Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 53929 

1 81 FR 42600 (June 30, 2016). 

2 79 FR 52420 (September 3, 2014)(Arizona 

Regional Haze ‘‘Phase 3’’ Rule). 

3Letter from Verle C. Martz, PCC, to Regina 

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

Grady, CPC, to Regina McCarthy, EPA (November 

3, 2014). 

4Letter 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. 

5Letter from Verle C. Martz, PCC, to Regina 

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

6We 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. 

EPA-APPROVED NEW HAMPSHIRE REGULATIONS—Continued 

State citation Title/subject State effective 

date EPA approval date 1 Explanations 

*******

1 In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2016–19123 Filed 8–12–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0846, FRL–9950–41– 

Region 9] 

Partial Stay; Arizona; Regional Haze 

Federal Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Partial stay. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is granting an 

administrative stay of specific 

provisions of the Arizona Regional Haze 

Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) 

applicable to the Phoenix Cement 

Company (PCC) Clarkdale Plant and the 

CalPortland Company (CPC) Rillito 

Plant under the Clean Air Act (CAA). In 

response to requests from PCC and CPC, 

we are staying the effectiveness of 

control technology optimization 

requirements for nitrogen oxides (NOX) 

applicable to Kiln 4 at the Clarkdale 

Plant and Kiln 4 at the Rillito Plant 

during the EPA’s reconsideration of 

these requirements under CAA section 

307(d)(7)(B) for a period of 90 days. 

Today’s action reflects this stay in the 

Code of Federal Regulations. 

DATES: Effective August 15, 2016, 40 

CFR 52.145(k)(6) and Appendix A to 40 

CFR 52.145 are stayed until November 

14, 2016. The addition of 40 CFR 

52.145(n) in this rule is also effective 

from August 15, 2016 until November 

14, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0846. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., confidential business information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available electronically through http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Colleen McKaughan, U.S. EPA, Region 

9, Air Division, Air-1, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. 

Colleen McKaughan can be reached at 

telephone number (520) 498–0118 and 

via electronic mail at 

mckaughan.colleen@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Administrative Stay 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

This section provides a brief overview 

of the background for today’s action. 

Please refer to our proposed action on 

reconsideration for additional 

background.1 On September 3, 2014, the 

EPA promulgated a FIP addressing 

certain requirements of the CAA and the 

EPA’s Regional Haze Rule for sources in 

Arizona.2 Among other things, the 

Arizona Regional Haze FIP includes 

NOX emission limits achievable with 

selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) 

applicable to Clarkdale Kiln 4 and 

Rillito Kiln 4. In particular, the EPA 

established two alternative emission 

limits for NOX on Clarkdale Kiln 4: A 

2.12 lb/ton limit or an 810 tons/year 

limit. The lb/ton limit equates to the 

installation of a SNCR system, 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 Rillito Kiln 4 

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 Clarkdale Kiln 4 and 

35 percent for Rillito Kiln 4 were 

unsupported and that SNCR was 

capable of achieving higher control 

efficiencies, we established 

requirements for control technology 

demonstrations (‘‘optimization 

requirements’’) for the SNCR systems at 

both kilns, which would entail the 

collection of data that then could be 

used to determine if a higher control 

efficiency was achievable. 

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 (APA).3 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.4

PCC stated that the requirements 

‘‘would be burdensome to implement’’ 

and ‘‘would substantially interfere with 

the cement manufacturing operations’’ 

at the Clarkdale Plant.5 PCC further 

asserted that requirements would harm 

the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian 

Community (SRPMIC), which relies on 

revenue from the Clarkdale Plant.6

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 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
53930 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

7Letter from Jared Blumenfeld, EPA, to Verle C. 

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

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

2015). 

8 81 FR 42600. 

9See Summary of Consultation with SRPMIC 

Regarding Regional Haze FIP Reconsideration 

(Docket ID No. EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0846–0026). 

307(d)(7)(B).7 However, the EPA did not 

act on the companies’ request for a stay 

of those requirements. On June 30, 2016, 

the EPA issued its proposed action on 

reconsideration, proposing to replace 

the optimization requirements for both 

kilns with a series of revised 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements.8

II. Administrative Stay 

In light of the EPA’s proposed rule to 

replace the optimization requirements 

applicable to Clarkdale Kiln 4 and 

Rillito Kiln 4 and the fact that these 

provisions require implementation of 

various operational adjustments and 

submittal of protocols and reports in 

advance of the December 31, 2018 

compliance deadline for the NOX

emission limits, the EPA is now 

granting PCC’s and CPC’s petitions for a 

stay of the effectiveness of those 

requirements under CAA section 

307(d)(7)(B). In particular, we are 

staying the effectiveness of 40 CFR 

52.145(k)(6) and Appendix A to 40 CFR 

52.145 for a period of 90 days, which is 

the maximum length of a stay 

authorized under CAA section 

307(d)(7)(B). The EPA anticipates that 

we will complete final action on 

reconsideration prior to the conclusion 

of this stay, but if we are unable to do 

so, we will consider granting a further 

stay of the optimization requirements 

under section 705 of the APA. 

III. 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 action is exempt from review by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) because it applies to only two 

facilities and is therefore not a rule of 

general applicability. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

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) 

This action is not subject to the RFA. 

The RFA applies only to rules subject to 

notice and comment rulemaking 

requirements under the APA, 5 U.S.C. 

553, or any other statute. This rule is not 

subject to the APA but is subject to the 

CAA, which does not require notice and 

comment rulemaking to take this action. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. The action imposes no 

enforceable duty on any state, local, or 

tribal governments or the private sector. 

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 action stays 

the effectiveness of 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 our proposed action on 

reconsideration of the optimization 

requirements to permit them to have 

meaningful and timely input into its 

development.9

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. Congressional Review Act 

This rule is exempt from the CRA 

because it is a rule of particular 

applicability. 

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: August 1, 2016. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 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 adding 

paragraph (n) to read as follows: 

§ 52.145 Visibility protection. 

* * * * * 

(n) The effectiveness of paragraph 

(k)(6) of this section and Appendix A to 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 53931 

this section is stayed from August 15, 

2016 until November 14, 2016. 

[FR Doc. 2016–19113 Filed 8–12–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2015–0719; FRL–9949–49] 

n-Butyl 3-hydroxybutyrate and 

Isopropyl 3-hydroxybutyrate; 

Exemption From the Requirement of a 

Tolerance 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes 

exemptions from the requirement of a 

tolerance for residues of n-butyl 3- 

hydroxybutyrate (CAS Reg. No. 53605– 

94–0) and isopropyl 3-hydroxybutyrate 

(CAS Reg. No. 54074–94–1) when used 

as inert ingredients (solvents) in 

pesticide formulations applied to 

growing crops or raw agricultural 

commodities after harvest; to animals; 

and to food contact surfaces in public 

eating places, dairy-processing 

equipment, and food-processing 

equipment and utensils. Steptoe and 

Johnson, on behalf of Eastman Chemical 

Company, submitted a petition to EPA 

under the Federal Food, Drug, and 

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting 

establishment of these exemptions from 

the requirement of a tolerance. This 

regulation eliminates the need to 

establish a maximum permissible level 

for residues of n-butyl 3- 

hydroxybutyrate and isopropyl 3- 

hydroxybutyrate when applied or used 

under these conditions. 

DATES: This regulation is effective 

August 15, 2016. Objections and 

requests for hearings must be received 

on or before October 14, 2016, and must 

be filed in accordance with the 

instructions provided in 40 CFR part 

178 (see also Unit I.C. of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2015–0719, is 

available at http://www.regulations.gov 

or at the Office of Pesticide Programs 

Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) 

in the Environmental Protection Agency 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William 

Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 

20460–0001. The Public Reading Room 

is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the OPP 

Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review 

the visitor instructions and additional 

information about the docket available 

at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Susan Lewis, Registration Division 

(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; main telephone 

number: (703) 305–7090; email address: 

RDFRNotices@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. The following 

list of North American Industrial 

Classification System (NAICS) codes is 

not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide to help readers 

determine whether this document 

applies to them. Potentially affected 

entities may include: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

B. How can I get electronic access to 

other related information? 

You may access a frequently updated 

electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 

through the Government Printing 

Office’s e-CFR site at http://

www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/

40tab_02.tpl. 

C. How can I file an objection or hearing 

request? 

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 

U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an 

objection to any aspect of this regulation 

and may also request a hearing on those 

objections. You must file your objection 

or request a hearing on this regulation 

in accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure 

proper receipt by EPA, you must 

identify docket ID number EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2015–0719 in the subject line on 

the first page of your submission. All 

objections and requests for a hearing 

must be in writing, and must be 

received by the Hearing Clerk on or 

before October 14, 2016. Addresses for 

mail and hand delivery of objections 

and hearing requests are provided in 40 

CFR 178.25(b). 

In addition to filing an objection or 

hearing request with the Hearing Clerk 

as described in 40 CFR part 178, please 

submit a copy of the filing (excluding 

any Confidential Business Information 

(CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. 

Information not marked confidential 

pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be 

disclosed publicly by EPA without prior 

notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your 

objection or hearing request, identified 

by docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP– 

2015–0719, by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be CBI or 

other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 

• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/ 

DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: To make special 

arrangements for hand delivery or 

delivery of boxed information, please 

follow the instructions at http://

www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. 

Additional instructions on commenting 

or visiting the docket, along with more 

information about dockets generally, is 

available at http://www.epa.gov/

dockets. 

II. Petition for Exemption 

In the Federal Register of November 

23, 2015 (80 FR 72941) (FRL–9936–73), 

EPA issued a document pursuant to 

FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a, 

announcing the filing of a pesticide 

petition (PP IN–10841) by Steptoe and 

Johnson LLP (1330 Connecticut Avenue 

NW., Washington, DC 20036–1795) on 

behalf of the Eastman Chemical 

Company (200 South Wilcox Drive, 

Kingsport, TN 37660–5280). The 

petition requested that 40 CFR 180.910, 

180.930, and 180.940 be amended to 

establish exemptions from the 

requirement of a tolerance for residues 

of n-butyl 3-hydroxybutyrate (CAS Reg. 

No. 53605–94–0); and isopropyl 3- 

hydroxybutyrate (CAS Reg. No. 54074– 

94–1) when used as inert ingredients 

(solvents) in pesticide formulations 

applied to pre- and post-harvest crops 

under 40 CFR 180.910; to animals under 

40 CFR 180.930; and to food contact 

surface sanitizing solutions under 40 

CFR 180.940(a). That document 

referenced a summary of the petition 

prepared by Steptoe and Johnson on 

behalf of Eastman Chemical Company, 

the petitioner, which is available in the 

docket, http://www.regulations.gov. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES