42600 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 126 / Thursday, June 30, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

compounds from stationary sources and 

perchloroethylene from dry cleaning 

facilities.’’ effective January 17, 2014. 

EPA has made, and will continue to 

make, these documents generally 

available through www.regulations.gov 

and/or at the EPA Region 5 Office 

(please contact the person identified in 

the ‘‘For Further Information Contact’’ 

section of this preamble for more 

information). 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: June 27, 2016. 

Robert Kaplan, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2016–15617 Filed 6–29–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

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 

limaye.vijay@epa.gov. 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 limaye.vijay@

epa.gov. 

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. 


sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 126 / Thursday, June 30, 2016 / Proposed Rules 42601 

1Although 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.’’ 

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). 

3 42 U.S.C. 7491(a)(1). 

4See CAA section 169B, 42 U.S.C. 7492. 

5Areas 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.’’ 

6See generally 40 CFR 51.308. 

7 77 FR 72512 (December 5, 2012). 

8 78 FR 46142 (July 30, 2013). 

9 79 FR 52420 (September 3, 2014) (Arizona 

Regional Haze ‘‘Phase 3’’ Rule). 

10Letter from Verle C. Martz, PCC, to Regina 

McCarthy, EPA (November 3, 2014); Letter from Jay 

Grady, CPC, to Regina McCarthy, EPA (November 

3, 2014). 

• The term Class I area refers to a 

mandatory Class I Federal area.1

• 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 limaye.vijay@

epa.gov 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

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

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

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. 

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 


sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
42602 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 126 / Thursday, June 30, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

11Letter 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. 

12Letter from Verle C. Martz, PCC, to Regina 

McCarthy, EPA (November 3, 2014) at 2. 

13We 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. 

14Letter from Jared Blumenfeld, EPA, to Verle C. 

Martz, PCC (January 16, 2015); Letter from Jared 

Blumenfeld, EPA, to Jay Grady, CPC (January 27, 

2015). 

15See 79 FR 52455–52456, 52462. 

16 79 FR 52462–52463. 17Letter 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. 

18The demonstration period extended from 

February to November 2014, and was submitted to 

the EPA in early 2015. See spreadsheet ‘‘Mojave 

Demonstration Period Data.xlsx.’’ 

19Based 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’’ 

20We 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. 

‘‘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

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. 

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 reevaluated 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. 

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 longterm 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. 

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-kilnoperating-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

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. 


sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 126 / Thursday, June 30, 2016 / Proposed Rules 42603 

21Clarkdale Kiln 4 was constructed in 2002. The 

Mojave preheater/precalciner kiln was constructed 

in 1981. 22For 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. 23CAA Section 110(l), 42 U.S.C. 7410(l). 

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. 

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). 

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/lawsregulations/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-forprofit 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 


sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
42604 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 126 / Thursday, June 30, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

24See Taiheiyo Cement Corp. Annual Report 

2015, pages 1 and 36. 

25Letter from Diane Enos, President, SRPMIC, to 

Jared Blumenfield, Regional Administrator, EPA 

Region 9 (December 20, 2012). 

26See Summary of Consultation with SRPMIC 

Regarding Regional Haze FIP Reconsideration. 

27 Id. 

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. 

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

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

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 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart D—Arizona 

■ 2. Amend § 52.145 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (k); and 

■ b. Removing ‘‘Appendix A to 

§ 52.145—Cement Kiln Control 

Technology Demonstration 

Requirements’’. 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 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 


sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 126 / Thursday, June 30, 2016 / Proposed Rules 42605 

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: 

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 


sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALSEP30JN16.028</GPH>
42606 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 126 / Thursday, June 30, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

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 aeo_r9@epa.gov and to Air 

Division via electronic mail to 

R9AirPermits@epa.gov. 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 


sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 126 / Thursday, June 30, 2016 / Proposed Rules 42607 

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 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System 

48 CFR Part 232 

[Docket DARS–2016–0009] 

RIN 0750–AI90 

Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement: Contract 

Financing (DFARS Case 2015–D026) 

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Department of 

Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: DoD is proposing to amend 

the Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 

regarding the use of customary contact 

financing, other than loan guarantees 

and advance payments, on certain fixedprice contracts. 

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule 

should be submitted in writing to the 

address shown below on or before 

August 29, 2016, to be considered in the 

formation of a final rule. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

identified by DFARS Case 2015–D026, 

using any of the following methods: 

Æ Regulations.gov: http://

www.regulations.gov. Submit comments 

via the Federal eRulemaking portal by 

entering ‘‘DFARS Case 2015–D026’’ 

under the heading ‘‘Enter keyword or 

ID’’ and selecting ‘‘Search.’’ Select the 

link ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ that 

corresponds with ‘‘DFARS Case 2015– 

D026.’’ Follow the instructions provided 

at the ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ screen. 

Please include your name, company 

name (if any), and ‘‘DFARS Case 2015– 

D026’’ on your attached document. 

Æ Email: osd.dfars@mail.mil. Include 

DFARS Case 2015–D026 in the subject 

line of the message. 

Æ Fax: 571–372–6094. 

Æ Mail: Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Attn: Mr. Mark 

Gomersall, OUSD (AT&L) DPAP/DARS, 

Room 3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon, 

Washington, DC 20301–3060. 

Comments received generally will be 

posted without change to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. To 

confirm receipt of your comment(s), 

please check www.regulations.gov, 

approximately two to three days after 

submission to verify posting (except 

allow 30 days for posting of comments 

submitted by mail). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Mark Gomersall, telephone 571–372– 

6099. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

DoD is proposing to revise the DFARS 

regarding the use of customary contract 

financing, other than loan guarantees 

and advance payments identified in 

FAR part 32, on fixed-price contracts 

with a period of performance in excess 

of one year that meet the dollar 

thresholds established in FAR 

32.104(d). DoD has determined that the 

use of such customary contract 

financing provides improved cash flow 

as an incentive for commercial 

companies to do business with DoD, is 

in DoD’s best interest, and requires no 

further justification of its use. 


sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS