[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 126 (Thursday, June 30, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42600-42607]
[FR Doc No: 2016-15305]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0846; FRL-9948-39-Region 9]

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
revise provisions of the Arizona Regional Haze Federal Implementation
Plan (FIP) applicable to the Phoenix Cement Company (PCC) Clarkdale
Plant and the CalPortland Cement (CPC) Rillito Plant. In response to
requests for reconsideration from the plants' owners, we propose to
replace the control technology optimization requirements for nitrogen
oxides (NOX) applicable to Kiln 4 at the Clarkdale Plant and
Kiln 4 at the Rillito Plant with a series of revised recordkeeping and
reporting requirements. We are seeking comment on this proposed action.

DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before August 15, 2016.
Requests for a public hearing must be received on or before July 15,
2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2015-0846 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow
the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vijay Limaye, U.S. EPA, Region 9,
Planning Office, Air Division, AIR-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105. Vijay Limaye can be reached at telephone number
(415) 972-3086 and via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. General Information
II. Background
III. Proposed FIP Revision for the PCC Clarkdale Plant and the CPC
Rillito Plant
IV. The EPA's Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. General Information

A. Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words or initials as follows:
     The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the
Clean Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
     The initials ADEQ mean or refer to the Arizona Department
of Environmental Quality.
     The words Arizona and State mean the State of Arizona.
     The initials BART mean or refer to Best Available Retrofit
Technology.

     The term Class I area refers to a mandatory Class I
Federal area.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Although states and tribes may designate as Class I
additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an
important value, the requirements of the visibility program set
forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class I
Federal areas.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The initials CBI mean or refer to Confidential Business
Information.
     The initials CPC mean or refer to CalPortland Cement.
     The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
     The initials FIP mean or refer to Federal Implementation
Plan.
     The initials NOX mean or refer to nitrogen oxides.
     The initials PCC mean or refer to Phoenix Cement Company.
     The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation
Plan.
     The initials SNCR mean or refer to selective non-catalytic
reduction.
     The initials SRPMIC mean or refer to Salt River Pima-
Maricopa Indian Community.

B. Docket

    The proposed action relies on documents, information, and data that
are listed in the index on http://www.regulations.gov under docket
number EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0846. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available (e.g., CBI). Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is publicly available only in
hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available
either electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Planning Office of the Air Division, AIR-2, EPA Region 9, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. The EPA requests that you
contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy
of the docket Monday through Friday, 9-5:00 PDT, excluding Federal
holidays.

 C. Public Hearings

    If anyone contacts the EPA by July 15, 2016 requesting to speak at
a public hearing, the EPA will schedule a public hearing and announce
the hearing in the Federal Register. Contact Vijay Limaye at (415) 972-
3086 or at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>to request a hearing or to determine if
a hearing will be held.

II. Background

A. Summary of Statutory and Regulatory Requirements

    This section provides a brief overview of the requirements of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) and the EPA's Regional Haze Rule, as they apply to
this particular action. Please refer to our previous rulemakings on the
Arizona Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) for additional
background regarding the visibility protection provisions of the CAA
and the Regional Haze Rule.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    \3\ 42 U.S.C. 7491(a)(1).
    \4\ See CAA section 169B, 42 U.S.C. 7492.
    \5\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist
of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas, and
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a).
When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this action, we mean a
``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
    \6\ See generally 40 CFR 51.308.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. History of FIP Requirements

    The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) submitted a
Regional Haze SIP to the EPA on February 28, 2011. The EPA promulgated
two final rules approving in part and disapproving in part the Arizona
Regional Haze SIP. The first final rule addressed the State's BART
determinations for three power plants (Apache Generating Station,
Cholla Power Plant, and Coronado Generating Station).\7\ The second
final rule, which addressed the remaining elements of the Arizona
Regional Haze SIP, included our disapproval of the State's analysis of
reasonable progress measures for point sources of NOX.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 77 FR 72512 (December 5, 2012).
    \8\ 78 FR 46142 (July 30, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a third final rule, the EPA promulgated a FIP addressing the
requirements of the Regional Haze Rule and interstate visibility
transport for the remainder of the disapproved portions of Arizona's
Regional Haze SIP.\9\ Among other things, the Arizona Regional Haze FIP
includes requirements for NOX emission controls applicable
to PCC Clarkdale Plant Kiln 4 and CPC Rillito Plant Kiln 4 under the
reasonable progress requirements of the Regional Haze Rule. In
particular, the EPA established two alternative emission limits for
NOX on Kiln 4 of the Clarkdale Plant: A 2.12 lb/ton limit or
an 810 tons/year limit. The lb/ton limit equates to the installation of
SNCR, based on a 50 percent control efficiency, while the ton/year
limit could be met either by installing SNCR or by maintaining recent
production levels. We set an emission limit for NOX at the
Rillito Plant of 3.46 lb/ton, based on a 35 percent control efficiency.
The FIP also includes monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements and a compliance deadline for the final NOX
emission limits of December 31, 2018. Finally, in response to comments
alleging that SNCR control efficiencies of 50 percent for Kiln 4 at the
Clarkdale Plant and 35 percent for Kiln 4 at the Rillito Plant were
unsupported and that SNCR was capable of achieving higher control
efficiencies, we included in the final FIP requirements for control
technology demonstration (``optimization requirements'') for the SNCR
systems at both plants, which entail the collection of data that then
could be used to determine if a higher control efficiency would be
achievable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 79 FR 52420 (September 3, 2014) (Arizona Regional Haze
``Phase 3'' Rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Petitions for Reconsideration and Stay

    PCC and CPC each submitted a petition to the EPA on November 3,
2014, seeking administrative reconsideration and a partial stay of the
final FIP under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) and the Administrative
Procedure Act.\10\ In their petitions, both companies raised multiple
objections to the optimization requirements in the FIP. CPC asserted
that the requirements were burdensome, expensive, and unnecessary,
given that CPC had already

``evaluated fuels, fuel fineness, and the other characteristics listed
in the Optimization Protocol'' as part of its effort to reduce energy
usage.\11\ PCC stated that the requirements ``would be burdensome to
implement'' and ``would substantially interfere with the cement
manufacturing operations'' at the Clarkdale Plant.\12\ PCC further
asserted that requirements would harm the Salt River Pima-Maricopa
Indian Community (SRPMIC), which relies on revenue from the Clarkdale
Plant.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Letter from Verle C. Martz, PCC, to Regina McCarthy, EPA
(November 3, 2014); Letter from Jay Grady, CPC, to Regina McCarthy,
EPA (November 3, 2014).
    \11\ Letter from Jay Grady, CPC, to Regina McCarthy, EPA
(November 3, 2014), attachment entitled ``Petition of CalPortland
Company for Partial Reconsideration and Request for Administrative
Stay of EPA Final Rule, Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation
Plans; Arizona; Regional Haze and Interstate Visibility Transport
Federal Implementation Plan Published at 79 FR 52420'' at 4.
    \12\ Letter from Verle C. Martz, PCC, to Regina McCarthy, EPA
(November 3, 2014) at 2.
    \13\ We note that while the Clarkdale Plant is tribally owned,
it is not located on tribal land. It is subject to State
jurisdiction and is regulated by ADEQ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA sent letters to PCC and CPC on January 16, 2015 and January
27, 2015, respectively, granting reconsideration of the optimization
requirements pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(7)(B).\14\ Today's notice
of proposed rulemaking constitutes the EPA's proposed action on
reconsideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Letter from Jared Blumenfeld, EPA, to Verle C. Martz, PCC
(January 16, 2015); Letter from Jared Blumenfeld, EPA, to Jay Grady,
CPC (January 27, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proposed FIP Revision for the PCC Clarkdale Plant and the CPC
Rillito Plant

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

    In light of the objections to the control technology demonstration
requirements raised by CPC and PCC, we have re-evaluated the necessity
of these requirements for the Rillito and Clarkdale plants. As
explained in our September 3, 2014 final rule, the two objectives of
the control technology demonstration requirements are to ensure that
the NOX emission limits for the cement kilns are appropriate
and to ensure that performance of the SNCR systems at the kilns is
optimized.\15\ In developing this proposed action on reconsideration,
we have considered whether it is possible to achieve these objectives
through other means. In particular, we have identified additional
information regarding SNCR performance and NOX emission
rates from SNCR-equipped cement kilns that supports the existing
NOX emission limits for the Rillito and Clarkdale kilns in
the FIP. As a result, we no longer consider it necessary for PCC and
CPC to adhere to the relatively detailed and prescriptive control
technology demonstration requirements in the existing FIP. We are
therefore proposing to remove the control technology demonstration
requirements and are proposing a set of revised recordkeeping and
reporting requirements that will require CPC and PCC to report
information regarding SNCR system design and optimization in a less
prescribed manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See 79 FR 52455-52456, 52462.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Rillito Plant Kiln 4
    The EPA is proposing to remove the control technology demonstration
requirements for Kiln 4 (the preheater/precalciner kiln) at the CPC
Rillito Plant based on NOX emission data from a similar kiln
at another CPC facility, the Mojave Plant. On December 15, 2011, CPC
entered into a consent decree with the EPA, which required the
installation of SNCR on the single preheater/precalciner kiln at the
Mojave Plant. As part of the consent decree, this preheater/precalciner
kiln at the Mojave Plant was subject to certain control technology
demonstration requirements. Commonly referred to as a ``test and set''
approach, these consent decree provisions required CPC to design and
install an SNCR system, develop a protocol for optimizing its
operation, record NOX emission data over a long-term period,
and propose a site-specific emission limit based on those results.
    As noted in the response to comments in our September 3, 2014 final
rule,\16\ CPC submitted comments noting certain site-specific aspects
of the Rillito Kiln 4 that indicated it could not achieve the same
level of SNCR control efficiency as the Mojave Plant's kiln.\17\ In our
final rule, we indicated that we found this analysis of Rillito Kiln 4
to be generally reasonable, and based the final 3.46 lb/ton
NOX limit on the 35% SNCR control efficiency estimated by
CPC. While preparing our final rule, we examined the data used to
develop the Mojave Plant optimization protocol, which indicated that
the SNCR system at the Mojave Plant could be expected to achieve in the
range of 30-60% control efficiency. Given that this range included
control efficiencies that were significantly higher than the efficiency
on which the final limit for Rillito Kiln 4 was based, these initial
data from Mojave suggested that inclusion of control technology
demonstration requirements in the final rule would be appropriate in
order to allow us to evaluate whether or not Rillito Kiln 4 could be
further optimized to achieve a more stringent control efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 79 FR 52462-52463.
    \17\ Letter from Jay Grady, CPC, to Thomas Webb, EPA (March 31,
2014) and Exhibit 1, ``Evaluation of EPA's Reasonable Progress
Analysis for Kiln 4 at CalPortland Company's Rillito Cement Plant.''
To summarize, CPC asserted that an SNCR system on Rillito Kiln 4
would operate with less efficient exhaust mixing, lower ammonia
injection temperatures, and lower oxygen concentrations, all of
which would reduce SNCR effectiveness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following promulgation of the final rule on September 3, 2014, the
Mojave Plant completed a 270-day demonstration period of its SNCR
system.\18\ Based upon the consent decree methodology, the emission
data from the demonstration period indicate a NOX limit for
the Mojave Plant kiln of 2.70 lb/ton on a rolling 30-kiln-operating-day
basis. This is approximately equal to an SNCR control efficiency of
40%, which is on the lower end of the range that was suggested by the
optimization protocol.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The demonstration period extended from February to November
2014, and was submitted to the EPA in early 2015. See spreadsheet
``Mojave Demonstration Period Data.xlsx.''
    \19\ Based on a baseline pre-SNCR NOX emission rate
of 4.5 lb/ton. This value was based on the highest of recent source
test results, as summarized in spreadsheet ``CPC annual revised
emissions chart.xlsx''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given that the SNCR system on the Rillito Kiln 4 can be expected to
underperform the Mojave Plant, and that the Mojave demonstration period
data resulted in a limit reflecting an SNCR control efficiency of only
40%,\20\ we find that the final NOX limit for Rillito Kiln
4, which is based on a 35% control efficiency, is adequately supported
by the available data. Accordingly, we no longer consider it necessary
for CPC to meet the relatively detailed and prescriptive control
technology demonstration requirements in the existing FIP. We are
therefore proposing to remove the control technology demonstration
requirements from the FIP. As explained in section III.B below, we are
proposing to replace the control technology demonstration requirements
with a set of revised recordkeeping and reporting requirements that
will require CPC to report similar information regarding SNCR system
design and optimization, but in a less prescribed manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ We note that the difference between the two limits, 2.70
lb/ton and 3.46 lb/ton, is larger than what would be suggested by a
mere 5% difference in control efficiencies (i.e., between 40% and
35%). This is primarily due to the different baseline emission rates
of the two kilns, with the Rillito kiln having a much higher
baseline NOX emission rate than Mojave, in addition to a
lower SNCR effectiveness.

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

2. Clarkdale Plant Kiln 4
    The EPA is also proposing to remove the control technology
demonstration requirements for Kiln 4 (the preheater/precalciner kiln)
at the PCC Clarkdale Plant based on the NOX emission data
from the preheater/precalciner kiln at the CPC Mojave Plant. In the
case of Clarkdale Kiln 4, the relatively recent construction of the
kiln \21\ and its generally lower pre-control NOX emission
rates \22\ indicate that an SNCR system on Clarkdale Kiln 4 would be
able to achieve a lower NOX emission limit than the Mojave
Plant. The final NOX limit promulgated for Clarkdale Kiln 4
is 2.12 lb/ton, on a rolling 30-kiln-operating-day basis, which is
based on a 50% control efficiency. As noted in the previous section,
the emission data from the Mojave Plant demonstration period indicated
a final NOX limit of 2.70 lb/ton on a rolling 30 kiln
operating day basis, which corresponds to an SNCR control efficiency of
approximately 40%. Given that a more stringent emission limit and SNCR
control efficiency was not demonstrated at the Mojave Plant, we
consider the final limit for Clarkdale Kiln 4 to be sufficiently
stringent and supported by the available data. Accordingly, we no
longer consider it necessary for PCC to adhere to the relatively
detailed and prescriptive control technology demonstration requirements
in the existing FIP. We are therefore proposing to remove the control
technology demonstration requirements. As explained in section III.B
below, we are proposing to replace the control technology demonstration
requirements with a set of revised recordkeeping and reporting
requirements that will require PCC to report similar information
regarding SNCR system design and optimization, but in a less prescribed
manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Clarkdale Kiln 4 was constructed in 2002. The Mojave
preheater/precalciner kiln was constructed in 1981.
    \22\ For purposes of the reasonable progress determination,
Clarkdale Kiln 4 has a baseline NOX emission rate of 3.25
lb/ton. The Mojave baseline emission rate was 4.50 lb/ton.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Revised Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

    As described in III.A above, we no longer consider it necessary for
CPC and PCC to comply with the relatively prescriptive and detailed
optimization requirements established in our September 4, 2014 final
rule. We are therefore proposing to remove the control technology
demonstration requirements in the FIP for the Clarkdale and Rillito
Plants, and instead are proposing certain revisions to the reporting
and recordkeeping requirements that involve documentation and submittal
of certain design and optimization activities that are part of a
typical SNCR system installation. Specifically, we propose to require
PCC and CPC to submit a report of SNCR design prior to commencing
construction of the ammonia injection system at Clarkdale Kiln 4 and
Rillito Kiln 4 respectively, including information regarding reagent
type, locations selected for reagent injection, reagent injection rate,
equipment arrangement, and kiln characteristics. In addition, PCC and
CPC would be required to submit a report of SNCR debugging and process
improvement activities, including a description of each process
adjustment performed on the SNCR system, a discussion of whether the
adjustment affected the NOX emission rate, a description of
the range over which the adjustment was examined, and a discussion of
how the adjustment will be reflected or accounted for in kiln operating
practices. PCC and CPC would also be required to submit any CEMS data
and kiln operating data collected during the debugging and process
improvement activities. These proposed revisions are detailed in the
proposed regulatory text at 40 CFR 52.145(k).

C. Non-Interference With Applicable Requirements

    The CAA requires that any revision to an implementation plan shall
not be approved by the Administrator if the revision would interfere
with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable
further progress or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.\23\
Today's proposed revisions to the Arizona Regional Haze FIP would not
affect any applicable requirements of the CAA because they would not
alter the amount or timing of emission reductions from the Clarkdale
Plant or the Rillito Plant. In particular, the proposed replacement of
the control technology demonstration requirements with a series of
recordkeeping and reporting requirements would not alter any of the
applicable emission limitations, compliance determination
methodologies, or compliance deadlines. Therefore, we propose to find
that these revisions would comply with CAA section 110(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ CAA Section 110(l), 42 U.S.C. 7410(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. The EPA's Proposed Action

    For the reasons described above, the EPA proposes to revise the
Arizona Regional Haze FIP to replace the control technology
optimization requirements at the PCC Clarkdale Plant and the CPC
Rillito Plant with a series of recordkeeping and reporting
requirements. Please note that while the proposed regulatory text
includes the entirety of 40 CFR 52.145(k), we are only proposing to
revise those elements of the regulation related to optimization
requirements.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

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

    This proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993)
and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and
13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). This proposed rule applies to
only one facility and is therefore not a rule of general applicability.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is defined at
5 CFR 1320.3(b).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. For purposes
of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities,
small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the
Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201;
(2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city,
county, town, school district or special district with a population of
less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field. Pursuant to 13 CFR 121.201, footnote 1, a firm
is small if it is in NAICS 327310 (cement manufacturing) and the
concern and its affiliates have no more than 750 employees. CPC is
owned by Taiheiyo Cement Corporation, which has more

than 750 employees.\24\ PCC is a division of SRPMIC.\25\ For the
purposes of the RFA, tribal governments are not considered small
governments. 5 U.S.C. 601(5). Therefore SRPMIC is not a small entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Taiheiyo Cement Corp. Annual Report 2015, pages 1 and
36.
    \25\ Letter from Diane Enos, President, SRPMIC, to Jared
Blumenfield, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 (December 20,
2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538. This action may
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. As a tribal
government, SRPMIC is considered a ``small government'' under UMRA. See
2 U.S.C. 658(11) and (13). The EPA consulted with SRPMIC concerning the
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect
it.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Summary of Consultation with SRPMIC Regarding Regional
Haze FIP Reconsideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or in the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132.

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

    This action has tribal implications. However, it will neither
impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized
tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. This proposed action, if
finalized, would eliminate the SNCR optimization requirements that
currently apply to the PCC Clarkdale Plant. The profits from the
Clarkdale Plant are used to provide government services to SRPMIC's
members.
    The EPA consulted with tribal officials under the EPA Policy on
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes early in the process
of developing this regulation to permit them to have meaningful and
timely input into its development.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    The EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
change the level of environmental protection for any affected
populations.

K. Determination Under Section 307(d)

    Pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(1)(B), the EPA proposes to determine
that this action is subject to the provisions of section 307(d).
Section 307(d) establishes procedural requirements specific to certain
rulemaking actions under the CAA. Pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(1)(B),
the revision of the provisions of the Arizona Regional Haze FIP that
apply to the PCC Clarkdale Plant and the CPC Rillito Plant is subject
to the requirements of CAA section 307(d), as it constitutes a revision
to a FIP under CAA section 110(c).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: June 15, 2016.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX.
    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart D--Arizona

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

Sec.  52.145  Visibility protection.

* * * * *
    (k) Source-specific federal implementation plan for regional haze
at Clarkdale Cement Plant and Rillito Cement Plant--(1) Applicability.
This paragraph (k) applies to each owner/operator of the following
cement kilns in the state of Arizona: Kiln 4 located at the cement
plant in Clarkdale, Arizona, and kiln 4 located at the cement plant in
Rillito, Arizona.
    (2) Definitions. Terms not defined in this paragraph (k)(2) shall
have the meaning given them in the Clean Air Act or EPA's regulations
implementing the Clean Air Act. For purposes of this paragraph (k):
    Ammonia injection shall include any of the following: Anhydrous
ammonia, aqueous ammonia or urea injection.
    Continuous emission monitoring system or CEMS means the equipment
required by this section to sample, analyze, measure, and provide, by
means of readings recorded at least once every 15 minutes (using an
automated data acquisition and handling system (DAHS)), a permanent
record of NOX emissions, diluent, or stack gas volumetric
flow rate.
    Kiln operating day means a 24-hour period between 12 midnight and
the following midnight during which the kiln operates at any time.
    Kiln operation means any period when any raw materials are fed into
the kiln or any period when any combustion is occurring or fuel is
being fired in the kiln.
    NOX means nitrogen oxides.
    Owner/operator means any person who owns or who operates, controls,
or supervises a cement kiln identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this
section.
    Unit means a cement kiln identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this
section.
    (3) Emissions limitations. (i) The owner/operator of kiln 4 of the
Clarkdale Plant, as identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this section,
shall not

emit or cause to be emitted from kiln 4 NOX in excess of
2.12 pounds of NOX per ton of clinker produced, based on a
rolling 30-kiln operating day basis.
    (ii) The owner/operator of kiln 4 of the Rillito Plant, as
identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this section, shall not emit or cause
to be emitted from kiln 4 NOX in excess of 3.46 pounds of
NOX per ton of clinker produced, based on a rolling 30-kiln
operating day basis.
    (4) Alternative emissions limitation. In lieu of the emission
limitation listed in paragraph (k)(3)(i) of this section, the owner/
operator of kiln 4 of the Clarkdale Plant may choose to comply with the
following limitation by providing notification per paragraph
(k)(13)(iv) of this section. The owner/operator of kiln 4 of the
Clarkdale Plant, as identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this section,
shall not emit or cause to be emitted from kiln 4 NOX in
excess of 810 tons per year, based on a rolling 12 month basis.
    (5) Compliance date. (i) The owner/operator of each unit identified
in paragraph (k)(1) of this section shall comply with the
NOX emissions limitations and other NOX-related
requirements of this paragraph (k)(3) of this section no later than
December 31, 2018.
    (ii) If the owner/operator of the Clarkdale Plant chooses to comply
with the emission limit of paragraph (k)(4) of this section in lieu of
paragraph (k)(3)(i) of this section, the owner/operator shall comply
with the NOX emissions limitations and other NOX-
related requirements of paragraph (k)(4) of this section no later than
December 31, 2018.
    (6) [Reserved]
    (7) Compliance determination--(i) Continuous emission monitoring
system. (A) At all times after the compliance date specified in
paragraph (k)(5) of this section, the owner/operator of the unit at the
Clarkdale Plant shall maintain, calibrate, and operate a CEMS, in full
compliance with the requirements found at 40 CFR 60.63(f) and (g), to
accurately measure concentration by volume of NOX, diluent,
and stack gas volumetric flow rate from the in-line/raw mill stack, as
well as the stack gas volumetric flow rate from the coal mill stack.
The CEMS shall be used by the owner/operator to determine compliance
with the emission limitation in paragraph (k)(3) of this section, in
combination with data on actual clinker production. The owner/operator
must operate the monitoring system and collect data at all required
intervals at all times the affected unit is operating, except for
periods of monitoring system malfunctions, repairs associated with
monitoring system malfunctions, and required monitoring system quality
assurance or quality control activities (including, as applicable,
calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments).
    (B) At all times after the compliance date specified in paragraph
(k)(5) of this section, the owner/operator of the unit at the Rillito
Plant shall maintain, calibrate, and operate a CEMS, in full compliance
with the requirements found at 40 CFR 60.63(f) and (g), to accurately
measure concentration by volume of NOX, diluent, and stack
gas volumetric flow rate from the unit. The CEMS shall be used by the
owner/operator to determine compliance with the emission limitation in
paragraph (k)(3) of this section, in combination with data on actual
clinker production. The owner/operator must operate the monitoring
system and collect data at all required intervals at all times the
affected unit is operating, except for periods of monitoring system
malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions,
and required monitoring system quality assurance or quality control
activities (including, as applicable, calibration checks and required
zero and span adjustments).
    (ii) Methods. (A) The owner/operator of each unit shall record the
daily clinker production rates.
    (B)(1) The owner/operator of each unit shall calculate and record
the 30-kiln operating day average emission rate of NOX, in
lb/ton of clinker produced, as the total of all hourly emissions data
for the cement kiln in the preceding 30-kiln operating days, divided by
the total tons of clinker produced in that kiln during the same 30-day
operating period, using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30JN16.028

Where:

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

    (2) For each kiln operating hour for which the owner/operator does
not have at least one valid 15-minute CEMS data value, the owner/
operator must use the average emissions rate (lb/hr) from the most
recent previous hour for which valid data are available. Hourly clinker
production shall be determined by the owner/operator in accordance with
the requirements found at 40 CFR 60.63(b).
    (C) At the end of each kiln operating day, the owner/operator shall
calculate and record a new 30-day rolling average emission rate in lb/
ton clinker from the arithmetic average of all valid hourly emission
rates for the current kiln operating day and the previous 29 successive
kiln operating days.
    (D) Upon and after the completion of installation of ammonia
injection on a unit, the owner/operator shall install, and thereafter
maintain and operate, instrumentation to continuously monitor and
record levels of ammonia injection for that unit.
    (8) Alternative compliance determination. If the owner/operator of
the Clarkdale Plant chooses to comply with the emission limits of
paragraph (k)(4) of this section, this paragraph may be used in lieu of
paragraph (k)(7) of this section to demonstrate compliance with the
emission limits in paragraph (k)(4) of this section.
    (i) Continuous emission monitoring system. At all times after the
compliance date specified in paragraph (k)(5) of this section, the
owner/operator of the unit at the Clarkdale Plant shall maintain,
calibrate, and operate a CEMS, in full compliance with the requirements
found at 40 CFR 60.63(f) and (g), to accurately measure concentration
by volume of NOX, diluent, and stack gas volumetric flow
rate from the in-line/raw mill stack, as well as the stack gas
volumetric flow rate from the coal mill stack. The CEMS shall be used
by the owner/operator to determine compliance with the emission
limitation in paragraph (k)(3) of this section, in combination with
data on actual clinker production. The owner/operator must operate the
monitoring system and collect data at all required intervals at all
times the affected unit is operating, except for periods of monitoring
system malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system
malfunctions, and required monitoring system quality assurance or
quality control activities (including, as applicable, calibration
checks and required zero and span adjustments).
    (ii) Method. Compliance with the ton per year NOX
emission limit described in paragraph (k)(4) of this section shall be
determined based on a rolling 12 month basis. The rolling 12-month
NOX emission rate for the kiln shall be calculated within 30
days following the end of each calendar month in accordance with the
following procedure: Step one, sum the hourly

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

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

[FR Doc. 2016-15305 Filed 6-29-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P