ This modeling would
require specialized and extensive computing hardware and expertise.
Developing all of the necessary input files, running the photochemical
model, and post-processing the model outputs would take several months
at a minimum. Finally, the specific controls we are requiring that
would be inputs to the modeling changed from the proposal as a result
of comments and supplemental information received from the affected
facilities and other commenters. Some of these changes occurred only
shortly before the deadline for this action, leaving insufficient time
for the extensive modeling effort required to develop new RPGs based on
photochemical modeling. Therefore, we were unable to conduct additional
modeling to quantify the degree of progress that we expect to result
from this new combination of controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \252\ 79 FR 2437.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nonetheless, in order to provide RPGs that account for emission
reductions from the FIP controls, we have used a method similar to the
one that we used in our FIP for Hawaii, which is based on a scaling of
visibility extinction components in proportion to emission changes. To
determine the RPGs, we started with the 2018 projection of extinction
components from the WRAP's CMAQ photochemical modeling of WRAP
emissions scenario PRP18b (``Preliminary Reasonable Progress for 2018,
version b''). This

CMAQ PRP18b emission scenario included the results of State BART
determinations and other SIP controls, as well as projected emissions
from other point, area, and mobile sources.\253\ We scaled the modeled
visibility extinction components for sulfate (SO4) and
nitrate (NO3) in proportion to the FIP's emission reductions
for SO2 and NOX, respectively. The sulfate
scaling factor was the CMAQ PRP18b SO2 emissions with FIP
controls for BART and RP sources in place, divided by the original CMAQ
PRP18b SO2 emissions.\254\ We conducted the same scaling
exercise with nitrate and NOX. The scaled sulfate and
nitrate extinctions were added to the unscaled extinctions for organic
mass and other components to get total extinction, and then this was
used to calculate post-FIP RPGs in deciviews.\255\ The results of this
analysis are shown in Tables 9 and 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \253\ ``Simulation Specification for 2018 Preliminary Reasonable
Progress Simulation version B'', WRAP Regional Modeling Center,
August 11, 2009. Available at WRAP Regional Modeling Center
Visibility Modeling Results Web page http://pah.cert.ucr.edu/aqm/308/cmaq.shtml.
    \254\ We assumed that the relevant inventory is the emissions in
Arizona and all of its neighboring states.
    \255\ Additional details of the calculation are available in a
spreadsheet in the docket, FIPRPGestimates.xlsx.

                                                                  Table 9--Reasonable Progress Goals for 20 Percent Worst Days
                                                                                [In deciviews]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                2064                      2018                                  Years to
                   Code                            Class I area             IMPROVE monitor code     2000-2004     natural      2018 URP    projection   FIP effect    FIP 2018    reach natural
                                                                                baseline    conditions                 by WRAP                     RPG        conditions
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
chir.....................................  Chiricahua NM...............  CHIR1....................        13.43         7.20        11.98        13.35        -0.16        13.19             367
chrw.....................................  Chiricahua WA...............  CHIR1....................        13.43         7.20        11.98        13.35        -0.16        13.19             367
gali.....................................  Galiuro WA..................  CHIR1....................        13.43         7.20        11.98        13.35        -0.16        13.19             367
grca.....................................  Grand Canyon NP.............  GRCA2....................        11.66         7.04        10.58        11.14        -0.11        11.02             101
maza.....................................  Mazatzal WA.................  IKBA1....................        13.35         6.68        11.79        12.76        -0.13        12.63             131
moba.....................................  Mount Baldy WA..............  BALD1....................        11.95         6.24        10.62        11.52        -0.13        11.40             141
pefo.....................................  Petrified Forest NP.........  PEFO1....................        13.21         6.49        11.64        12.76        -0.12        12.64             165
pimo.....................................  Pine Mountain WA............  IKBA1....................        13.35         6.68        11.79        12.76        -0.13        12.63             131
sagu.....................................  Saguaro NP East.............  SAGU1....................        14.83         6.46        12.88        14.82        -0.13        14.68             767
sagu.....................................  Saguaro NP West.............  SAWE1....................        16.22         6.24        13.90        15.99        -0.12        15.87             397
sian.....................................  Sierra Ancha WA.............  SIAN1....................        13.67         6.59        12.02        13.17        -0.12        13.05             159
supe.....................................  Superstition WA.............  TONT1....................        14.16         6.61        12.40        13.85        -0.13        13.72             237
syca.....................................  Sycamore Canyon WA..........  SYCA1....................        15.25         6.65        13.25        15.00        -0.08        14.92             360
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                              Table 10--Reasonable Progress Goals for 20 Percent Best Days
                                                                     [In deciviews]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                2064         2018
              Code                   Class I area      IMPROVE monitor   2000-2004     natural     projection   FIP effect    FIP 2018     Degradation?
                                                            code          baseline    conditions    by WRAP                     RPG
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
chir............................  Chiricahua NM.....  CHIR1...........         4.91         1.83         4.90        -0.12         4.77              No
chrw............................  Chiricahua WA.....  CHIR1...........         4.91         1.83         4.90        -0.12         4.77              No
gali............................  Galiuro WA........  CHIR1...........         4.91         1.83         4.90        -0.12         4.77              No
grca............................  Grand Canyon NP...  GRCA2...........         2.16         0.31         2.12        -0.10         2.02              No
maza............................  Mazatzal WA.......  IKBA1...........         5.40         1.91         5.17        -0.11         5.07              No
moba............................  Mount Baldy WA....  BALD1...........         2.98         0.51         2.86        -0.10         2.76              No
pefo............................  Petrified Forest    PEFO1...........         5.02         1.07         4.73        -0.11         4.62              No
                                   NP.
pimo............................  Pine Mountain WA..  IKBA1...........         5.40         1.91         5.17        -0.11         5.07              No
sagu............................  Saguaro NP East...  SAGU1...........         6.94         2.23         7.04        -0.11         6.93              No
sagu............................  Saguaro NP West...  SAWE1...........         8.58         2.50         8.34        -0.11         8.23              No

sian............................  Sierra Ancha WA...  SIAN1...........         6.16         2.03         5.88        -0.10         5.78              No
supe............................  Superstition WA...  TONT1...........         6.46         2.03         6.22        -0.12         6.09              No
syca............................  Sycamore Canyon WA  SYCA1...........         5.58         0.98         5.49        -0.10         5.39              No
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although we recognize that this method is not refined, it allows us
to translate the emission reductions achieved through the FIP into
quantitative RPGs, based on modeling previously performed by the WRAP.
These RPGs reflect rates of progress that are faster than the rates
projected by the State, but are still slower than the URP for each
Class I areas. Nonetheless, we consider these rates to be reasonable
for the reasons set forth in our proposal and in this final rule. We
also note that RPGs, unlike the emission limits that apply to specific
RP sources, are not directly enforceable.\256\ Rather, they are an
analytical tool used by EPA to evaluate whether measures in the
implementation plan are sufficient to achieve reasonable progress.\257\
Arizona may choose to use these RPGs for purposes of its progress
report, or may develop new RPGs, based on new modeling or other
appropriate techniques, in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \256\ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(v).
    \257\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Citing 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(vi) and EPA's RP Guidance, CPC
stated that emission reductions that will occur under other CAA
requirements must be taken into account when establishing RPGs. For
example, CPC cited the Portland Cement MACT that imposes a PM emission
standard of 0.07 lb/ton clinker for existing kilns and clinker coolers.
The revised Portland Cement MACT will significantly reduce PM emissions
at the Rillito Cement Plant. CPC stated that this is particularly
noteworthy because at Saguaro National Park and other Class I areas in
Arizona, PM is a far more substantial contributor to regional haze than
NOX. CPC asserted that even if no additional controls are
imposed as part of this initial RH plan, emissions of the primary
visibility-impacting pollutant will substantially decrease at the
Rillito Plant.
    Response: We partly agree with this comment. The cited provision of
the RHR prohibits the adoption of RPGs that represent less visibility
improvement than is expected to result from implementation of other
requirements of the CAA during the applicable planning period.\258\
EPA's RP Guidance explains that states ``must therefore determine the
amount of emission reductions that can be expected from identified
sources or source categories as a result of requirements at the local,
State, and federal levels during the planning period of the SIP and the
resulting improvements in visibility at Class I areas.'' \259\ The WRAP
modeling that Arizona used to develop RPGs addressed this requirement
by including all emission reductions expected at the time that the
modeling was performed.\260\ In addition, Arizona submitted a
supplemental analysis of monitored coarse mass and fine soil impairment
at the State's Class I areas, including an examination of the monitored
visibility impairment at Class I areas near large stationary sources of
PM10.\261\ Based on these analyses and EPA's supplemental
analysis, as described in our supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking, we approved Arizona's conclusion that no further analysis
of PM controls was necessary for this planning period.\262\ Therefore,
we do not agree that we are required to consider expected reductions in
PM emissions from the Portland Cement MACT. Nonetheless, we note that,
according to information supplied by CPC, implementation of the cement
MACT at Kiln 4 would result in a relatively modest decrease in
emissions from 9.6 pounds/hour (lb/hour) to 9.0 lb/hour, a difference
of 0.6 lb/hour or 6.25 percent.\263\ According to modeling performed by
the WRAP, based on an emission rate of 1.43 grams/second (g/s) (about
11.3 lb/hour), the baseline impact of PM emissions from Kiln 4 at the
Rillito Plant would be 0.02 dv or less at all potentially affected
Class I areas.\264\ While the expected emission reductions from Kilns
1-3 are greater, these kilns have not operated since 2008, so there
would be no practical impact from this change. Therefore, the overall
visibility improvement expected from implementation of the Portland
Cement MACT at the Rillito Plant would be de minimis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \258\ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(vi).
    \259\ RP Guidance section 4.1.
    \260\ See Arizona RH SIP at 167 (explaining that Arizona's RPGs
are based on, among other things, ``the results of the CMAQ modeling
. . . which includes ``on-the-books'' controls and other emission
inputs'' and Appendix C (list of CMAQ model emission inputs) Section
11.3.3, and the BART review described in Chapter 10. http://wrapedms.org/InventoryDesc.aspx.
    \261\ Arizona RH SIP Supplement, page 97.
    \262\ See 78 FR 29298 (proposing to concur with the State's
decision to omit coarse mass and fine soil from its four-factor
reasonable progress analysis for this planning period); 78 FR 46175,
codified at 40 CFR 52.120(c)(154)(ii)(A)(2) and (c)(158) (approving
the Arizona Regional Haze SIP, except for specified sections).
    \263\ See CPC Comments, Exhibit 2.
    \264\ Summary of WRAP RMC BART Modeling for Arizona
Draft5, May 25, 2007, at 2 (Table 1) and 17, SRC04 Arizona
Portland Cement: PM Only (98th percentile 3 Year Average).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: CPC stated that EPA's proposed demonstration that its RPGs
are reasonable does not and cannot comply with all requirements of
51.308(d)(1)(ii), which state that a RH plan ``must provide to the
public for review an assessment of the number of years it would take to
attain natural conditions if visibility improvement continues at the
rate of progress selected by the State as reasonable.'' As the FIP does
not contain this analysis, CPC asserted that the proposed rule does not
comply with these requirements.
    CPC further stated that once EPA establishes RPGs based on the
controls proposed for BART sources, it may learn that 40 CFR
51.308(d)(l)(ii) is not even applicable. CPC asserted that given the
significant additional controls proposed for BART sources, it is likely
that several Class I Areas will be on pace to meet or exceed URPs,
eliminating the need to provide the assessment required here. For
example, CPC stated that at Saguaro National Park, EPA has estimated
that its proposed BART controls on the Hayden Smelter, Miami Smelter,
and Apache Power Plant will have a collective visibility benefit of
2.68 dv, more than enough to meet the URP with no additional controls.
CPC added that if Saguaro National Park is already on pace to meet the
URP, then

it would be reasonable to conclude that additional controls are not
necessary for Kiln 4 at this time.
    Response: We disagree with this comment. As shown in Table 9 above,
even accounting for BART and RP controls, the RPG for Saguaro National
Park on the 20 percent worst days is still well above the URP, and it
is expected to take hundreds years to reach natural conditions. It is
important to note that deciview improvements modeled for individual
BART and RP sources using CALPUFF are not directly comparable to RPGs.
In particular, modeling for individual BART and RP sources is performed
using natural background conditions, rather than current, degraded
conditions. EPA explained the rationale for this approach in the
preamble to the BART Guidelines:

    Using existing conditions as the baseline for single source
visibility impact determinations would create the following paradox:
the dirtier the existing air, the less likely it would be that any
control is required. This is true because of the nonlinear nature of
visibility impairment. In other words, as a Class I area becomes
more polluted, any individual source's contribution to changes in
impairment becomes geometrically less. Therefore the more polluted
the Class I area would become, the less control would seem to be
needed from an individual source. . . . Such a reading would render
the visibility provisions meaningless, as EPA and the States would
be prevented from assuring ``reasonable progress'' and fulfilling
the statutorily-defined goals of the visibility program. \265\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \265\ See 70 FR 39124.

    Thus, EPA has determined that it is appropriate to use natural
background conditions in order to gauge the impacts of an individual
source and the expected benefits of controls on an individual source.
    By contrast, RPGs are intended to reflect actual conditions at a
future date. Accordingly, they are typically set using regional-scale
photochemical grid modeling that accounts for the visibility impacts of
numerous sources over a large geographic area. Under this approach, the
impact attributable to any one source (and the benefits available from
controls on any one source) are quite small. Therefore, the expected
degree of visibility improvement (in dv) from controls on individual
sources does not translate directly into the same degree of improvement
in RPGs.
    Comment: Citing 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv), CPC stated that the RHR
imposes an obligation to consult with states that may reasonably be
anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in
Arizona's Class 1 areas. CPC stated that the proposed FIP does not
identify this requirement or explain how it complies with it. CPC
concluded that because this consultation must occur when developing
each RPG, the proposed FIP does not comply with this requirement.
    Response: We do not agree with this comment. As explained in our
proposal, the Arizona RH FIP covers only those elements of the RHR for
which we disapproved the Arizona RH SIP.\266\ Although we disapproved
Arizona's RPGs, we did not disapprove the Arizona RH SIP with respect
to the consultation requirements 40 CFR 51.308(d)(iv). As explained in
our proposal on the Arizona RH SIP, ``Arizona consulted with other
states and tribes using the WRAP forums and processes. In particular,
Arizona consulted with California, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah using
the primary vehicle of the WRAP Implementation Work Group (IWG).''
\267\ EPA also consulted with these other states through our
participation in the WRAP.\268\ Furthermore, as explained elsewhere in
this notice, we have relied upon modeling performed by the WRAP to help
quantify RPGs for Arizona. In addition, through our actions on other
states' RH SIPs, EPA has considered the impacts of emissions from other
states on Arizona's Class I areas.\269\ Therefore, we do not agree that
we failed to comply with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv) or that further
consultation was necessary for purposes of today's FIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \266\ See also CAA section 302(y), 42 U.S.C. 7602(y) (defining
FIP as a ``plan (or portion thereof) promulgated by the
Administrator to fill all or a portion of a gap or otherwise correct
all or a portion of an inadequacy in a [SIP] . . .'').
    \267\ 79 FR 75730.
    \268\ See, e.g. http://www.wrapair.org/commforum.html
(describing and listing membership of various WRAP forums,
committees and work groups).
    \269\ See, e.g. 76 FR 13944, 13953 (discussing the ``very small
impact on visibility impairment'' of emissions from California on
Grand Canyon NP and Sycamore Canyon NP); 77 FR 50936, 50937
(discussing expected improvement in visibility at Grand Canyon NP
from BART at Reid Gardner Generating Station in Nevada); 79 FR
26909, 26917, Table 4 (showing expected visibility improvement at
Grand Canyon NP and Petrified Forest NP from BART at San Juan
Generating Station in New Mexico).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: CPC asserted that 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2) requires that FLMs
must be provided with an opportunity for consultation at least 60 days
before holding any public hearing on a regional haze implementation
plan, and must be provided an opportunity to discuss their
recommendations on development of RPGs. CPC stated that the proposed
FIP neither identifies nor explains how these requirements were met.
    Response: We do not agree with these comments. As noted above, the
Arizona RH FIP covers only those elements of the RHR for which we
disapproved the Arizona RH SIP.\270\ We approved the Arizona RH SIP
with respect to the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(i).\271\ Therefore,
no FIP is required for this element under the RHR. Nonetheless, we
consulted the FLMs during development of the proposed FIP and we have
considered and responded to their comments on our proposal, as
documented elsewhere in this notice. We note that, while the FLMs have
urged EPA to require additional RP controls, they expressed support for
EPA's proposed determinations with regard to CPC's Rillito Plant.\272\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \270\ See also CAA section 302(y), 42 U.S.C. 7602(y) (defining
FIP as a ``plan (or portion thereof) promulgated by the
Administrator to fill all or a portion of a gap or otherwise correct
all or a portion of an inadequacy in a [SIP] . . .'').
    \271\ See 77 FR 75734 (proposing to find that Arizona met the
requirements for coordination with the FLMs under 40 CFR 51.308(i));
78 FR 46175 (codified at 40 CFR 52.120(c)(154)(ii)(A)(2) and
(c)(158)) (approving the Arizona Regional Haze SIP, except for
specified sections).
    \272\ NPS Comment Letter at 7-8, 10-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: NPS indicated that it agreed with EPA that it is not
likely that all of Arizona's Class I areas will meet the URP during
this planning period. But, according to NPS, this is partly because EPA
and states have not done enough to properly address emissions from RP
sources. NPS expressed disappointment that although EPA has
acknowledged that certain control technologies are cost-effective, it
still proceeded to reject certain controls because they would lead to
insufficient improvements in visibility. According to NPS, a
fundamental principle of the RHR is the recognition that a decline in
visibility is due to a number of sources that contribute to a
cumulative visibility issue. NPS argued that EPA's approach of
disaggregating each source's contributions to visibility impairment
does not solve the problem. The EGU sources that EPA analyzed for
reasonable progress, i.e., Cholla Unit 1 and Springerville Units 1 and
2, combined to cause a cumulative 32 dv of impairment at Class I areas
in the State. By installing controls on these units, NPS said that
emissions could be reduced by more than 4,400 tpy and decrease
visibility impacts by 2.6 dv at a cost of $25 million annually. NPS
asserted that, by not requiring controls on these units, EPA has failed
to meet its obligation to show that it has taken all reasonable
measures to make reasonable progress at this time.
    Response: We agree with NPS that a fundamental principle of the RHR
is the

recognition that visibility impairment at Class I areas is caused by a
multitude of different sources. However, in this particular action, EPA
is only considering the reasonableness of controls for point sources of
NOX and area sources of NOX and SO2.
As for the specific EGUs referenced in this comment, we have addressed
NPS's concerns about these sources elsewhere in this notice. Therefore,
we do not agree that EPA has failed to meet its obligation to ensure
reasonable progress. We will continue to work with NPS, the State, and
other stakeholders to ensure that reasonable progress is made at
Arizona's Class I areas.
    Comment: PCC agreed with EPA that it is necessary to consider the
degree of improvement in visibility that would be achieved by the
imposition of control technology-based standards under 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(i)(A), but noted the requirement of 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(i)(B) to consider the uniform rate of improvement in
visibility. PCC stated that, although EPA has appropriately concluded
it is not reasonable to provide for rates of progress at any of
Arizona's Class I areas consistent with the URP in this planning
period, EPA should make clear the functional distinction between 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(i) [RP analysis] and 308(e)(1)(ii)(A) [BART analysis] or
else the distinction might appear to be irrelevant. PCC said this
clarity is needed where BART-ineligible sources are concerned,
particularly PCC, for which EPA characterized the proposed standard as
``EPA's proposed BART,'' even though PCC is a BART-ineligible source.
    Response: We agree that the Clarkdale Plant is not BART-eligible.
The reference in the TSD to ``EPA's proposed BART'' for the Clarkdale
Plant was a clerical error. Thus, our analysis of the Clarkdale Plant
is based solely on the RP requirements. There are several distinctions
in the applicable requirements for RP sources and BART sources, which
are reflected in our analyses for the respective source types. First,
unlike for BART, the expected degree of visibility improvement is not
listed in the RHR as a required factor for consideration in relation to
individual RP sources. While we have considered visibility improvement
as a supplementary factor for RP sources, we have not given it the same
weight as in our BART determinations, for which it is a mandatory
statutory factor. Second, ``the time necessary for compliance'' is a
required factor for RP, but not for BART, and we have considered it as
such. Third, BART controls must be installed ``as expeditiously as
practicable,'' whereas there is no similar requirement for RP sources.
Thus, we do not consider the distinction between BART and RP sources to
be irrelevant.
    Comment: Earthjustice stated that EPA's proposed FIP fails to meet
the goals of the regional haze program. The commenter asserted that
EPA's RPGs and reasonable progress determination are in violation of
the CAA. Earthjustice said that Arizona's regional haze plan, which EPA
disapproved, was far from meeting the RPGs and would have delayed
natural visibility for Arizona's national parks and wilderness areas by
hundreds, even thousands of years. According to Earthjustice, it is now
EPA's responsibility to step in and ensure that a Federal haze plan
makes reasonable progress toward the national goals, because Arizona's
plan failed to do so. However, in Earthjustice's opinion, EPA's
proposal failed to comply with the regional haze program's reasonable
progress requirements. Earthjustice pointed out that the Agency
admitted that the Federal plan will not achieve reasonable progress
towards the 2064 goal. Earthjustice continued by stating that EPA has
failed to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(ii) to
demonstrate that (1) the 2064 goal is unreasonable at each of Arizona's
Class I areas and that (2) EPA's RPGs are reasonable.
    Earthjustice stated that EPA should have determined the necessary
emissions reductions needed to remain on the 2064 glide path and
whether those reductions would be reasonable based on the four
reasonable progress factors. According to Earthjustice, instead of
doing this EPA promptly determined that the 2064 glide path was
unachievable because the individual source-by-source reasonable
progress determinations would not be enough to meet the glide path.
Earthjustice acknowledged and appreciates the work EPA has done in
place of Arizona's inadequate haze plan. However, Earthjustice thought
that the approach EPA has followed is inadequate because it is not
bound to the overarching 2064 natural visibility goal. Specifically, it
is not known what level of emissions reductions (1,000, 100,000 or
1,000,000 tpy) will ensure that the State of Arizona will meet the
glide path for each Class I area. Nor is it known how those reductions
could be achieved and if those reductions would be reasonable. Because
these analyses have not been conducted, Earthjustice argued that EPA
has not shown that it would be unreasonable for Arizona's Class I areas
to achieve the glide path.
    Earthjustice pointed to a brief filed by EPA in American Corn
Growers, where EPA stated that:

    Certainly the courts would not find it difficult to affirm an
EPA decision finding a State plan ``unreasonable'' if a State
proposes to improve visibility so slowly that the national
visibility goal would not be achieved for 200 or 300 years despite
the availability of more stringent, cost-effective measures.\273\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \273\ Corrected Final Brief of Respondent EPA at 80-81, Am. Corn
Growers Ass'n v. EPA, 291 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (No. 99-1348).
Submitted with the comments as Exhibit 15.

    Earthjustice stated, however, that under EPA's proposal it is very
likely that it would take even longer to restore Class I areas to their
natural visibility. In spite of recent EPA actions and the proposed
pollution controls, the FIP does not, in Earthjustice's opinion, have
sufficient emissions reductions to bring Arizona's Class I areas back
on track to the glide path. Earthjustice asserted that additional
controls are needed, and without further controls, it could still take
centuries or millennia to restore natural visibility.
    Similarly, CPC stated that because the proposed FIP contains no
discussion of what measures would be required to meet a uniform rate of
improvement in Arizona's Class 1 areas, the proposed rule does not
comply with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B).
    Response: The commenters' focus on the URP for the 20 percent worst
days is misguided for a number of reasons. First, the URP is not
binding. A state or EPA can set RPGs that provide for less progress
than the URP if those RPGs are demonstrated to be reasonable (and
achievement of the URP to be unreasonable) based upon an analysis of
the four RP factors.\274\ Second, as explained further below, much of
the visibility impairment on the 20 percent worst days at many Class I
areas implicated in this plan is caused by sources that are either non-
anthropogenic or not feasible to control. Under these circumstances,
projections regarding progress on those days are of limited value in
determining the reasonableness of additional controls. Lastly, the only
source categories and pollutants at issue in this action are non-BART
point sources of NOX and area sources of NOX and
SO2. All other source categories and pollutants were
addressed by EPA's action on the State's SIP.\275\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \274\ See 64 FR 35730-35731.
    \275\ See 78 FR 46172.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA disagrees with Earthjustice's assertion that we have not
demonstrated that it is unreasonable to attain the URP. The commenter
correctly notes that the

State's RPGs provide little visibility improvement on the 20 percent
worst days, leading to long estimates of the time that would be
required to attain ``natural'' levels of visibility. Earthjustice
implicitly assumes that most of the visibility impairment on the 20
percent worst days is from controllable, anthropogenic sources. As EPA
explained in our previous action on the Arizona RH SIP, the causes of
haze on the 20 percent worst days in the Class I areas of Arizona are
often due to largely uncontrollable sources.\276\ Table 8 in our
December 21, 2012, proposed action on the Arizona RH SIP shows the
causes of haze at the Class I areas in Arizona. Earthjustice
highlighted seven Class I areas that are projected to make particularly
slow progress in visibility improvement on the 20 percent worst days:
Saguaro National Park East Unit (SAGU1 monitor), Chiricahua National
Monument, Chiricahua Wilderness and Galiuro Wilderness (all represented
by the CHIR1 monitor), Saguaro National Park West Unit (SAWE1 monitor),
Sycamore Canyon Wilderness (SYCA1 monitor) and Superstition Wilderness
(TONT1 monitor).\277\ As shown in Table 11, in each of these Class I
areas, the majority of impairment on the 20 percent worst days is
attributable to organic carbon, elemental carbon, coarse mass, fine
soil and sea salt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \276\ The pollutants in question are organic carbon, elemental
carbon, coarse mass, fine soil and sea salt. We explained in our
action on the State's SIP that these pollutants are not reasonable
to control at this time. See 77 FR 75728 for a discussion on sources
of organic carbon and elemental carbon (fires), and 78 FR 29297-
29299 for a discussion of coarse mass and fine soil.
    \277\ See 77 FR 75717.

Table 11--Percentage Contribution From Organic Carbon, Elemental Carbon,
 Coarse Mass, Fine Soil on 20 Percent Worst Days During Baseline Period
                                  \278\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Contribution from
                                                         organic carbon,
                                                       elemental carbon,
                   IMPROVE Monitor                        coarse mass,
                                                         fine soil and
                                                            sea salt
                                                           (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAGU1................................................               65.9
CHIR1................................................               68.9
SAWE1................................................               72.9
SYCA1................................................               81.8
TONT1................................................               66.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We previously approved Arizona's RP determinations for this
planning period with respect to each of these pollutants.\279\ We also
approved the State's determination that it is not reasonable to require
additional controls on mobile sources of NOX and
SO2 and that it is not reasonable to require additional
SO2 reductions from point sources in this planning period
for RP purposes.\280\ Thus, the only RP issue at question in this
action is whether it is appropriate to require controls on non-BART
point sources of NOX or area sources of NOX and
SO2 in order to ensure reasonable progress in visibility
improvement. As explained elsewhere in this notice, based on our
analyses of the four RP factors and the potential for visibility
improvement from additional controls, we have determined that it
reasonable to require installation of SNCR on two cement kilns by 2018,
but that additional RP controls are not reasonable at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \278\ See Table 8 on 77 FR 75717.
    \279\ See 77 FR 75728 for a discussion on sources of organic
carbon and elemental carbon (fires), and 78 FR 29297-29299 for a
discussion of coarse mass and fine soil.
    \280\ 78 FR 46146.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Earthjustice strongly urged EPA to require additional RP
controls beyond the proposal for control on only two cement kilns, to
make sure Arizona returns to the glide path to meet natural visibility
goal in 2064. According to Earthjustice, in EPA's explanation of why it
did not require any of the other sources of NOX to install
pollution controls, EPA recognized that reasonable progress controls on
these other sources are generally reasonable and EPA said that the
decision of no control for these sources should be revisited in future
planning periods. Earthjustice argued that taking into account how far
off Arizona Class I areas are from their glide paths, EPA should
require reasonable progress controls on these other sources during the
current planning period. Earthjustice cited 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii),
which requires ``all measures necessary'' be implemented to achieve
reasonable progress. Earthjustice said that additional NOX
reductions can be achieved at both cement plants and should be pursued
in order to ensure Arizona Class I areas move closer towards the glide
path.
    While acknowledging that EPA's proposal is an improvement over the
State's plan, Earthjustice questioned whether it represents all
measures that should be taken to reduce SO2, NOX,
and PM that impair visibility at places like the Grand Canyon and the
many other renowned national parks in Arizona and the Southwest. To the
extent that it does not, Earthjustice encouraged EPA to compel further
reductions. Earthjustice stated that it is good that EPA has acted,
particularly in the earlier phase of the Arizona plan that compels
controls on the Cholla, Coronado, and Apache coal-fired power plants,
but Earthjustice asserted that given the level of impairment and
numerous sources responsible, more should be done.
    Response: As explained in our response to the previous comment, the
URP is not binding and a state or EPA can set RPGs that provide for
less progress than the URP if those RPGs are demonstrated to be
reasonable (and achievement of the URP to be unreasonable) based upon
an analysis of the four RP factors.\281\ EPA disagrees with the
Earthjustice's interpretation of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii), which
requires the State (or EPA in the case of a FIP) to implement all
measures necessary to achieve the RPG. As explained in the previous
response, due to our previous partial approval of the State's SIP, our
RP analysis is limited to point sources of NOX and area
sources of NOX and SO2. Our responses to comments
regarding specific sources are included elsewhere in this notice. As
explained in those responses, EPA does not agree that additional
controls are warranted in this implementation period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \281\ See 64 FR 35730-35731.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Other Comments on Reasonable Progress

    Comment: ADEQ commented that even though EPA has disapproved the
RPGs in Arizona's RH SIP, the Agency has been unable to develop
specific goals, except for the ones based on the WRAP modeling results.
The only thing EPA has added to the LTS for Arizona, besides new BART
or reasonable progress control requirements, was ``enforceable
measures.'' However, ADEQ asserted that many of these measures are
already in place. For example, ADEQ asserted that ``EPA admits that the
current Title V permit for the Miami Smelter provide[s] sufficient
enforceability.'' Therefore, ADEQ argued that EPA has no basis for
disapproving those portions of the Arizona RH SIP and should not impose
a FIP for that reason.
    Response: These comments largely pertain to EPA's partial
disapproval of the Arizona RH SIP and are therefore untimely, as EPA
has already taken final action on the SIP.\282\ To the extent that that
comments suggest that EPA has not fulfilled the requirements of the
RHR, we do not agree. As explained above, we are now quantifying the
RPGs that we proposed. These RPGs show greater

reasonable progress at all of the State's Class 1 areas than Arizona's
RPGs. Furthermore, we note that our FIP includes enforceable emission
limits and related requirements applicable to six different sources.
The Arizona RH SIP did not include any such enforceable measures. With
regard to the Miami Smelter in particular, as explained elsewhere in
this notice, we are incorporating the relevant NESHAP requirements as
part of the final FIP in order to ensure the federal enforceability of
ADEQ's BART determination for PM10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \282\ 78 FR 46142.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Earthjustice commented that additional PM reductions could
be achieved by using improved fabric filter materials at the cement
plants' fabric filters.
    Response: Because we previously approved the State's RP analysis
for PM, we did not evaluate additional PM controls at any sources for
purposes of our FIP. However, we note that, as detailed in CPC's
comments, the Rillito Plant will be required to improve its PM controls
in order to comply with the Portland cement MACT.

VIII. Responses to Comments on Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Comment: CPC stated that, with the exception of Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (Executive Order 13175),
the proposed FIP asserts that the statutes and executive orders (E.O.
or Order) are inapplicable in this matter, but does not adequately
explain why. With respect to Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive
Order 12866), the proposed FIP stated that it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' and is not a rule of general applicability. CPC
stated that the proposed FIP will have an adverse material effect on
several sectors of the economy, in particular the cement and copper
industries, and includes requirements that have statewide, general
applicability. According to CPC, one of the provisions of Executive
Order 12866 requires agencies to consider alternatives. CPC stated that
had the Proposed FIP considered and evaluated alternatives, such as
deferring controls on CPC during this first planning period, then it
would be possible to conduct a full and fair evaluation to see if the
benefits are worth the costs. Without this analysis of alternatives,
CPC believes the proposed FIP is incomplete. Regarding the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), CPC asserted that given the extremely high
costs to comply with the rule (about $81,000,000 for the Hayden Smelter
alone), it is likely that the aggregate costs will exceed the
$100,000,000 threshold in at least one year. Similarly, according to
CPC, when combined with the BART controls imposed by the FIP on three
power plants, annual expenditures will exceed the UMRA's threshold ``in
any one year.'' CPC stated EPA should not circumvent UMRA by
subdividing a regulatory action, in this case the adoption of a FIP,
into multiple parts. Regarding Executive Order 13563, CPC asserted that
EPA must redo the proposed FIP to establish new RPGs, and identify
controls as necessary to meet the RPGs. As part of that process,
Executive Order 13563 should be followed so that EPA identifies and
uses the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools to achieve
reasonable progress. CPC asserted that complying with the statutes and
Executive Orders governing the rulemaking process is good public policy
and the decision to disregard these principles has led to arbitrary and
capricious results.
    Response: We do not agree that our proposed FIP is inconsistent
with the requirements of any applicable Executive Orders (E.O.s) or
statutes, or that we failed to explain the applicability of these
requirements. Under E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory Action'' is defined as
``any substantive action by an agency . . . that promulgates or is
expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule or regulation.''
\283\ ``Regulation'' or ``rule,'' in turn, is defined as ``an agency
statement of general applicability and future effect.'' \284\ E.O.
12866 does not define ``statement of general applicability,'' but this
term commonly refers to statements that apply to groups or classes, as
opposed to statements which apply only to named entities. The Phase 3
partial FIP for Arizona's regional haze program is not a rule of
general applicability because its requirements are tailored to six
individually identified facilities. Thus, it is not a ``rule'' or
``regulation'' within the meaning of E.O. 12866 and this action is not
a ``regulatory action'' subject to 12866.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \283\ Executive Order 12866, 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993),
section 3(e).
    \284\ Id. section 3(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,
is supplemental to and reaffirms the principles, structures, and
definitions governing contemporary regulatory review that were
established in EO 12866. In general, the Order seeks to ensure the
regulatory process is based on the best available science; allows for
public participation and an open exchange of ideas; promotes
predictability and reduces uncertainty; identifies and uses the best,
most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory
ends; and takes into account benefits and costs, both quantitative and
qualitative. However, nothing in the Order shall be construed to impair
or otherwise affect the authority granted by law to the Agency. As
explained in our proposal, this action is not an action subject to
review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. In particular, as
explained above, this action is not a ``regulatory action'' as defined
under E.O. 12866. Nonetheless, we have followed the principles of E.O.
13563 in developing this action. We have applied the best available
science, sought information and feedback from potentially affected
sources, carefully considered costs and benefits, provided a public
comment period and two public hearings, and offered flexibility on
compliance mechanisms (e.g., a BART alternative for TEP Sundt,
performance standards rather than emissions standards for the copper
smelters, adjusted averaging times for the Nelson Lime Plant, and the
option of annual emission limits for the cement plants).
    Under section 202 of UMRA, before promulgating any final rule for
which a general notice of proposed rulemaking was published, EPA must
prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, if that
rule includes any ``Federal mandates'' that may result in expenditures
to state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the
private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted for inflation) in any
one year. As of 2013, the inflation-adjusted threshold was $150
million.\285\ UMRA defines the term ``Federal private sector mandate''
to mean any provision in regulation that would impose an enforceable
duty upon the private sector. Under UMRA, the term ``regulation'' or
``rule'' means any rule for which the agency publishes a general notice
of proposed rulemaking. This final rule is limited to addressing the
remaining requirements of the RHR for Arizona and does not include
other regional haze actions occurring in separate rulemakings. We
estimate that the total annual costs of this rulemaking action will not
exceed $32,012,772.\286\

Even if this were added to the annual costs of our prior Phase 1 FIP
for Arizona ($65 million), the total cost is still less than the
inflation-adjusted annual threshold. Furthermore, the cost estimates we
have provided are based on conservative assumptions (i.e., tending to
overestimate rather than underestimate costs) and do not account for
the fact that certain controls (e.g., SO2 controls for the
smelters) may be required under other provisions of the CAA prior to
the implementation deadlines in this FIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \285\ See http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45209.
    \286\ See ``Summary of Costs for Final Rule: Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; Regional Haze and Interstate
Visibility Transport Federal Implementation Plan, EPA-R09-OAR-2013-
0588.'' We do not agree with the commenter that we should use total
capital costs instead of annualized costs. The UMRA threshold is
based on annual costs. It is not known in exactly which year capital
costs associated with controls would be incurred. Thus it is not
possible to allocate these costs to specific years. Instead, our
total annual cost estimate includes both annualized capital costs
and variable annual costs (i.e., operation and maintenance costs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: One commenter (Representative Gosar) expressed concern
that the proposed FIP does not adequately assess the potential negative
economic impacts on small businesses. The commenter noted that EPA
states in the Federal Register that this proposed rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses
as none of the facilities subject to this proposed rule are owned by a
small entity. While conceding that the six facilities addressed in the
FIP are technically not small businesses, the commenter asserted that
the rule will harm small businesses with services that are dependent on
the facilities. The commenter contended that putting these facilities
out of business or causing them to increase their rates to pay for the
new technology mandates will certainly have a trickle-down effect on a
significant number of small businesses.
    Response: This comment appears to refer to EPA's certification
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) that the FIP will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Courts have interpreted the RFA to require a regulatory flexibility
analysis only when a substantial number of small entities will be
subject to the requirements of the Agency's action.\287\ None of the
facilities subject to this rule is owned by a small entity.\288\ Thus,
no regulatory flexibility analysis is required. Nonetheless, EPA sought
comments regarding the cost of controls from all entities affected by
this action and carefully considered all relevant information. None of
the affected entities, nor any other commenter, has provided any
evidence that the requirements of today's rule would cause any company
to go out of business. As described elsewhere, this final action is
necessary to achieve the objectives of the CAA and RHR based on our
determination that the visibility improvements justify the costs of
this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \287\ See, e.g., Mid-Tex Elec. Co-op, Inc. v. FERC, 773 F.2d
327, 342 (D.C. Cir. 1985).
    \288\ See Regulatory Flexibility Act Screening Analysis for
Proposed Arizona Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan (EPA-R09-
OAR-2013-0588).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IX. Responses to Other Comments

A. Comments on Preamble Language

    Comment: LNA recommended a number of corrections and clarifications
to the preamble language in our proposed rule published on February 18,
2014.
    Response: We acknowledge the corrections and clarifications from
LNA. While we cannot revise the text of the proposal preamble, we have
addressed the substantive issues identified by LNA in our responses to
comments in this final rule.

B. Comments on Rule Language

    Comment: Two commenters (LNA and ASARCO) suggested various
corrections and clarifications to the proposed rule language.
    Response: We acknowledge the corrections and clarifications
suggested by LNA and ASARCO. We have addressed the substantive issues
identified by LNA and ASARCO in our responses to comments in this final
rule. Where we agree with LNA's and ASARCO's suggestions, we have made
the appropriate revisions to the regulatory text.

C. Comments on Other Benefits of the Regional Haze Program

    Comment: Two commenters expressed concern about the health effects
of the pollutants that cause or contribute to regional haze.
Earthjustice stated that, in addition to improving visibility, the
regional haze program for Arizona will yield significant public health
benefits if properly implemented. Earthjustice noted that the same
pollutants that impair scenic views at national parks and wilderness
areas also cause significant public health impacts, including the
following:
     NOX is a precursor to ground level ozone, which
is associated with respiratory diseases, asthma attacks, and decreased
lung function.
     NOX also reacts with ammonia, moisture, and
other compounds to form particulates that can cause and worsen
respiratory diseases, aggravate heart disease, and lead to premature
death.
     SO2 increases asthma symptoms, leads to
increased hospital visits, and can form particulates that aggravate
respiratory and heart diseases and cause premature death.
     PM can penetrate deep into the lungs and cause a host of
health problems, such as aggravated asthma and heart attacks.
    Earthjustice believes that Arizona's regional haze program will
reduce the serious public health toll imposed on Arizonans by the
State's power plants, copper smelters, and other sources of pollution.
    A private citizen expressed concerns specifically about the health
effects that are a result of burning coal, which the commenter said is
a form of energy that leads to some of the worst air pollution compared
to renewable energy sources such as wind, solar and geothermal power.
The commenter said that 87 percent of NOX emissions, 94
percent of SO2 emissions, and 98 percent of mercury
emissions from the utility sector are from utilities that burn coal.
The commenter discussed the health effects of these pollutants and
specifically mentioned the negative health effects of NOX,
which can cause throat irritation at low levels of exposure and serious
damage to the tissues in the respiratory tract, fluid buildup in the
lungs, and death at high levels of exposure.
    Response: We agree that the same pollutants that contribute to haze
also cause significant public health problems and that to the extent
that this FIP reduces these pollutants, there are co-benefits for
public health. However, for purposes of this regional haze action, we
have not considered these benefits.
    Comment: Earthjustice stated the regional haze program for Arizona
will provide substantial economic benefits, noting that EPA values the
regional haze program's health benefits nationally at $8.4 to $9.8
billion annually. Earthjustice also noted that requiring sources to
invest in modern pollution controls is a job-creating mechanism in
itself, as each installation creates short-term construction jobs, as
well as permanent operations and management positions. Earthjustice
pointed out that the regional haze program protects national parks and
wilderness areas, which are of great natural and cultural value, as
well as serving to sustain local economies. According to Earthjustice,
in 2012 more than 4.4 million people visited the Grand Canyon. This
tourism supported more than 6,000 jobs and resulted in more than $453
million in visitor spending. Another example is that over 1.2 million
people visited Petrified Forest and Saguaro National Parks in 2012,
which supported more than 1,000 jobs and resulted in more than $76
million in visitor spending. Earthjustice added that studies show that
national park visitors prioritize

enjoying beautiful scenery when visiting national parks and will visit
parks less during hazy conditions. Earthjustice concluded that the
Arizona regional haze program will noticeably improve visibility at
Arizona's national parks, and thereby increase revenue to the parks and
surrounding communities.
    Response: We agree that our action today, together with prior
actions by the State and EPA, will provide economic benefits. However,
for purposes of this action, we have not calculated these benefits.
    Comment: Earthjustice stated the regional haze program for Arizona
will provide important environmental benefits because in addition to
impairing visibility, NOX, SO2, and PM pollution
harms plants and animals, soil health, and entire ecosystems in the
following ways:
     NOX and SO2 are the primary causes
of acid rain, which acidifies lakes and streams and can damage certain
types of trees and soils. Acid rain also accelerates the decay of
building materials and paints, including irreplaceable buildings and
statues that are part of our nation's cultural heritage.
     Nitrogen deposition, caused by wet and dry deposition of
nitrates derived from NOX emissions, causes well-known
adverse impacts on ecological systems. At times, nitrogen deposition
exceeds ``critical loads'' beyond the tolerance of various ecosystems.
     NOX is also a precursor to ozone. Ground-level
ozone affects plants and ecosystems by interfering with plants' ability
to produce food and increasing susceptibility to disease and insects.
Ozone also contributes to wildfires and bark beetle outbreaks in the
West by depressing plant water levels and growth.
    Response: We agree that NOX, SO2, and PM can
have negative impacts on plants and ecosystems. However, while we note
the potential for co-benefits to ecosystem health resulting from our
action today, we have not taken these potential benefits into account
in this action.

D. Miscellaneous Comments

    Comment: PCC incorporated by reference its previous comments on
EPA's proposal for partial approval and partial disapproval of
Arizona's RH SIP published in a final rule dated July 30, 2013. PCC
also incorporated the comments that ADEQ made on EPA's proposed action
on the Arizona RH SIP. ADEQ's comments were in regard to federalism and
deference that EPA owes to the State's decision-making under the
regional haze provisions of the CAA, especially as they relate to non-
BART sources of NOX and PCC's facility in particular.
    Response: To the extent that previous comments from PCC and ADEQ
regarding our Phase 2 SIP action are relevant here, we incorporate by
reference our responses to those comments in the final SIP rule
published on July 30, 2013.\289\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \289\ 78 FR 46142.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: One private citizen acknowledged EPA's proposal addressing
regional haze in Arizona, but submitted comments regarding controlled
burns that occur in the White Mountain area of North Arizona, and in
other areas of the country.
    Response: We agree that wildfires also contribute to regional haze.
However, today's rule does not address wildfires. We will continue to
work with the State to address emissions from wildfires.
    Comment: One private citizen pointed out that natural resources
come in two forms, and some are finite, including coal and natural gas.
The commenter noted that as those run out, we have to come up with
other sources of energy, so we might as well start thinking about that
sooner rather than later. The commenter went on to say that he would
rather pay more for energy or not have technology at all if it is going
to have a negative effect on health and medical costs. The commenter
asked that EPA provide information, not only about the science, but
also the social science of using finite resources.
    Response: This comment is not relevant to this rulemaking.

X. Summary of Final Action

A. Regional Haze

    EPA's is promulgating a FIP to address the remaining portions of
the Arizona RH SIP that we disapproved on July 30, 2013. This final
rule establishes limits on NOX and SO2 emissions
at four BART sources and on NOX emissions at two RP sources.
We estimate that these emission limits on all six facilities will
result in total annual emission reductions of about 2,900 tons/year of
NOX and 29,300 tons/year of SO2 as shown in Table
12. While the rule also establishes emission limits for PM10
on the four BART facilities, these limits are based on existing
controls.

                Table 12--Emissions Reductions by Source
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Emission reductions
                                   Control             (tons/year)
            Source                technology   -------------------------
                                                    NOX          SO2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sundt Unit 4 (BART)..........  SNCR and DSI...          393        1,502
Nelson Lime Plant Kilns 1 and  SNCR and Lower           983          925
 2.                             sulfur fuel.
Hayden Smelter (multiple       Amine scrubber   ...........       20,036
 units).                        for secondary
                                capture.
Miami Smelter (multiple        Improve primary  ...........        6,845
 units).                        and new
                                secondary
                                capture
                                systems,
                                additional
                                controls as
                                needed.
PCC Clarkdale Plant Kiln 4...  SNCR...........          810  ...........
CPC Rillito Plant Kiln 4.....  SNCR...........          729  ...........
                                               -------------------------
Total........................  ...............        2,915       29,308
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimated costs associated with the NOX and
SO2 emission reductions are shown in Tables 13 and 14 for
each of the six sources, and are based on the control technology
corresponding with the final emission limits.

                                   Table 13--Summary of Costs for NOX Controls
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Annualized                         Total           Cost-
             Source                Capital cost    capital cost   Annual O&M  ($/   annualized     effectiveness
                                        ($)          ($/year)          year)      cost  ($/year)      ($/ton)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TEP Sundt Unit 4................      $3,079,089        $290,644        $975,124      $1,265,768          $3,222
Nelson Lime Plant Kiln 1........         450,000         42, 477         358,459         400,936             817
Nelson Lime Plant Kiln 2........         450,000          42,477         354,981         397,458             807
Phoenix Cement Kiln 4...........       1,500,000         140,000         800,000         940,000           1,162
CalPortland Cement Kiln 4.......       1,300,000         128,000       1,220,000       1,350,000           1,850
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                   Table 14--Summary of Costs for SO2 Controls
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Annualized                         Total           Cost-
             Source                Capital cost    capital cost   Annual O&M  ($/   annualized     effectiveness
                                        ($)          ($/year)          year)      cost  ($/year)      ($/ton)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TEP Sundt Unit 4................      $3,250,000        $306,777      $2,482,107      $2,788,884          $1,857
Nelson Lime Plant Kiln 1........  ..............  ..............         313,096         313,096             856
Nelson Lime Plant Kiln 2........  ..............  ..............         458,179         458,179             819
Hayden Smelter..................      85,000,000       8,023,399       9,300,000      17,323,399             865
Miami Smelter...................      47,850,000       4,516,701       2,258,351       6,775,052             990
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on air quality modeling, the emission reductions should
result in improved visibility at 17 Class I areas in four states,
including Arizona. The maximum and cumulative visibility benefits
(i.e., the sum of benefits over affected areas) are shown in Table 15
for each source and type of control.

                                    Table 15--Summary of Visibility Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Maximum       Cumulative
                                                  visibility      visibility
                    Source                         benefit,         benefit            Control technology
                                                  (deciviews)     (deciviews)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sundt Unit 4..................................            0.49             1.4  SNCR and DSI.
Sundt Unit 4: BART Alternative................            1.06             2.7  Natural gas.
Nelson Lime Plant Kilns 1 and 2 (NOX).........            0.58            0.85  SNCR.
Nelson Lime Plant Kilns 1 and 2 (SO2).........            0.10            0.29  Lower sulfur fuel.
Hayden Smelter (multiple units)...............            1.44            10.2  Amine scrubber for secondary
                                                                                capture.
Miami Smelter (multiple units)................            0.41             1.7  Improve primary and new
                                                                                secondary capture systems,
                                                                                additional controls as needed.
PCC Clarkdale Plant Kiln 4....................       0.52-1.85        1.7-3.0.  SNCR
CPC Rillito Plant Kiln 4......................            0.18             0.6  SNCR.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This final rule, along with the previously approved portions of the
Arizona RH SIP and a previously finalized FIP, constitute Arizona's
regional haze implementation plan for the first planning period that
ends in 2018.

B. Interstate Transport

    We also are finalizing our determination that the interstate
transport visibility requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the
1997 8-hour ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS is satisfied by a combination of measures in the Arizona RH SIP
and FIP. These measures are in the approved portions of the Arizona RH
SIP and in our two FIP actions, this final rule and our final rule on
December 5, 2012.

XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action finalizes a Regional Haze FIP for six individually
named facilities in Arizona. This action is not a rule of general
applicability and therefore not a ``regulatory action'' under the terms
of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). This type
of action is exempt from review under EO 12866 and is therefore not
subject to review under Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Because this action will finalize
a Regional Haze FIP for only six facilities in Arizona, the Paperwork
Reduction Act does not apply. See 5 CFR 1320.3(c). An agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OMB control numbers
for our regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies

that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of this 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.
    After considering the economic impacts of this action on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final
rule will not impose any requirements on small entities. None of the
facilities subject to this rule is owned by a small entity.\290\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \290\ See Regulatory Flexibility Act Screening Analysis for
Proposed Arizona Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan (EPA-R09-
OAR-2013-0588).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4,
establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and
the private sector. Under section 202 of UMRA, EPA generally must
prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for
proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that may result in
expenditures to State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or to the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted for
inflation) in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a
written statement is needed, section 205 of UMRA generally requires EPA
to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives
and to adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of
section 205 of UMRA do not apply when they are inconsistent with
applicable law. Moreover, section 205 of UMRA allows EPA to adopt an
alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least
burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final
rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA
establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, including Tribal governments, it
must have developed under section 203 of UMRA a small government agency
plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small
governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have
meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
    Under Title II of UMRA, EPA has determined that this rule does not
contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures that exceed
the inflation-adjusted UMRA threshold of $100 million (in 1996 dollars)
by State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector in any 1
year. In addition, this rule does not contain a significant Federal
intergovernmental mandate as described by section 203 of UMRA nor does
it contain any regulatory requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This rule 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132. In this
action, EPA is fulfilling our statutory duty under CAA Section 110(c)
to promulgate a partial Regional Haze FIP. Thus, Executive Order 13132
does not apply to this action.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    Subject to the Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000) EPA may not issue a regulation that has tribal implications, that
imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required
by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary
to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by tribal governments, or
EPA consults with tribal officials early in the process of developing
the proposed regulation and develops a tribal summary impact statement.
    EPA has concluded that this action will have tribal implications,
because it will impose substantial direct compliance costs on tribal
governments and the Federal government will not provide the funds
necessary to pay those costs. PCC is a division of Salt River Pima
Maricopa Indian Community (SRPMIC or the Community) and profits from
the Phoenix Cement Clarkdale Plant are used to provide government
services to SRPMIC's members. Therefore, EPA is providing the following
tribal summary impact statement as required by section 5(b).
    EPA consulted with tribal officials early in the process of
developing this regulation so that they could have meaningful and
timely input into its development. In November 2012, we shared our
initial analyses with SRPMIC and PCC to ensure that the tribe had an
early opportunity to provide feedback on potential controls at the
Clarkdale Plant. PCC submitted comments on this initial analysis as
part of the rulemaking on the Arizona Regional Haze SIP and we revised
our initial analysis based on these comments. On November 6, 2013, the
EPA Region 9 Regional Administrator met with the President and other
representatives of SRPMIC to discuss the potential impacts of the FIP
on SRPMIC. Following this meeting, staff from EPA, SPRMIC and PCC
shared further information regarding the Plant and potential impacts of
the FIP on SRPMIC.\291\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \291\ See Memorandum to Docket: Summary of Communications and
Consultation between EPA, PCC and SRPMIC (January 27, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our February 18, 2014 proposal, EPA proposed to require
installation of SNCR at Kiln 4 at the Clarkdale Plant by December 31,
2018 and sought comment on the possibility of establishing an annual
cap on NOX emissions from Kiln 4 in lieu of a lb/ton
emission limit. We explained that an annual cap would allow SRPMIC to
delay installation of controls until the Plant's production returns to
pre-recession levels and would thus help to address the Community's
concerns about the budgetary impacts of control requirements.
    In its comments on the proposal, PCC expressed support for the cap
``as long as the final FIP expressly provides that it would be at PCC's
election whether to meet this cap effective December 31, 2018 or
instead meet the applicable lbs/ton limit effective December 31,
2018.'' \292\ EPA subsequently requested clarification of this request
from PCC.\293\ On May 22, 2014, SRPMIC submitted a letter to EPA
describing a proposal that would enable PCC to elect either emission
limit and subsequently switch from one to other every five years. In
response, EPA suggested that, if SRPMIC wished to change the emission

limit after 2018, it could seek to do so through a SIP revision.\294\
Consistent with this approach, in this final rule SRPMIC must elect
which limit (i.e. either the lb/ton limit or the ton/year limit) by
June 30, 2018. After that point, SRPMIC may seek to change the limit
through a revision to the Arizona SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \292\ PCC Comment Letter at 2.
    \293\ See Memo to Final--Communications with PCC and SRPMIC.
    \294\ Email from Colleen McKaughan to Verle Martz (May 30,
2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to
any rule that: (1) Is determined to be economically significant as
defined under Executive Order 12866; and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that we have reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. EPA interprets EO 13045 as
applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety
risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO
has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not
subject to EO 13045 because it implements specific standards
established by Congress in statutes. Also, because this action only
applies to six sources and is not a rule of general applicability, it
is not economically significant as defined under Executive Order 12866,
and the rule also does not have a disproportionate effect on children.
However, to the extent this action will limit emissions of
NOX, SO2, and PM10, the rule will have
a beneficial effect on children's health by reducing air pollution that
causes or exacerbates childhood asthma and other respiratory issues.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, 12(10) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures and
business practices) that are developed or adopted by the VCS bodies.
The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through annual reports to
OMB, with explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable VCS. This action does not require the public to perform
activities conducive to the use of VCS.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    We have determined that this rule will not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or
low-income populations because it increases the level of environmental
protection for all affected populations without having any
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on any population, including any minority or low-income
population. This rule limits emissions of NOX,
PM10, and SO2 from six facilities in Arizona.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types
of rules: (1) Rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to
agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization,
procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or
obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not required
to submit a rule report regarding this action under section 801 because
this is a rule of particular applicability that only applies to six
named facilities.

L. 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 November 3, 2014. 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, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Sulfur
dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Visibility, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: June 27, 2014.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, 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 adding paragraphs (i), (j), (k), (l), and (m)
and appendices (A) and (B) to read as follow:

Sec.  52.145  Visibility protection.

* * * * *
    (i) Source-specific federal implementation plan for regional haze
at Nelson Lime Plant--(1) Applicability. This paragraph (i) applies to
the owner/operator of the lime kilns designated as Kiln 1 and Kiln 2 at
the Nelson Lime Plant located in Yavapai County, Arizona.
    (2) Definitions. Terms not defined in this paragraph (i)(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 (i):

    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 (DAHS)), a permanent
record of NOX emissions, SO2 emissions, diluent,
and stack gas volumetric flow rate.
    Kiln means either of the kilns identified in paragraph (i)(1) of
this section.
    Kiln 1 means lime kiln 1, as identified in paragraph (i)(1) of this
section.
    Kiln 2 means lime kiln 2, as identified in paragraph (i)(1) of this
section.
    Kiln operating day means a 24-hour period between 12 midnight and
the following midnight during which there is operation of Kiln 1, Kiln
2, or both kilns 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.
    Lime product means the product of the lime-kiln calcination
process, including calcitic lime, dolomitic lime, and dead-burned
dolomite.
    NOX means oxides of nitrogen.
    Owner/operator means any person who owns or who operates, controls,
or supervises a kiln identified in paragraph (i)(1) of this section.
    SO2 means sulfur dioxide.
    (3) Emission limitations. (i) The owner/operator of the kilns
identified in paragraph (i)(1) of this section shall not emit or cause
to be emitted pollutants in excess of the following limitations in
pounds of pollutant per ton of lime product (lb/ton), from any kiln.
Each emission limit shall be based on a 12-month rolling basis.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Kiln ID
----------------------------------------------------- Pollutant emission
               NOX                        SO2                limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kiln 1..........................  3.80..............  9.32
Kiln 2..........................  2.61..............  9.73
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) The owner/operator of the kilns identified in paragraph (i)(1)
of this section shall not emit or cause to be emitted pollutants in
excess of 3.27 tons of NOX per day and 10.10 tons of
SO2 per day, combined from both kilns, based on a rolling
30-kiln-operating-day basis.
    (iii) In addition, if the owner/operator installs an ammonia
injection system to comply with the limits specified in paragraph
(i)(3) of this section, the owner/operator shall also comply with the
control technology demonstration requirements set forth in paragraph
(i)(5) of this section.
    (4) Compliance dates. (i) The owner/operator of each kiln shall
comply with the NOX emission limitations and other
NOX-related requirements of this paragraph (i) no later than
September 4, 2017.
    (ii) The owner/operator of each kiln shall comply with the
SO2 emission limitations and other SO2-related
requirements of this paragraph (i) no later than March 3, 2016.
    (5) Control technology demonstration requirements. If the owner/
operator of a kiln installs an ammonia injection system to comply with
the limits specified in paragraph (i)(3) of this section, the owner/
operator must comply with the following requirements for implementing
combustion and process optimization measures.
    (i) Design report. Prior to commencing construction of an ammonia
injection system used to comply with the limits specified in paragraph
(i)(3) of this section, the owner/operator shall submit to EPA for
review a Design Report as described in Appendix B of this section.
    (ii) Optimization protocol. Prior to commencement of the
Optimization Program, the owner/operator shall submit to EPA for review
an Optimization Protocol which shall include the procedures, as
described in Appendix B of this section, to be used during the
Optimization Program for the purpose of adjusting operating parameters
and minimizing emissions.
    (iii) Optimization period. Following EPA review of the Optimization
Protocol, the owner/operator shall operate the ammonia injection system
and collect data in accordance with the Optimization Protocol. The
owner/operator shall operate the ammonia injection system in such a
manner for no longer than 180 kiln operating days, or the duration
specified in the Optimization Protocol, whichever is longer in
duration.
    (iv) Optimization report. Within 60 calendar days following the
conclusion of the Optimization Program, the owner/operator shall submit
to EPA for review an Optimization Report, as described in Appendix B of
this section, demonstrating conformance with the Optimization Protocol,
and establishing optimized operating parameters for the ammonia
injection system as well as other facility processes.
    (v) Demonstration period. Following EPA review of the Optimization
Report, the owner/operator shall operate the ammonia injection system
consistent with the optimized operations of the facility and ammonia
injection system specified in the Optimization Report. The owner/
operator shall operate the ammonia injection system in such a manner
for a period of 360 kiln operating days, or the duration specified in
the Optimization Report, whichever is longer. The Demonstration Period
may be shortened or lengthened as provided for in appendix B of this
section.
    (vi) Demonstration report. Within 60 calendar days following the
conclusion of the Demonstration Program, the owner/operator shall
submit a Demonstration Report, as described in appendix B of this
section, which identifies a proposed rolling 12-month emission limit
for NOX. In a subsequent regulatory action, EPA may seek to
lower the NOX emission limits in paragraph (i)(3) of this
section in view of, among other things, the information contained in
the Demonstration Report. The proposed rolling 12-month emission limit
shall be calculated in accordance with the following formula:

X = [mu] + 1.65[sigma]

Where:

X = Rolling 12-month emission limit, in pounds of NOX per
ton of lime product;
[mu] = Arithmetic mean of all of the rolling 12-month emission
rates;
[sigma] = Standard deviation of all of the rolling 12-month emission
rates, as calculated in the following manner:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03SE14.001

Where:

N = The total number of rolling 12-month emission rates;
xi = Each rolling 12-month emission rate;
x = The mean value of all of the rolling 12-month emission rates.

    (6) Compliance determination--(i) Continuous emission monitoring
system. At all times after the compliance dates specified in paragraph
(i)(4) of this section, the owner/operator of kilns 1 and 2 shall
maintain, calibrate, and operate a CEMS, in full compliance with the
requirements found at 40 CFR 60.13 and 40 CFR part 60, appendices B and
F, to accurately measure diluent, stack gas volumetric flow rate, and
concentration by volume of NOX and SO2 emissions
into the atmosphere from kilns 1 and 2. The CEMS shall be used by the
owner/operator to determine compliance with the emission limitations in
paragraph (i)(3) of this section, in combination with data on actual
lime production. The owner/

operator must operate the monitoring system and collect data at all
required intervals at all times that an affected kiln 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) Ammonia consumption monitoring. Upon and after the completion
of installation of ammonia injection on a kiln, the owner or operator
shall install, and thereafter maintain and operate, instrumentation to
continuously monitor and record levels of ammonia consumption for that
kiln.
    (iii) Compliance determination for lb per ton NOX limit. Compliance
with the NOX emission limits described in paragraph
(i)(3)(i) of this section shall be determined based on a rolling 12-
month basis. The 12-month rolling NOX emission rate for each
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, sum the total
lime product, in tons, produced during the month just completed and the
eleven (11) months preceding the month just completed to calculate the
total lime product produced over the most recent twelve (12) month
period for that kiln; Step three, divide the total amount of
NOX calculated from Step one by the total lime product
calculated from Step two to calculate the 12-month rolling
NOX emission rate for that kiln. Each 12-month rolling
NOX emission rate shall include all emissions and all lime
product that occur during all periods within the 12-month period,
including emissions from startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
    (iv) Compliance determination for lb per ton SO2 limit. Compliance
with the SO2 emission limits described in paragraph
(i)(3)(i) of this section shall be determined based on a rolling 12-
month basis. The 12-month rolling SO2 emission rate for each
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 SO2 emitted for the month just
completed and the eleven (11) months preceding the month just completed
to calculate the total pounds of SO2 emitted over the most
recent twelve (12) month period for that kiln; Step two, sum the total
lime product, in tons, produced during the month just completed and the
eleven (11) months preceding the month just completed to calculate the
total lime product produced over the most recent twelve (12) month
period for that kiln; Step three, divide the total amount of
SO2 calculated from Step one by the total lime product
calculated from Step two to calculate the 12-month rolling
SO2 emission rate for that kiln. Each 12-month rolling
SO2 emission rate shall include all emissions and all lime
product that occur during all periods within the 12-month period,
including emissions from startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
    (v) Compliance determination for ton per day NOX limit. Compliance
with the NOX emission limit described in paragraph
(i)(3)(ii) of this section shall be determined based on a rolling 30-
kiln-operating-day basis. The rolling 30-kiln operating day
NOX emission rate for the kilns shall be calculated for each
kiln operating day in accordance with the following procedure: Step
one, sum the hourly pounds of NOX emitted from both kilns
for the current kiln operating day and the preceding twenty-nine (29)
kiln-operating-day period for both kilns; Step two, divide the total
pounds of NOX calculated from Step one by two thousand
(2,000) to calculate the total tons of NOX; Step three,
divide the total tons of NOX calculated from Step two by
thirty (30) to calculate the rolling 30-kiln operating day
NOX emission rate for both kilns. Each rolling 30-kiln
operating day NOX emission rate shall include all emissions
that occur from both kilns during all periods within any kiln operating
day, including emissions from startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
    (vi) Compliance determination for ton per day SO2 limit. Compliance
with the SO2 emission limit described in paragraph
(i)(3)(ii) of this section shall be determined based on a rolling 30-
kiln-operating-day basis. The rolling 30-kiln operating day
SO2 emission rate for the kilns shall be calculated for each
kiln operating day in accordance with the following procedure: Step
one, sum the hourly pounds of SO2 emitted from both kilns
for the current kiln operating day and the preceding twenty-nine (29)
kiln operating days, to calculate the total pounds of SO2
emitted over the most recent thirty (30) kiln operating day period for
both kilns; Step two, divide the total pounds of SO2
calculated from Step one by two thousand (2,000) to calculate the total
tons of SO2; Step three, divide the total tons of
SO2 calculated from Step two by thirty (30) to calculate the
rolling 30-kiln operating day SO2 emission rate for both
kilns. Each rolling 30-kiln operating day SO2 emission rate
shall include all emissions that occur from both kilns during all
periods within any kiln operating day, including emissions from
startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
    (7) Recordkeeping. The owner/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; parameters sampled or measured; and results.
    (ii) All records of lime production.
    (iii) Monthly rolling 12-month emission rates of NOX and
SO2, calculated in accordance with paragraphs (i)(6)(iii)
and (iv) of this section.
    (iv) Daily rolling 30-kiln operating day emission rates of
NOX and SO2 calculated in accordance with
paragraphs (i)(6)(v) and (vi) of this section.
    (v) 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, as well as the
following:
    (A) The occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or
malfunction, performance testing, evaluations, calibrations, checks,
adjustments maintenance, duration of any periods during which a CEMS or
COMS is inoperative, and corresponding emission measurements.
    (B) Date, place, and time of measurement or monitoring equipment
maintenance activity;
    (C) Operating conditions at the time of measurement or monitoring
equipment maintenance activity;
    (D) Date, place, name of company or entity that performed the
measurement or monitoring equipment maintenance activity and the
methods used; and
    (E) Results of the measurement or monitoring equipment maintenance.
    (vi) Records of ammonia consumption, as recorded by the
instrumentation required in paragraph (i)(6)(ii) of this section.
    (vii) Records of all major maintenance activities conducted on
emission units, air pollution control equipment, CEMS, and lime
production measurement devices.
    (viii) All other records specified by 40 CFR part 60, appendix F,
Procedure 1.
    (8) Reporting. All reports required under this section shall be
submitted by the owner/operator to the Director,

Enforcement Division (Mail Code ENF-2-1), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-
3901. All reports required under this section shall be submitted within
30 days after the applicable compliance date(s) in paragraph (i)(4) 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 daily
rolling 30-kiln operating day emission rates for NOX and
SO2, calculated in accordance with paragraphs (i)(6)(iii)
and (iv) of this section.
    (ii) The owner/operator shall submit a report that lists the
monthly rolling 12-month emission rates for NOX and
SO2, calculated in accordance with paragraphs (i)(6)(v) and
(vi) of this section.
    (iii) The owner/operator shall submit excess emissions reports for
NOX and SO2 limits. Excess emissions means
emissions that exceed any of the emissions limits specified in
paragraph (i)(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 kiln; the nature
and cause of any malfunction (if known); and the corrective action
taken or preventative measures adopted.
    (iv) The owner/operator shall submit a summary of CEMS operation,
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.
    (v) The owner/operator shall submit results of all CEMS performance
tests required by 40 CFR part 60, appendix F, Procedure 1 (Relative
Accuracy Test Audits, Relative Accuracy Audits, and Cylinder Gas
Audits).
    (vi) 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 semiannual
report.
    (9) Notifications. All notifications required under this section
shall be submitted by the owner/operator to the Director, Enforcement
Division (Mail Code ENF-2-1), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901.
    (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 (i)(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.
    (10) Equipment operations. (i) At all times, including periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction, the owner/operator shall, to the
extent practicable, maintain and operate the kilns, 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 kilns.
    (ii) After completion of installation of ammonia injection on a
kiln, the owner/operator shall inject sufficient ammonia to achieve
compliance with the NOX emission limits from paragraph
(i)(3) of this section for that kiln while preventing excessive ammonia
emissions.
    (11) Enforcement. Notwithstanding any other provision in this
implementation plan, any credible evidence or information relevant as
to whether the kiln 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/operator
has violated or is in violation of any standard or applicable emission
limit in the plan.
    (j) Source-specific federal implementation plan for regional haze
at H. Wilson Sundt Generating Station--(1) Applicability. This
paragraph (j) applies to the owner/operator of the electricity
generating unit (EGU) designated as Unit I4 at the H. Wilson Sundt
Generating Station located in Tucson, Pima County, Arizona.
    (2) Definitions. Terms not defined in this paragraph (j)(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 (j):
    Ammonia injection shall include any of the following: Anhydrous
ammonia, aqueous ammonia, or urea injection.
    Boiler operating day means a 24-hour period between 12 midnight and
the following midnight during which any fuel is combusted at any time
in the unit.
    Continuous emission monitoring system or CEMS means the equipment
required by 40 CFR part 75 and this paragraph (j).
    MMBtu means one million British thermal units.
    Natural gas means a naturally occurring fluid mixture of
hydrocarbons as defined in 40 CFR 72.2.
    NOX means oxides of nitrogen.
    Owner/operator means any person who owns or who operates, controls,
or supervises the EGU identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this section.PM
means total filterable particulate matter.
    PM10 means total particulate matter less than 10 microns in
diameter.
    SO2 means sulfur dioxide.
    Unit means the EGU identified paragraph (j)(1) of this section.
    (3) Emission limitations. The owner/operator of the unit shall not
emit or cause to be emitted pollutants in excess of the following
limitations, in pounds of pollutant per million British thermal units
(lb/MMBtu), from the subject unit.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Pollutant
                        Pollutant                         emission limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX.....................................................           0.36
PM......................................................           0.030
SO2.....................................................           0.23
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (4) Alternative emission limitations. The owner/operator of the
unit may choose to comply with the following limitations in lieu of the
emission limitations listed in paragraph (j)(3) of this section.
    (i) The owner/operator of the unit shall combust only natural gas
or natural gas combined with landfill gas in the subject unit.
    (ii) The owner/operator of the unit shall not emit or cause to be
emitted pollutants in excess of the following limitations, in pounds of
pollutant per million British thermal units (lb/MMBtu), from the
subject unit.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Pollutant
                        Pollutant                         emission limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX.....................................................           0.25
PM10....................................................           0.010
SO2.....................................................           0.057
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (iii) If the results of the initial performance test conducted in
accordance with paragraph (j)(8)(iv) of this section show
PM10 emissions greater than the limit in paragraph
(j)(4)(ii) of this section, the owner/operator may elect to comply with
an emission limit equal to the result of the initial performance test,
in lieu of the PM10 emission limit in paragraph (j)(4)(ii).
    (5) Compliance dates. (i) The owner/operator of the unit subject to
this paragraph (j)(5) shall comply with the NOX and
SO2 emission limitations of paragraph (j)(3) of this section
no later than September 4, 2017.
    (ii) The owner/operator of the unit subject to this paragraph
(j)(5) shall comply with the PM emission limitation of paragraph (j)(3)
of this section no later than April 16, 2015.
    (6) Alternative compliance dates. If the owner/operator chooses to
comply with paragraph (j)(4) of this section in lieu of paragraph
(j)(3) of this section, the owner/operator of the unit shall comply
with the NOX, SO2, and PM10 emission
limitations of paragraph (j)(4) of this section no later than December
31, 2017.
    (7) Compliance determination--(i) Continuous emission monitoring
system. (A) At all times after the compliance date specified in
paragraph (j)(5)(i) of this section, the owner/operator of the unit
shall maintain, calibrate, and operate CEMS, in full compliance with
the requirements found at 40 CFR part 75, to accurately measure
SO2, NOX, diluent, and stack gas volumetric flow
rate from the unit. All valid CEMS hourly data shall be used to
determine compliance with the emission limitations for NOX
and SO2 in paragraph (j)(3) of this section. When the CEMS
is out-of-control as defined by 40 CFR part 75, the CEMS data shall be
treated as missing data and not used to calculate the emission average.
Each required CEMS must obtain valid data for at least 90 percent of
the unit operating hours, on an annual basis.
    (B) The owner/operator of the unit shall comply with the quality
assurance procedures for CEMS found in 40 CFR part 75. In addition to
the requirements in part 75 of this chapter, relative accuracy test
audits shall be calculated for both the NOX and
SO2 pounds per hour measurement and the heat input
measurement. The CEMS monitoring data shall not be bias adjusted.
Calculations of relative accuracy for lb/hour of NOX,
SO2, and heat input shall be performed each time the CEMS
undergo relative accuracy testing.
    (ii) Ammonia consumption monitoring. 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 consumption for that
unit.
    (iii) Compliance determination for NOX. Compliance with the
NOX emission limit described in paragraph (j)(3) of this
section shall be determined based on a rolling 30 boiler-operating-day
basis. The 30-boiler-operating-day rolling NOX emission rate
for the unit shall be calculated for each boiler operating day in
accordance with the following procedure: Step one, sum the hourly
pounds of NOX emitted for the current boiler operating day
and the preceding twenty-nine (29) boiler operating days to calculate
the total pounds of NOX emitted over the most recent thirty
(30) boiler-operating-day period for that unit; Step two, sum the total
heat input, in MMBtu, during the current boiler operating day and the
preceding twenty-nine (29) boiler operating days to calculate the total
heat input over the most recent thirty (30) boiler-operating-day period
for that unit; Step three, divide the total amount of NOX
calculated from Step one by the total heat input calculated from Step
two to calculate the rolling 30-boiler-operating-day NOX
emission rate, in pounds per MMBtu for that unit. Each rolling 30-
boiler-operating-day NOX emission rate shall include all
emissions and all heat input that occur during all periods within any
boiler operating day, including emissions from startup, shutdown, and
malfunction. If a valid NOX pounds per hour or heat input is
not available for any hour for the unit, that heat input and
NOX pounds per hour shall not be used in the calculation of
the rolling 30-boiler-operating-day emission rate.
    (iv) Compliance determination for SO2. Compliance with the
SO2 emission limit described in paragraph (j)(3) of this
section shall be determined based on a rolling 30 boiler-operating-day
basis. The rolling 30-boiler-operating-day SO2 emission rate
for the unit shall be calculated for each boiler operating day in
accordance with the following procedure: Step one, sum the hourly
pounds of SO2 emitted for the current boiler operating day
and the preceding twenty-nine (29) boiler operating days to calculate
the total pounds of SO2 emitted over the most recent thirty
(30) boiler-operating-day period for that unit; Step two, sum the total
heat input, in MMBtu, during the current boiler operating day and the
preceding twenty-nine (29) boiler operating days to calculate the total
heat input over the most recent thirty (30) boiler-operating-day period
for that unit; Step three, divide the total amount of SO2
calculated from Step one by the total heat input calculated from Step
two to calculate the rolling 30-boiler-operating-day SO2
emission rate, in pounds per MMBtu for that unit. Each rolling 30-
boiler-operating-day SO2 emission rate shall include all
emissions and all heat input that occur during all periods within any
boiler operating day, including emissions from startup, shutdown, and
malfunction. If a valid SO2 pounds per hour or heat input is
not available for any hour for the unit, that heat input and
SO2 pounds per hour shall not be used in the calculation of
the rolling 30-boiler-operating-day emission rate.
    (v) Compliance determination for PM. Compliance with the PM
emission limit described in paragraph (j)(3) of this section shall be
determined from annual performance stack tests. Within sixty (60) days
either preceding or following the compliance deadline specified in
paragraph (j)(5)(ii) of this section, and on at least an annual basis
thereafter, the owner/operator of the unit shall conduct a stack test
on the unit to measure PM using EPA Methods 1 through 5, in 40 CFR part
60, appendix A. Each test shall consist of three runs, with each run at
least one hundred twenty (120) minutes in duration and each run
collecting a minimum sample of sixty (60) dry standard cubic feet.
Results shall be reported in lb/MMBtu using the calculation in 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A, Method 19.
    (8) Alternative compliance determination. If the owner/operator
chooses to comply with the emission limits of paragraph (j)(4) of this
section, this paragraph (j)(8) may be used in lieu of paragraph (j)(7)
of this section to demonstrate compliance with the emission limits in
paragraph (j)(4) of this section.
    (i) Continuous emission monitoring system. (A) At all times after
the compliance date specified in paragraph (j)(6) of this section, the
owner/operator of the unit shall maintain, calibrate, and operate CEMS,
in full compliance with the requirements found at 40 CFR part 75, to
accurately measure NOX, diluent, and stack gas volumetric
flow rate from the unit. All valid CEMS hourly data shall be used to
determine compliance

with the emission limitation for NOX in paragraph (j)(4) of
this section. When the CEMS is out-of-control as defined by 40 CFR part
75, the CEMS data shall be treated as missing data and not used to
calculate the emission average. Each required CEMS must obtain valid
data for at least ninety (90) percent of the unit operating hours, on
an annual basis.
    (B) The owner/operator of the unit shall comply with the quality
assurance procedures for CEMS found in 40 CFR part 75. In addition to
these part 75 requirements, relative accuracy test audits shall be
calculated for both the NOX pounds per hour measurement and
the heat input measurement. The CEMS monitoring data shall not be bias
adjusted. Calculations of relative accuracy for lb/hr of NOX
and heat input shall be performed each time the CEMS undergo relative
accuracy testing.
    (ii) Compliance determination for NOX. Compliance with the
NOX emission limit described in paragraph (j)(4) of this
section shall be determined based on a rolling 30 boiler-operating-day
basis. The rolling 30-boiler-operating-day NOX emission rate
for the unit shall be calculated for each boiler operating day in
accordance with the following procedure: Step one, sum the hourly
pounds of NOX emitted for the current boiler operating day
and the preceding twenty-nine (29) boiler-operating-days to calculate
the total pounds of NOX emitted over the most recent thirty
(30) boiler-operating-day period for that unit; Step two, sum the total
heat input, in MMBtu, during the current boiler operating day and the
preceding twenty-nine (29) boiler-operating-days to calculate the total
heat input over the most recent thirty (30) boiler-operating-day period
for that unit; Step three, divide the total amount of NOX
calculated from Step one by the total heat input calculated from Step
two to calculate the rolling 30-boiler-operating-day NOX
emission rate, in pounds per MMBtu for that unit. Each rolling 30-
boiler-operating-day NOX emission rate shall include all
emissions and all heat input that occur during all periods within any
boiler operating day, including emissions from startup, shutdown, and
malfunction. If a valid NOX pounds per hour or heat input is
not available for any hour for the unit, that heat input and
NOX pounds per hour shall not be used in the calculation of
the rolling 30-boiler-operating-day emission rate.
    (iii) Compliance determination for SO2. Compliance with the
SO2 emission limit for the unit shall be determined from
fuel sulfur documentation demonstrating the use of either natural gas
or natural gas combined with landfill gas.
    (iv) Compliance determination for PM10. Compliance with the
PM10 emission limit for the unit shall be determined from
performance stack tests. Within sixty (60) days following the
compliance deadline specified in paragraph (j)(6) of this section, and