### 71533 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 232 / Monday, December 3, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

(b) Special Local Regulations. The regulations of § 100.901 apply. Vessels transiting within the regulated area shall travel at a no-wake speed and remain vigilant for swimmers. Additionally, vessels shall yield right-of-way for event participants and event safety craft and shall follow directions given by event representatives during the event.

(c) Enforcement period. These Special Local Regulations will be enforced annually. The exact enforcement date and times will be published annually in

the Federal Register via a Notice of

Enforcement.

Dated: November 19, 2012.
J.E. Ogden,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the

Port Detroit.

[FR Doc. 2012–29134 Filed 11–30–12; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 9110–04–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION**

**AGENCY**

**40 CFR Part 52**

**[EPA–R05–OAR–2010–0954; FRL–9757–3]**

**Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;**  **Michigan; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan; Federal**  **Implementation Plan for Regional Haze**

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

**ACTION :**  Final rule.

**SUMMARY :**  EPA is finalizing action on a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal from the State of Michigan dated November 5, 2010, addressing regional haze for the first implementation period (ending in 2018). This action is being taken in

accordance with the Clean Air Act and EPA’s rules for states to prevent and remedy future and existing anthropogenic impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas through a regional haze program. EPA finds that Michigan meets several regional haze planning requirements, including identification of affected Class I areas, provision of a monitoring plan, consultation with other parties, and adoption of a long-term strategy providing for reasonable progress except to the extent Michigan’s plan failed to require best available retrofit technology (BART). As part of this action, EPA

finds that the State’s submittal

addressed BART for some sources but failed to satisfy BART for two sources, namely St. Marys Cement (SMC) and Escanaba Paper Company (Escanaba Paper). EPA is promulgating a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) including nitrogen oxide (NO X) emission limits for

these two sources in addition to sulfur dioxide (SO 2) emission limits for SMC to satisfy these requirements.

**DATES :**  This final rule is effective on January 2, 2013.

**ADDRESSES :**  EPA has established a

docket for this action under Docket ID

No. EPA–R05–OAR–2010–0954. All

documents are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., 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 either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Charles Hatten, Environmental Engineer, at (312) 886–6031 before visiting the Region 5 office.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Charles Hatten, Environmental Engineer, Control Strategies Section, at

312–886–6031, hatten.charles@epa.gov

, regarding all elements of the action, or John Summerhays, Environmental Scientist, Attainment Planning and
Maintenance Section, at 312–886–6067, summerhays.john@epa.gov, regarding issues relating to BART. Both contacts may be reached by mail at Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois

60604.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:

I. Synopsis of Proposed Rule II. Public Comments and EPA’s Responses

III. What are EPA’s final BART

determinations?

A. SMC B. Escanaba Paper IV. What actions is EPA taking? V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Synopsis of Proposed Rule

Michigan submitted a plan to address regional haze on November 5, 2010. This plan was intended to address the requirements in Clean Air Act section 169A, as interpreted in EPA’s Regional

Haze Rule as codified in Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 51.308. The Regional Haze Rule was promulgated on July 1, 1999 (64 FR 35713), with further significant provisions promulgated on July 6, 2005 (70 FR 39104), that provided guidance

related to BART.

On August 6, 2012 (77 FR 46912), EPA proposed action on Michigan’s submittal addressing the Regional Haze Rule for the first implementation period, ending in 2018. That action described the nature of the regional haze problem and the statutory and regulatory background for EPA’s review of Michigan’s regional haze plan. The action also described at length the regional haze requirements, including requirements for mandating BART,

consultation with other states in establishing goals representing reasonable further progress in mitigating anthropogenic visibility impairment, and adoption of limitations as necessary to implement a long-term strategy for reducing visibility impairment.

EPA proposed to approve Michigan’s

identification of five non-electric generating unit (non-EGU) sources as having sufficient impact to warrant being subject to emission limits representing BART. The five non-EGU BART-eligible sources included Lafarge Midwest, Inc.; SMC; Escanaba Paper (referenced in the proposed rulemaking as NewPage Paper Company); Smurfit Stone Container Corp.; and Tilden Mining Company.

Michigan made source-specific

determinations of BART for these nonEGU sources. In the August 6, 2012 proposed rulemaking, EPA proposed to approve Michigan’s BART requirements for some of the non-EGUs, based on a Federal consent decree requiring new

controls for SO 2 and NO X emissions for the Lafarge Midwest plant and based on existing limits at Smurfit Stone. EPA proposed to disapprove Michigan’s plan for BART at SMC’s facility in Charlevoix (SMC-Charlevoix) and at Escanaba Paper’s facility in Escanaba. Specifically, EPA proposed to disapprove the NO X and SO 2 BART
determination for the cement kiln andassociated equipment at SMCCharlevoix and the NO X BART
determination for Boiler 8 and 9 at Escanaba Paper. Further, EPA proposed a FIP to impose BART NO X and SO 2 limits for the cement kiln and associated equipment for SMC-Charlevoix, and

BART NO X limits for Boilers 8 and 9 at Escanaba Paper. EPA proposed no action regarding Tilden Mining, since that facility is a taconite plant that is being addressed in a separate action that also addresses taconite plants in

Minnesota.


### 71534 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 232 / Monday, December 3, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

II. Public Comments and EPA’s Responses

The publication of EPA’s proposed rule initiated a 30-day public comment period that ended on September 5, 2012. During this public comment period,

EPA received comments from the

United States National Park Service (National Park Service), the State of Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), Lafarge Midwest Inc., Escanaba Paper, SMC, and Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. (Cliffs).

EPA also offered to hold a public hearing, upon request, to provide interested parties the opportunity to provide oral comments on the FIP proposal. As discussed below, one commenter requested a hearing in order

to make comments not relevant to the FIP proposal for SMC-Charlevoix or Escanaba Paper. EPA denied this request. As no commenter requested to make oral comments on the proposed FIP, EPA did not hold a public hearing. Following is a summary of the

comments submitted and EPA’s

responses.

National Park Service

Comment: National Park Service commented on EPA’s proposed actions regarding BART for electric utilities. National Park Service noted that on June 7, 2012, EPA disapproved Michigan’s regional haze plan (and several other states’ plans) that relied on the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to meet BART for electric utilities, and promulgated

FIPs that relied on the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to meet BART.

National Park Service also noted the August 21, 2012, decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbia to vacate CSAPR and to leave CAIR temporarily in place. ‘‘Because EPA previously disapproved the state plans that relied on CAIR to meet BART, it appears that EPA cannot finalize the proposed approval of BART for electric utilities in Michigan.’’ National Park

Service recommended instead that Michigan evaluate BART for those

electric utilities.

Response: The rulemaking EPA is finalizing today does not address BART for EGUs in Michigan. As noted in our proposed rulemaking, published on August 6, 2012, EPA had already taken action on BART for EGUs in Michigan

and a number of other states in a separate rulemaking, published on June 7, 2012 (77 FR 33642). Thus, the comment is not pertinent to this action.

Comment: National Park Service commented that Michigan’s reasonable progress goals based on the air quality modeling for Seney Wilderness Area appear to project that visibility on the 20 percent best days will be poorer in 2018 (7.7 deciviews (dv)) than in the 2000 to 2004 baseline period (7.14 dv).

Response: As discussed in section 5.2 of Michigan’s submittal, best-days visibility in 2018 is projected to be modestly worse than visibility in 2000 to 2004. Notwithstanding this modeling result, EPA has several reasons to anticipate that visibility on the best days in 2018 may in fact be better and not worse than baseline best-days visibility. First, as seen in the most recent air quality data, best-days visibility in these areas has been improving, for example improving at Seney from a 2000 to 2004 average of 7.1 deciviews to a 2005 to 2009 average of 6.4 deciviews. (See http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/ Publications/Reports/2011/PDF/ Appendix

_ G.pdf , page G-109.) Second, as Michigan noted in its submittal, the projection that visibility on the best days will worsen reflects an uncertain estimate of increasing ammonia

emissions. Emissions of the other emitted pollutants important to visibility, especially SO 2 and NO X , have decreased significantly, and are expected to continue to decline. As Michigan noted, an alternate plausible assumption that ammonia emissions are not increasing would be expected tosupport a finding that visibility on bestvisibility days will improve. Third, recent modeling that EPA has done in support of CSAPR showed that visibility on best visibility days at Seney is expected to improve by 2014 even without CAIR or CSAPR. Fourth, oftentimes the air mass on best visibility days in Northern Michigan originates in Canada, for which the emission inventories used in the air quality modeling for the SIP are less reliable. Finally, Michigan noted some unmodeled emission reductions, such as those from BART for non-EGUs, that would be expected to lead to better visibility in 2018 than that shown in its SIP. For these reasons, EPA expects that Michigan’s plan will yield visibility on the best 20 percent of days at its Class

I areas in 2018 that will be either the same as or better than during the baseline period.

MDEQ

Comment: MDEQ objected to EPA’s action proposing a FIP to mandate

BART for SMC in Charlevoix and Escanaba Paper in Escanaba to meet regional haze visibility goals and simultaneously proposing disapproval of Michigan’s plan for these sources. By doing so, Michigan commented, EPA is circumventing the process laid out in the Clean Air Act by not giving the State the opportunity to correct deficiencies in Michigan’s BART SIP revision. Michigan references the August 12, 2012, opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA (addressing CSAPR), an opinion that, inMichigan’s view, concluded that a FIPfirst process is not in accordance with

the Clean Air Act.

Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. Rather than circumventing the Clean Air Act, EPA is in fact complying with the Clean Air Act’s requirements. Under section 110(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act, EPA must promulgate a FIP within 2 years of a finding of failure to submit a required SIP submittal. This requirement for FIP promulgation was triggered by a finding published on January 15, 2009 (74 FR 2392), that Michigan and other states had failed to submit the required regional haze SIP. Michigan submitted its regional haze plan on November 5, 2010. EPA informed Michigan on multiple occasions that it did not expect to be able to approve the State’s BART

determinations for at least SMC and Escanaba Paper. Since Michigan did not

submit a SIP with BART limits that EPA could approve as consistent with the Clean Air Act, EPA is obligated to promulgate FIP limits meeting BART requirements.

This situation is different from the situation addressed by the court in the EME Homer City Generation opinion. In

the EME Homer City Generation litigation, a key concern raised by the court was whether EPA had provided states suitable guidance on the pertinent requirement and thus whether the states had a meaningful opportunity to meet the requirement. In this case, EPA promulgated regulations defining the criteria for meeting the BART requirement in 2005, and so there can be no question that Michigan had adequate opportunity to meet the BART requirements, both in its initial submittal and after EPA expressed concern that Michigan’s submittal appeared inadequate. Today’s action is more than two years later than the State’s submittal, so EPA did not apply a ‘‘FIP-first process.’’ The circumstances are very different and therefore EPA does not agree that the EME Homer City

Generation opinion is relevant to EPA’s proposed rule on August 6, 2012. However, EPA would welcome Michigan’s submittal of a SIP to replace

the FIP and will work with the State to approve expeditiously a SIP that suitably replaces the requirements EPA is promulgating today.


### 71535 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 232 / Monday, December 3, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

Lafarge Midwest Inc.

Comment: Steve Kohl (Partner Warner Norcross & Judd LLP, Bodman Attorney & Associates) commented on behalf of his client, Lafarge Midwest Inc., that there was a typographic error in EPA’s proposed approval of MDEQ’s BART determination that compliance with the currently applicable Portland Cement—

Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) emission standard satisfies BART requirements for particulate matter (PM). EPA’s proposal, as published, erroneously cites an emission standard of 0.030 pounds (lb) per ton of dry feed. The correct Portland

Cement MACT emission standard is 0.30 lb per ton of dry feed.

Response: EPA acknowledges the typographic error and agrees that the

Portland Cement MACT PM emission standard is 0.30 lb per ton of dry feed.

Escanaba Paper

EPA received a set of comments from Escanaba Paper addressing features of the proposed FIP for the Number 8 and Number 9 Boilers at the company’s Escanaba facility.

Comment: Escanaba Paper commented that on page 46922 of the preamble and all instances thereafter, all references to NewPage Paper should be

corrected and revised to reflect the correct legal entity—Escanaba Paper Company (EPC). The Escanaba Paper Company is the correct legal entity and

is consistent with how the mill is

identified in various business and Michigan regulatory programs (e.g., the Title V permit is issued to the Escanaba Paper Company).

Response: Per the company’s request,

EPA has revised all references to identify the company that owns the pertinent facility as Escanaba Paper Company (or, as shorthand in this preamble, Escanaba Paper).

Comment: Page 46922 of the preamble

makes mention of the costs associated with controlling emissions on the

Number 8 and Number 9 Boilers at Escanaba Paper. Escanaba Paper noted that supplemental and updated information concerning control equipment costs were submitted to both MDEQ and EPA Region 5. Escanaba Paper believes that the supplemental and updated information confirm the

conclusion that the addition of control equipment is unwarranted.

Response: EPA notes the supplemental information, which supports EPA’s proposed action, which proposed limits that EPA believes can

be met without additional control beyond control Escanaba Paper has already installed. Comment: On page 46924 of the preamble, EPA stated that low NO X burners would achieve 40 percent

reduction of emissions on the Number

8 Boiler and then uses this control efficiency to calculate cost effectiveness. Escanaba Paper noted that conversations

with low NO X burner vendors did not confirm that an annual 40 percent control efficiency is achievable, thus the cost effectiveness referenced by EPA could be higher.

Response: EPA used estimates of costs

and benefits of control to conclude that

emission control relative to baseline

emissions would be cost effective. Escanaba Paper has implemented

controls similar to those that EPA judged to be cost effective, which, in absence of a limit requiring these controls, suggests that Escanaba Paper

also finds these controls to be cost effective. Escanaba Paper does not suggest specific alternate cost effectiveness assumptions. EPA believes

that low NO X burners can achieve 40 percent control, supporting EPA’s cost effectiveness evaluation, but EPA could assume lesser control efficiency and higher costs per ton for a low NO X burner and would still find the limits it proposed to be cost effective.

Comment: On pages 46924 and 46925 of the preamble, EPA Region 5 stated that Escanaba Paper installed a flue gas recirculation system on the Number 8 Boiler to meet MDEQ ozone season NO X limits. Escanaba Paper noted that it can currently meet the ozone season NO X emission limits with or without operation of the flue gas recirculation system on the Number 8 Boiler.

Response: EPA noted that Escanaba Paper had installed a flue gas recirculation system to point out that it gives the company an additional option for meeting the limit that EPA is promulgating for this boiler.

Comment: Escanaba Paper noted that

EPA references a ‘‘worst-case’’ annual

NO X emission rate of 1,300 tons per year

for the Number 8 Boiler. This annualized rate appears to be extrapolated by EPA and is unrepresentative of annual actual emissions. Escanaba Paper cannot verify

the basis for this annualized NO X emission rate but notes that current

2011 NO X emissions of 33 tons are more than 1,200 tons less than those referenced by EPA.

EPA guidance for conducting the BART visibility modeling is to use a worst-case, short-term emission rate (i.e., a 24-hour emission rate) for BART applicability determinations but to use annual actual emissions for assessing cost effectiveness. It is inappropriate to interchange these emission rates in these analyses. Further, Escanaba Paperbelieves that if current, worst-case shortterm visibility impairing pollutant

emission rates for all of the BART

emission units at the mill were evaluated in a visibility modeling analysis, there would be no days that

exceed a 0.5 dv level.

Response: EPA agrees that the annualizing of a short-term worst case emission rate does not necessarily yield

a realistic estimate of emissions for the facility being addressed here. While EPA is not speculating on the number of days that would exceed 0.5 dv impact
at current worst case emission rates,

EPA believes that the uncontrolled emissions are sufficiently high and the cost of controls sufficiently reasonable

to warrant a determination that controls such as those that Escanaba Paper has added represent BART.

Comment: EPA proposed to limit

emissions from the Number 8 Boiler according to a weighted average of fuel specific emission limits, as discussed on page 46925 of the preamble. In lieu of these limits, Escanaba Paper believes that a single emission limit is preferable. Escanaba Paper proposed a NO X emission limit of 0.35 lb of NO X per million British Thermal Units (MMBtu). To support this NO X emission limit for the Number 8 Boiler, Escanaba Paper noted the following:

—The 0.35 lb NO X/MMBtu limit is more

restrictive than the 0.50 lbs NO X/ MMBtu limit proposed for fuel oil,
—The 0.35 lb NO X/MMBtu limit will

limit Escanaba Paper’s use of fuel oil, which has higher SO 2 and NO X emissions than natural gas, —A single emission limit decreases

Escanaba Paper’s recordkeeping requirements and improves the efficiency of Escanaba Paper’s monitoring and reporting, and
—The 0.35 lb NO X/MMBtu emission

limit is consistent with EPA’s approach to determining an emission

limit based on continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) data. As with the EPA approach used to

establish a NO X emission factor for the SMC kiln, the Escanaba Paper CEMS data show that for non-idling periods, a 0.35 lb NO X/MMBtu emission factor is equivalent to the 95th percentile 30-day average CEMS value with a 5 percent compliance margin.

Response: As recommended by Escanaba Paper, EPA is promulgating a

fixed limit of 0.35 lb of NO X per MMBTU, in lieu of the proposed limit based on separate values for oil firing and gas firing (0.26 lb/MMBTU for gas firing and 0.50 lb/MMBTU for oil firing)


### 71536 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 232 / Monday, December 3, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

and calculated as an average weighted according to the heat input for each fuel.

While this limit is less restrictive when the company is firing only gas, the limit is more restrictive when the company is firing substantial quantities of oil. Since oil firing tends to result in higher emissions, a fixed limit will provide incentive for the company to fire more natural gas and less oil. Finally, since this limit simply mandates control that is already being implemented, and there

is no indication in the record that Escanaba Paper has any incentive to reduce the effectiveness of the existing controls system, EPA believes that the nature of the limit and its precise level in practice will not have a significant

effect on actual emissions.

Comment: On page 46925 of the preamble at footnote 2, EPA provided an

assessment of NO X emission factors for

the Number 8 Boiler for the 2008/2009 and 2010/2011 periods. Escanaba Paper was unable to reproduce the 2008/2009 value cited by EPA.

Response: In this footnote, EPA first cited 30-day average emission factors for 2010 and 2011, and then comments that ‘‘Operation in 2008 and 2009, during which the boiler was often oil-fired, yielded emission factors up to about 0.45 [lb]/MMBTU.’’ As implied, this comment speaks to 30-day average emissions, and indeed the five highest average emission rates during 2008 and 2009 over 30 consecutive calendar days ranged from 0.44 to 0.48 lb/MMBTU. However, since Boiler Number 8 is operated to some degree as a backup to a larger (non-BART) boiler at the facility, it operates somewhat sporadically, so that 30 consecutive calendar days can include a substantial number of non-operating days. Therefore, EPA is expressing the limit in terms of 30 consecutive operating days. Using this method of calculating 30-day averages, the highest value in 2008 to

2009 was 0.36 lb/MMBTU.

Comment: Escanaba Paper commented, ‘‘The extrapolation of visibility impacts is not linear. It is not possible to determine what visibility impacts associated with the NO X emissions from the Number 9 Boiler would have occurred from improved combustion monitoring. Escanaba Paper also noted that emissions reported in 2002 and 2004 were likely overstated. Escanaba Paper updated the NO X emission factor for the Number 9 Boiler in 2005 from the previous factors developed in 1992 and 1995.’’

Response: While deciviews are a logarithmic scale, a linear approximation is an appropriate means of estimating the impact of modest emission changes. In the analysis for this final rule, EPA has used the updated emissions information for the

Number 9 Boiler.

Comment: Contrary to the language in the preamble, Escanaba Paper does not

believe that the NO X limits proposed at 40 CFR 52.1183(i)(4) ‘‘mandate the continued operation of the overfire air system that the company has installed on Boiler 9.’’ Escanaba Paper wanted to confirm that there is no applicable requirement being imposed that tracks the operational status of the overfire air system on the Number 9 Boiler.

Response: EPA confirms that no requirement is being imposed that directly mandates or tracks operation of the overfire air system on the Number

9 Boiler. Consistent with EPA’s BART guidelines, EPA is setting an emission limit which requires emission control but is not mandating any particular means of meeting this limit. The statement in the preamble merely reflected EPA’s expectation that the practical effect of setting the emission limit would be that Escanaba Paper would have to continue operating its overfire air system.

Comment: Escanaba Paper requested

clarification as to whether the requirements of 40 CFR 52.1183(i) should apply no later than five years after EPA approves the FIP per the compliance schedule contained in of 40 CFR part 51 Appendix Y or ‘‘upon the effective date of the rulemaking promulgating these limits.’’ (See page 46925 of the preamble of the proposed rule.)

Response: The Clean Air Act requires

sources to meet BART limits as expeditiously as practicable. Escanaba Paper does not need to install any

control devices to achieve the BART limit established in our FIP, and so EPA believes Escanaba Paper can meet the BART limits immediately. Therefore, ‘‘expeditiously as practicable’’ means immediate compliance for Escanaba Paper. Thus, the codification of these limits provides no delayed compliance date, and therefore the limits apply as

soon as this final rule becomes effective.

Comment: The reference to 40 CFR part 60 appendix B, performance specification 2, at 40 CFR 52.1183(i)(2) is not necessary. Escanaba Paper has already conducted the initial start-up of

the NO X CEMS on the Number 8 Boiler and thus the reference to performance specification 2 is not appropriate. In fact, performance specification 2 states that it is not for evaluating CEMS performance over a long period as seems to be the intention of this requirement. Escanaba Paper requests clarification or elimination of this specific requirement. Response: EPA agrees with Escanaba Paper’s comment and in the final FIP is not requiring compliance with performance specification 2.

Comment: The reference to 40 CFR part 60 appendix B performance specification 2 at 40 CFR 52.1183(i)(3) should be replaced with a reference to 40 CFR part 60 appendix F. Escanaba Paper requests clarification or modification of this specific requirement.

Response: EPA agrees with Escanaba Paper’s comment. Requirements for ongoing quality assurance of continuous emission monitors are specified in 40 CFR part 60 appendix F, not in 40 CFR part 60 appendix B performance specification 2. EPA is promulgating 40 CFR 52.1183(i)(3) with the

recommended modification.

Comment: Escanaba Paper requests that the procedures outlined in 40 CFR part 60 appendix F be used to determine the 30-day rolling average. The use of appendix F would also be consistent with the guidance contained in 40 CFR part 51 appendix Y.

Response: 40 CFR part 60 appendix F addresses quality assurance procedures, not procedures for 30-day averaging. Nevertheless, consistent with the apparent intent of this comment, and consistent with the guidance in 40 CFR part 51 appendix Y, EPA is setting the

limit for the Number 8 Boiler based on the average of emissions for 30 consecutive boiler operating days, where a day is defined as a boiler operating day if fuel is combusted at any time during the 24-hour period.

Comment: Escanaba Paper requested that the phrasing ‘‘Compliance stack test results’’ be used to replace 40 CFR 52.1183(i)(6)(ii), which as proposed read ‘‘All stack test results.’’ In a separate comment, Escanaba Paper requested that the word ‘‘compliance’’ be inserted after ‘‘shall submit reports of any’’ at 40 CFR 52.1183(i)(6)(v).

Response: The first of these comments requests that Escanaba Paper only be required to keep records of emission tests mandated by EPA or the State for purposes of compliance assessment, and that Escanaba Paper not be required to keep records of tests conducted for the company’s own purposes. The second of these comments requests that the company not be required to report the

results of such tests to EPA. Consistent with its general practice, EPA in this final rule is requiring the company to keep records of such tests but is not requiring the company to report the results of such tests. If a subsequent compliance test, requested by the State or EPA, shows noncompliance, the

retained record of the nonmandated test


### 71537 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 232 / Monday, December 3, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

1 EPA has had a number of meetings and discussions with SMC since proposing action on Michigan’s regional haze plan and the FIP imposing BART limits on SMC and Escanaba Paper. On November 12, 2012, SMC electronically submitted

additional comments in which it asserts that the Charlevoix plant is not BART-eligible because construction that took place at the plant in 1979

constituted a ‘‘reconstruction’’ for BART applicability purposes. This issue was not raised in Michigan’s SIP submittal or in SMC’s previous written comments. Nevertheless, EPA will carefully review the new comments and take any action warranted. However, because it did not receive the comments until it was in the last stages of preparing this final action, well after the close of the comment period, EPA could not consider the comments in taking this action. would provide useful information, for example regarding the duration of noncompliance. (If a subsequent test shows compliance, the State and EPA would have little reason to inquire about nonmandated stack tests.) On the other hand, in the interests of encouraging Escanaba Paper to assess its compliance status whenever it has concerns about its emission rate, the final FIP does not require the company routinely to report results of emission

tests that neither the State nor EPA requested, again consistent with its general practice. Thus, EPA has made the requested modification to 40 CFR 52.1183(i)(7)(v), but has not modified 40 CFR 52.1183(i)(6)(ii).

Comment: Escanaba Paper requested that the phrase ‘‘or when Boiler 8 is not operating’’ be inserted after ‘‘except for zero and span adjustments and calibration check’’. As the applicable requirement is currently written, if the CEMS is not operated because the Boiler Number 8 is not operating, a quarterly report must document this situation.

Response: This final rule reflects the requested modification. EPA does not intend to require Escanaba Paper to document non-operation of its CEMS for times when its boiler is not operating.

SMC

Cortney Schmidt, environmental manager at SMC-Charlevoix, submitted comments on the proposed rulemaking on September 4, 2012. These comments elaborated on comments in a separate letter that Mr. Schmidt sent on August 2, 2012. Mr. Schmidt further sent a letter on August 8, 2012, responding to questions from EPA. 1

Comment: SMC found it unfortunate that EPA did not communicate directly with SMC much earlier in the process, because ‘‘surprising SMC at the last minute’’ foreclosed opportunities for ‘‘more deliberate, collaborative action.’’

Response: EPA submitted comments to Michigan on June 23, 2010, stating, ‘‘We disagree with MDEQ’s assessment that a selective non-catalytic reduction system is technically infeasible and not cost-effective.’’ EPA provided more detailed comments, including an

assessment of the cost-effectiveness of a selective noncatalytic reduction system (SNCR), to Michigan by email on December 8, 2011. At EPA’s request, Michigan forwarded these emailed comments to SMC. Finally, EPA sent comments to Michigan on May 24, 2012, and emailed a copy of the comment letter directly to SMC. Thus, EPA has

ensured that SMC was aware of EPA’s position and had opportunities to engage in discussions regarding theproposed BART determination for SMCCharlevoix.

Comment: SMC quoted from three Federal circuit court opinions that, in SMC’s view, demonstrate that EPA’s proposal to disapprove ‘‘the portion of Michigan’s SIP related to BART requirements for [SMC-Charlevoix],’’

and ‘‘to substitute EPA’s own limits in their place, is impermissible under the Clean Air Act.’’ Specifically, SMC asserted that the U.S. Court of Appeals

for the D.C. Circuit in EME Homer City Generation, LP v. EPA, No. 11–1302 (D.C. Cir. August 21, 2012) and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in

Luminant Generation Co. v. EPA, 675 F.3d 917 (5th Cir. 2012) and Texas v. EPA, No. 10–60614 (5th Cir. August 13, 2012) held that if a state plan meets the standards required by the Clean Air Act, EPA cannot force the states to adopt specific control measures.

Response: These decisions address rulemakings that are unrelated to regional haze and circumstances that do not invoke the same relationship

between state and federal action. Moreover, these courts acknowledge that EPA has a valid role in assessing whether a state submittal is compliant with the Clean Air Act. EPA proposed to find that Michigan’s submittal was not compliant with the Clean Air Act, insofar (in part) as Michigan failed to require BART for SMC-Charlevoix. SMC appears to be arguing that EPA may not disapprove a submittal that meets Clean Air Act requirements to force the State to adopt an alternative measure that EPA prefers, but EPA is not taking such an action here. Nor is EPA using the SIP process to force Michigan to adopt any particular control measure. Instead, EPA is simply fulfilling its responsibility to evaluate the State’s submittal and, in the absence of a state submittal meeting applicable requirements, promulgating

federal limits to meet these requirements.

Comment: SMC noted EPA’s finding that Michigan’s SIP ‘‘includes a reasonable set of measures that provide its appropriate share of reductions toward achieving reasonable progress goals.’’ (See 77 FR 46919.) SMC concluded that, because the emissions limits proposed by Michigan allow the State to meet the reasonable progress goals for improving visibility, ‘‘EPA cannot * * * require emissions limits for SMC which would go beyond allowing the State to meet those progress goals.’’ SMC stated that the BART requirements are included within the set of emission limits that EPA may require only as ‘‘necessary to make reasonable progress.’’

Response: Clean Air Act section 169A(b)(2) provides that the measures that are necessary to provide for reasonable progress necessarily include measures representing BART. The fact that EPA codified BART requirements separately from the requirements for reasonable progress (in 40 CFR 51.308(e) versus 40 CFR 51.308(d)) supports an interpretation that BART requirements must be satisfied irrespective of whether reasonable progress goals are being met.

Another possible reading of section 169A(b)(2) is that a plan that lacks BART measures by definition fails to

include all the measures that this section mandates be part of the plan for achieving reasonable progress. That is, under this interpretation, BART is necessarily a reasonable measure, and a plan, such as Michigan’s, that fails to require BART cannot be considered to provide for reasonable progress.

In response to this comment, EPA is clarifying that, insofar as Michigan’s plan fails to require BART on at least two facilities, Michigan’s plan fails to

include all reasonable measures. To that extent, Michigan’s plan may be considered to fail to provide for reasonable progress, but EPA believes that the plan, in combination with the FIP (in conjunction with BART limits for Tilden Mining, being addressed separately), meets reasonable progress requirements.

Comment: SMC cited six factors listed

in the definition of BART at 40 CFR

51.301 that are to be taken into consideration in determining BART. With respect to the first factor, the technology available, SMC believes that ‘‘EPA did not properly evaluate the capabilities of technology available for

NO X control at Charlevoix.’’ SMC provided a review of the history of the SMC-Charlevoix kiln system design, including conversion in the late 1970s to a preheater/precalciner design and installation of an indirect firing system.

Response: EPA has considered the design of the SMC-Charlevoix kiln system in evaluating BART for this facility, as discussed more fully below.


### 71538 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 232 / Monday, December 3, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

Comment: SMC maintained that ‘‘the normal variability of NO X formation in cement kilns justifies the 6.5 pounds per

ton NO X emission limit contained in Michigan’s SIP.’’ SMC provided a graph of emissions data for 2006 to 2008, and states that the ‘‘average of [these] data is 4.56 pounds per ton, but there is a significant standard deviation of 0.64 pounds per ton, leading to a 99.7 [percent] confidence number of 6.47 pounds per ton.’’

Response: EPA recognizes the variability in NO X formation at SMCCharlevoix. EPA addressed this variability in its proposal in part by proposing a limit in the form of a 30-day average. Further discussion of the appropriate limit in the context of this variability is provided below.

The statistic SMC cites as being the 99.7th percentile (the value three standard deviations above the mean) is in fact an even higher percentile, specifically the 99.87th percentile. Although EPA is basing its limits on the 95th percentile baseline emissions, this error is worth noting because EPA is avoiding the same error in estimating the 95th percentile baseline emissions. This error presumably reflects confusion between two statistical values, one being the percent of values within three

standard deviations both above and below the mean, and the other being the percent of values between zero and a

value that is three standard deviations

above the mean. The latter statistic is the appropriate statistic in finding percentiles, since a given percentile is the value that exceeds that percentage of the entire distribution, including values down to zero, not just the portion of the

distribution down to another value for example three standard deviations

below the mean. In a normal distribution, 49.87 percent of values are

between the mean and three standard deviations above the mean, and the same 49.87 percent of values are

between three standard deviations below the mean and the mean, for a total of 99.74 percent of values within

three standard deviations of the mean. In contrast, in determining percentile values, one must sum the 49.87 percent

of values that are below three standard

deviations above the mean but above the mean together with the full 50 percent of values that are below the mean. Thus,

the value three standard deviations

above the mean in a normal distribution is the 99.87th percentile value, not the 99.74th percentile value. For similar reasons, EPA is estimating 95th percentile baseline emissions as the

value 1.645 standard deviations above the mean, rather than the value 1.96 standard deviations above the mean that SMC’s approach would suggest.

Comment: SMC commented that it ‘‘has put in place more modern technology than its competitors, such as Lafarge’s Alpena plant.’’ Elsewhere, SMC cited other plants with higher emission limits which, it claims have ‘‘not been upgraded to the same degree as the Charlevoix plant,’’ and noted that ‘‘SMC already outperforms those [limits] with the improvements it already has put in place.’’

Response: With the consideration of source-specific factors, as required in determining BART at each facility, dissimilarities among facilities can yield dissimilarities in control requirements. Lafarge’s Alpena facility has long wet kilns, a different design with inherently

more NO X emissions than SMCCharlevoix’s preheater/pre-calciner kiln. In fact, BART at Lafarge requires similarly effective SNCR there as at SMC-Charlevoix, and BART at Lafarge requires sulfur emission control that is not required at SMC-Charlevoix.

Comment: SMC asserted that ‘‘EPA will expect compliance with its emission limit every day, not just ‘on average’ over several years. Therefore,

EPA also was incorrect when it derived its proposed NO X emission limit of 2.3 [lb per ton] for the Charlevoix plant by applying a presumed 50 percent reduction against the plant’s 4.56 [lb per ton] average, which was achieved over several years. * * * An ‘average’

value means that half of the actual performance is greater than that average. Therefore, any proposed reduction should not be applied to an average performance over several years, but

instead must take into consideration the

normal standard deviation from that average. This is the same rationale that was recently used by EPA in its agreement with Holcim’s Montana Plant. Consequently, in this instance, if there was to be any reduction, it must be applied against the 6.5 [lb per ton] value which represents the 99.7 percent

confidence value of SMC’s actual performance.’’

Response: SMC is noting thevariability in emissions at SMCCharlevoix, observing that a several year period will include many occasions

with baseline emissions that are above average, and commenting that any

emission limit should be based on those

elevated baseline emission conditions.

EPA addressed this concern in its proposed rulemaking. EPA proposed a limit that would require an average control of approximately 50 percent. In addition to defining the limit as a 30- day rolling average, EPA’s notice of proposed rulemaking describes an examination of the variability of

emissions at SMC-Charlevoix and the feasibility of achieving the proposed limit even during periods with greater emissions formation. The proposed rulemaking states, ‘‘According to 2006 to 2008 data from the facility, [the proposed limit] would require slightly under 60 percent control from St. Marys Cement’s 95th percentile 30-day average emission rate, which the evidence from tests at St. Marys Cement’s facility in Dixon, Illinois (SMC-Dixon) indicates is readily achievable, particularly since a limit of 2.30 lb per ton of clinker would only occasionally require this level of control.’’ 77 FR 46924. Conversely, at the 5th percentile of the 30-day average emission rates, or 3.5 lb per ton, the proposed limit would require only about 35 percent control. In this sense, EPA proposed a limit that would sometimes require about 60 percent control, sometimes require only about 35 percent control, and on average require slightly less than 50 percent

control.

Thus, EPA considered the variability

of baseline emissions but also considered the variability of control effectiveness in determining its proposed emission limit. Nevertheless, as discussed below, EPA is modifying

its view of achievable control efficiencies and is modifying its approach for determining appropriate limits accordingly.

Comment: ‘‘Although better performing than other old plants, unique Charlevoix design features

increase NO X formation compared to the most modern kiln designs.’’ SMC discussed the ratio of the kiln length to kiln diameter at SMC-Charlevoix, as well as the need to operate the kiln in an oxidizing atmosphere to minimize the likelihood of formation and buildup

of calcium sulfate. SMC concluded that these factors raise the amount of energy needed to produce a kilogram of clinker

from about 800 kilocalories to about 930 kilocalories, which raises expected NO X emissions per ton of clinker.

Response: Average NO X emissions at SMC-Charlevoix are about 4.5 lb per ton of clinker. According to the Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors (AP– 42), average emissions for a representative cement plant of the design of SMC-Charlevoix, i.e., a preheater/precalciner kiln, is 4.2 lb per ton of clinker. Thus, SMC-Charlevoix has very typical NO X emissions for a facility of its type.

While it may be true that NO X emissions at SMC-Charlevoix are slightly higher than those at newer plants, EPA is also setting a higher limit

for SMC-Charlevoix than we have set for


### 71539 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 232 / Monday, December 3, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

2 Normalized stoichiometric ratio expresses the ratio of the number of moles of ammonia equivalent to the pre-control number of moles of NO X . Each molecule of urea yields the equivalent of two molecules of ammonia. Thus, for example, if 0.6 moles of urea (yielding 1.2 moles of ammonia) are injected per mole of NO X , NSR = 1.2.

3 Joe Horton, Suwannee American Cement/

Votorantim Cimentos North America, Al Linero, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and F. MacGregor Miller, Cement Etc., Inc, ‘‘SNCR

Emission Control,’’ International Cement Review,
August 2006. new cement plants. The new source performance standards for cement plants require NO X emission rates not to exceed 1.5 lb per ton of clinker. WereEPA to require similar rates for SMCCharlevoix, but allow for the 16 percent increase in heat input noted in the comment, EPA would be imposing an emission limit of 1.74 lb per ton of clinker, rather than the 30-day average limit of 2.8 lb per ton of clinker

finalized in this rule.

Comment: ‘‘EPA’s conclusion that SNCR will allow a 50 percent reduction

in NO X emissions from the Charlevoix plant is incorrect because the plant’s design is incompatible with effective SNCR use.’’ SMC argued that the

achievement of emission rates as low as 2.3 lb per ton requires kiln design features ‘‘(e.g., proper kiln length to

diameter dimensions and increased calciner retention time)’’ that are not present at SMC-Charlevoix. SMC provided a figure identifying temperatures and residence times at

various locations within the kiln system, and concludes that ‘‘nowhere in the kiln riser or flash calciner regions of the system does the plant reach the optimum temperature profile to support

an effective SNCR reaction.’’ SMC also

found that the ‘‘residence time at Charlevoix is not adequate for use of SNCR.’’ SMC provided a graph entitled ‘‘SNCR Efficiency based on Residence Time (Lab Trial).’’ SMC stated that at SMC-Charlevoix, ‘‘there is only a 0.11

second retention time between the reagent injection point and the time the system reaches the low end of efficiency point for the SNCR reaction.’’ SMC further quotes EPA and other work suggesting that ‘‘larger plants had lower efficiencies than smaller sized plants.’’

SMC stated, ‘‘Actual test results demonstrate that SNCR will have only

limited success in NO X control at Charlevoix.’’ SMC presented results of trial urea injections conducted in 2005

to test the NO X reductions that an SNCR system might be expected to achieve.

SMC described these tests as demonstrating that urea injection

achieved less NO X reduction than expected. SMC provided results in a table that gives average NO X reduction percentages for four sets of tests, each conducted with urea injection at a different location in the kiln system and with a different urea injection rate. The table also gives urea injection rate in

terms of the normalized stoichiometric ratio (NSR). 2 ‘‘In one test run, [with an NSR equal to 1.07], the reduction was 36.8 percent. * * * However, that was coupled with a significant amount of ammonia slip, based on the theoretical

calculations from the NO X present. The time frames for this trial were short, roughly several 10 minute runs to consolidate the average, and thus SMC

is not confident that these reductions are sustainable.’’ SMC provided a photograph that it considers to document excess ammonia (ammonia slip) appearing as a visible detached plume occurring at SMC-Charlevoix.

SMC provided a report from DeNO X Technologies describing the urea trials. SMC quoted from this report: ‘‘Typically, NO X reduction at a NSR of 1.0 is 40–60 percent; Charlevoix demonstrated 25–30 percent.’’ In addition, SMC stated, ‘‘DeNO X ’s owner
noted * * * that he had seen SNCR effectively solve NO X issues in multiple cement plants. However, he commented

to SMC that he was amazed that SNCR is not as efficient in SMC’s system, and

he believed it must be because of Charlevoix’s calciner design.’’

Response: EPA believes that the tests

of SNCR at SMC-Charlevoix do not

demonstrate that SNCR would be ineffective in reducing emissions, and in particular do not demonstrate that

SMC could not meet the emission limits

established in this final action. EPA

notes that the tests SMC described were performed with urea rather than with ammonia, which is both more commonly used for this application and significantly more effective.

SMC-Charlevoix’s test results were the subject of ‘‘SNCR emission control,’’ published in the August 2006 edition of the journal International Cement Review (the Horton article). 3 The article presents NO X reductions resulting from urea injection at ‘‘Plant B,’’ which are

the results found at SMC-Charlevoix. The article also includes contrasting results from testing at ‘‘Plant A,’’ a plantwith the same type of design as SMCCharlevoix, demonstrating that NO X reductions of more than 50 percent

could be achieved with ammonia injection at an NSR as low as 0.56 (i.e., the injection of only 0.56 moles of ammonia per mole of NO X). The article includes a graph showing that use of ammonia achieves higher NO X reductions than urea and has maximum efficiency at lower temperatures than urea. EPA views the 50 percent

reduction at Plant A as more representative of the level of emission reduction that a properly designed and operated SNCR at SMC-Charlevoix could achieve. In fact, at the temperatures at SMC-Charlevoix cited by SMC, use of ammonia is expected to provide at least 40 percent more, and possibly greater than twice as much,

NO X reduction as is expected from use of urea. Thus, while SMC’s concerns may apply to SNCR using urea, EPA

believes that SMC can address these concerns by using ammonia.

EPA also believes that the DeNO X Technologies report cited by SMC

demonstrates that SMC-Charlevoix can achieve significant NO X emission reductions even using urea. Table 1 presents relevant information derived

from the DeNO X Technologies report. During these trials, urea was injected at three locations: (1) After the kiln but before the tertiary air inlet, (2) in a duct after the tertiary air but before the precalciner, and (3) after the first stage of the preheater that is after the precalciner. In Table 1, the reduction per mole of reagent (ammonia equivalent) is computed by dividing the

NO X reduction percentage by the NSR.



### TABLE 

### 1—NO X 

### E MISSION 

### R EDUCTIONS AT 

### SMC-C HARLEVOIX 

### F ROM 

### I NJECTION OF 

### U REA

Location Reagent rate (gph) NSR NO X reduction (percent) Reduction per mole reagent

(percent)

Before Tertiary Air ......................................................................................... 145 0.38 15.8 41.6 Before Tertiary Air ......................................................................................... 314 .3 1.07 36.8 34.4 After Tertiary Air ............................................................................................ 282 0.72 28.9 40. 1 After pre-calciner ........................................................................................... 180 .5 0.54 21.4 39.6


### 71540 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 232 / Monday, December 3, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

These results suggest the relationship between the quantity of reagent and the

NO X reduction. Notably, as increasing amounts of urea are injected, the resulting NO X reductions increase correspondingly. Examined in terms of

NO X reduction per mole of ammonia equivalent injected, while some loss of efficiency is expected, the efficiency of urea utilization even at the highest urea injection rate is similar to the efficiency

of urea utilization at the lowest urea injection rate. These results also suggest that the control efficiency is similar across several urea injection locations.

EPA believes that these tests

demonstrate that SNCR at SMCCharlevoix as it is currently configured can readily achieve at least 30 to 37 percent NO X reduction. As discussed above, EPA believes that use of ammonia would provide significantly greater control than was found in the tests at SMC-Charlevoix using urea. The tests, being short tests, by definition did not test the sustainability of control, but SMC provides no evidence that these

short-term results could not also be achieved over longer periods. In addition to the change in reagent, SMC has a range of options for optimizing SNCR effectiveness and addressing the potential operational issues arising from SNCR use. These include: Use of facility design modifications that either reduce

NO X emissions directly or facilitate use of SNCR or both; use of reagent injection both before and after the calciner; use of lime injection; adjustment of air flows; and other changes in operating

characteristics. SMC in its written comments and in discussion during meetings with EPA did not address the option of using ammonia, either to dispute the feasibility of its use or to provide evidence regarding its

effectiveness at SMC-Charlevoix. Since

the tests at SMC-Charlevoix used urea

and are not indicative of the NO X reduction that can be achieved using ammonia, the most pertinent evidence regarding potential effectiveness of SNCR using ammonia is the results of tests at SMC-Dixon, corroborated by

results of tests at ‘‘Plant A’’ in the Horton paper and elsewhere. This evidence indicates that the 50 percent

NO X emission reduction required at other cement plants is also achievable at

SMC-Charlevoix.

The issues raised in SMC’s comments suggest that SMC may need more than three years to explore the various alternatives for reducing NO X emissions at SMC-Charlevoix. Therefore, EPA is promulgating a compliance deadline for SMC that is extended by one year from the compliance deadline that EPA proposed, requiring compliance within approximately four years from the date of this rulemaking.

In response to this comment, EPA also reevaluated the appropriate NO X limits. While EPA proposed a limit based on 50 percent control on average, effectively requiring 60 percent control when emission rates are at the 95th percentile level, EPA is promulgating a limit that will require only 50 percent control

when emission rates are at the 95th percentile level.

EPA proposed a single limit, based on a 30-day average. Reconsidering the basis for determining the level of the limit, in particular considering a limit based on the 95th percentile emission

level rather than based on the mean emission level, requires reconsidering

the form of the standard. Whereas the proposed limit was intended to require a reasonable degree of control at all times, a 30-day average limit derived from 95th percentile emissions would allow substantially less emission

reduction on other occasions. For example, at SMC-Charlevoix, a limit requiring 50 percent reduction from 95th percentile emissions would only require about 20 percent emission reduction at the 5th percentile emission

level.

BART reflects controlling emissions at all times, not just on occasions with elevated emissions. For this reason, along with a 30-day average emission limit, EPA is also promulgating a limit on 12-month average emissions. In this pair of limits, the 30-day average limit ensures that days with high baseline emissions are well controlled, and the 12-month average limit ensures that BART control is achieved on days with

lower baseline emissions as well.

EPA used the most recent three years of emissions data available, from 2006 to 2008, to compute 30-day averages and 12-month averages. EPA is setting the 30-day average limit as a daily-rolling average limit, based on values recomputed every operating day to include the most recent 30 operating days, and EPA is setting the 12-month average as a block average, based on values recomputed at the end of each

calendar month to include the preceding 12 calendar months. EPA used these averaging approaches to determine the distribution of 30-day and 12-month averages of NO X emissions during the 2006 to 2008 period. The 95th percentiles among these sets of values (more precisely, 1.645 standard deviations above the means, calculated assuming a normal distribution) are a 30-day average of 5.6 lb per ton of clinker and a 12-month average of 4.7 lb per ton of clinker. EPA is setting limits based on a 50 percent reduction from these values, which with rounding equal a 30-day average limit of 2.80 lb per ton of clinker and a 12-month average limit of 2.40 lb per ton of

clinker.

EPA had several reasons for selecting the 95th percentile of baseline emissions as the starting point for determining the limits. First, use of the 95th percentile is an approach that EPA commonly uses in setting emission

limits for similar sources in other contexts. For example, the consent decree for Lafarge Cement, which requires BART at Lafarge’s Alpena facility, mandates control at the 95th percentile level. That is, this approach is responsive to SMC’s concerns about EPA providing equity in its regulation of SMC and Lafarge. (Lafarge is also subject to both a 30-day average limit and a 12-month average limit.) Second, EPA considers the 95th percentile an appropriate compromise between setting the limit based on too low a percentile, which creates a higher percentage of time when the limit is more difficult to meet, and setting the limit based on too high a percentile, which too infrequently requires the company to achieve fully effective emission control. Third, EPA believes that the variability of the emission rates after control is likely to be less than the current variability. This is in part

because the emission control can be operated in a manner that minimizes the

difference in emission rates between the upper and the lower end of the distribution, in part because emissions

control tends to be more effective when emission rates are higher, and in part because the limit will give the company incentive to use its knowledge about operating parameters that influence

emission rates to minimize emissions on occasions with higher emission rates. Fourth, since emission rates above the 95th percentile by definition rarely occur, any extra effort needed to achieve

the limit on such occasions would rarely be needed.

SMC cites the limit for a Holcim plant in Montana as precedent for basing a limit on an upper point on the distribution, and yet SMC recommends basing the limit for SMC-Charlevoix on

a more extreme statistic than was used

for Holcim in Montana. EPA set the

NO X limit for Holcim by assuming a 58 percent reduction from the 99th percentile of baseline emissions. In that case, EPA had limited information on emissions of the facility; in particular,

EPA did not have information on 95th percentile emissions. SMC does not explain why it seeks the use of a more extreme statistic (supposedly the 99.7th percent, but in fact the 99.87th


### 71541 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 232 / Monday, December 3, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

percentile), but the availability of more

information allows EPA to use a more appropriate statistic (the 95th percentile) for SMC-Charlevoix.

Comment: SMC stated that ‘‘ammonia slip is a likely result of use of SNCR at Charlevoix.’’ SMC quoted from EPA and

the Portland Cement Association that use of SNCR under suboptimal

conditions can result in unwanted

ammonia emissions.

Response: SMC does not demonstratethat proper use of SNCR at SMCCharlevoix would cause ammonia slip at problematic levels. The photo of a detached plume at SMC-Charlevoix provided by SMC in its comments does

not demonstrate that ammonia concentrations in the plume were high, and SMC does not provide information about operating conditions at the time of the picture to be able to judge this and other potential explanations of a detached plume at the facility. A theoretical comparison of urea input to

NO X levels does not establish the presence or absence of ammonia slip, because such an approach fails to consider other factors reducing

ammonia levels such as oxidation. In addition, for reasons discussed in the Horton paper cited above, describing the relative merits of using ammonia rather than urea, evidence that ammonia slip occurred during injection of urea does not necessarily indicate that ammonia slip would occur with a properly designed and operated SNCR using

ammonia. While SMC would have to design an SNCR system carefully to avoid causing excess ammonia emissions, many other cement plants have successfully implemented SNCR without ammonia slip problems, and SMC has provided no evidence that this would be a challenge that cannot be

solved at SMC-Charlevoix. As discussed above, EPA anticipates that SMC will conduct a variety of trials to assess the

most effective NO X control program, and EPA anticipates that one of the parameters to be addressed in these trials is to avoid emitting excess

ammonia.

Comment: SMC stated that the ‘‘size of Charlevoix reduces its ability to

control NO X using SNCR.’’ SMC quoted an EPA report regarding NO X control at coal-fired electric utility boilers stating that ‘‘whereas smaller boilers may be able to achieve >60 percent NO X reduction, larger boilers may be capable of achieving reductions of only

∼ 30 percent.’’ SMC comments that a study of

cement kilns also noted a ‘‘correlation between plant size and reduction efficiency.’’ SMC provided a graph

labeled ‘‘SNCR Test Results based onCapacity.’’ SMC concludes that SMCCharlevoix ‘‘should not be expected to

have NO X reduction efficiencies of the smaller plants.’’

Response: SMC does not clarify its

size in relation to the other facilities

addressed in these studies. Since SMCCharlevoix has lower heat input than many electric utility boilers, this comment would seem to suggest that

SMC should be able to achieve the higher rather than the lower end of the range of utility boiler control efficiencies. The graph addressing cement plants that SMC provided is illegible, and so it is indeterminablefrom this graph how the size of SMCCharlevoix compares to the size of other cement plants tested.

However, EPA also examined the size

of SMC-Charlevoix relative to the size of cement plants that have been subject to best available control technology determinations for new sources or major modifications in the last 6 years. These facilities have capacities quite similar to the capacity of SMC-Charlevoix. As seen

in the EPA’s RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse, these facilities were typically issued permits that allowed

1.95 lb of NO X emissions per ton of clinker. Thus, even if smaller facilities are capable of even better NO X control,

this evidence makes clear that the size of SMC-Charlevoix should not prevent SMC from achieving the level of control that EPA proposed to require.

Comment: SMC submitted several comments regarding the second factor to be considered in determining BART, namely the costs of compliance. The

first of these comments reflected concerns about material buildup exacerbated by injection of urea and the costs that SMC would face in addressing that problem. SMC commented ‘‘Both SMC and EPA recognize that there are potential solutions [to this problem.]

* * * The most effective solution is an

extensive modification to the flash calciner including geometry changes to the process ductwork.’’ SMC estimated

that a new in-line calciner would cost $18,000,000. SMC also discussed a second option in which SMC uses its existing kiln system configuration. In conjunction with criticism of EPA’s cost estimates, SMC provided its own cost estimates for these two options.

Response: EPA agrees that SMC has multiple options for implementing SNCR in a way that is both effective in reducing NO X emissions and workable in avoiding operational problems such as material buildup and ammonia slip.In addition to the option of a new inline calciner and an option with the existing equipment using urea in the existing SNCR, other options include using ammonia with existing plant equipment and making other changes to improve flue gas chemistry. In addition to these four options, EPA believes that

SMC has numerous variables that it can adjust and design features it can modify to maximize control efficiency and

minimize NO X emissions.

Specifically concerning material buildup, the Horton paper cited above provides useful insights from comparison of SNCR use at various cement plants. The article observes that urea decomposes into carbon moNO Xide (CO) as well as ammonia, documents spikes in CO concentrations following urea injection, and evaluates the consequences of this CO. The article notes the propensity of the CO to consume hydroxyl radical that otherwise would help reduce nitric oxide to elemental nitrogen. The article

concludes that urea is less effective in reducing NO X than ammonia at the temperatures found at SMC-Charlevoix. Further, CO from urea decomposition may well cause localized reducing environments, potentially causing sulfur volatilization, which in turn could cause the buildup of sulfates that could form material buildup within the kiln system. That is, injecting urea may be more prone to cause buildup problems than injecting ammonia. Many other cement plants with similar SO 2 emissions have successfully operated SNCR without significant material buildup issues, and EPA believes that SMC too can find appropriate operational approaches (presumably involving use of ammonia as the NO X reducing reagent) that will provide

successful NO X control without significant material buildup issues.

Comment: SMC commented that

installation of a new in-line calciner would be a redesign of the facility that is not intended to satisfy BART. SMC quotes EPA’s BART guidance: ‘‘We do not consider BART as a requirement to redesign the source when considering

available control alternatives. For example, where the source subject to BART is a coal-fired electric generator, we do not require the BART analysis to consider building a natural gas-fired

electric turbine. * * * ’’

Response: EPA is not requiring anyparticular kiln system design at SMCCharlevoix, nor does EPA believe that the limit it proposed indirectly mandates any particular design. EPA is promulgating limits that EPA believes SMC can meet in several ways. EPA is merely observing that replacement of the pre-calciner is one of several options SMC may choose to employ to meet the limits that EPA is promulgating.

SMC-Charlevoix currently has a precalciner, and so EPA does not view the


### 71542 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 232 / Monday, December 3, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

4 The existing SNCR was installed to provide an option to meet State limits on ozone-season NO X emissions. However, SMC asserts that it is able to meet the State limits without operating the SNCR, and EPA understands that SMC rarely if ever operates the SNCR, so that the SNCR has no significant effect on current emissions. 5 SMC’s approach also resembles the approach

recommended for several other control devices. Nevertheless, for simplicity, SMC’s approach may be labeled the gas absorber approach. modification of the facility to replace the existing pre-calciner with an improved pre-calciner, in conjunction with changes in air flow to reduce the likelihood of material buildup, as a ‘‘redesign’’ of the source. Indeed, unlike the example SMC cites, the replacement of the pre-calciner at SMC-Charlevoix would not change the fundamental design of the facility. Similarly, SMC may need to replace its SNCR system to meet EPA’s limit, but EPA does not consider this to change the fundamental design of the facility either. 4 Both before and after the modification, the facilitywould be described as a preheater/precalciner type Portland cement plant.

SMC, in evaluating how best to meet BART limits, may in fact decide that the replacement of its calciner and associated air flow changes, would be

‘‘the most effective solution’’ to ‘‘improve NO X control and address the buildup problem.’’ Indeed, as discussed below, EPA developed cost estimates predicated on SMC installing both a replacement calciner and a new SNCR. Nevertheless, as SMC implicitly concedes, other approaches may also suffice for effective operation with SNCR. Again, EPA expects that its proposed limit will require installation and operation of a SNCR system and

some set of modifications to accommodate the system and maintain efficient and effective operation, but EPA does not believe that its proposed limit requires any fundamental redesign

of SMC-Charlevoix.

Comment: SMC criticized EPA’s

estimated number of hours that heat input to the urea storage and handling system would be needed to assure that its urea would not crystallize, which

SMC asserts would occur at 48 ° F. SMC objected to EPA’s estimate that the ‘‘cooler season’’ includes 4,000 hours requiring heating; SMC asserts that review of local meteorological data finds that ‘‘heat input would be required 6,750 hours.’’

Response: EPA conducted its own analysis of Charlevoix meteorological data, available from the web site of the MDEQ. EPA’s analysis considered actual heating needs each hour, reflecting the fact that an hour at 40 ° F, for example, would require less heating

than an hour at 20 ° F. That is, EPA evaluated a heating degree hour metric, rather than SMC’s simpler metric of the number of hours requiring heating. EPA reviewed the most recent three years of data provided, i.e., 2008 to 2010. EPA examined the number of days

below 50 ° F. EPA’s analysis assumed that SMC’s envisioned 100 kW heating system would suffice down to -30 ° F, and that warmer days would require proportionately less electricity. This analysis found an average of 4,900 hours per year below 50 ° F, and an average temperature among those hours of 31 ° F. That is, the average heating needs among those hours is to achieve a
temperature 19 ° F above ambient temperature. At the company-estimated cost of $0.0732 per kilowatt-hour of electricity, this translates to an estimated electricity cost of $8,600 per

year.

Comment: SMC commented on the expected lifetime of SMC-Charlevoix.

‘‘SMC maintains that the EPA air pollution cost control manual allows for a 10 year equipment life schedule and that this would more closely match SMC’s short and long-term plans.’’ Consequently, SMC implicitly recommended amortizing capital costs of control equipment over 10 years rather than 15 or 20 years.

Response: The EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual states at page 1–37, ‘‘an economic lifetime of 20 years is assumed for the SNCR system.’’ A shorter amortization period would be appropriate only if SMC provided persuasive evidence that it will be shutting down its facility sooner. SMC has provided no such evidence. In particular, SMC does not appear to be subject to any enforceable orders to shut down within that period, nor has SMC expressed a desire to become subject to such an order. To the contrary, SMC has been investing in emission control and applied for a permit for other plant improvements (though SMC cancelled the project), suggesting that SMC expects its Charlevoix facility to be operating well more than 10 years into the future. Therefore, the most appropriate amortization period forcapital costs of SNCR at SMCCharlevoix is 20 years.

Comment: SMC objected to EPA’s

urea cost estimates. SMC conceded that $450 is the cost per ton of (undiluted) urea at the Gulf of Mexico, but SMC provided a vendor quote to indicate a price per gallon in Michigan, equivalent to $814 per ton of actual urea ($366/ton of 45 percent solution).

Response: EPA asked the Institute of Clean Air Companies about urea prices and received a reply from a representative of Fuel Tech, Inc., a urea supplier. Fuel Tech replied that companies have the option to purchase pure, dry urea, at a price of $400 to $500 per ton, which the company could mix with water (using purchased mixing equipment) before use, but companies normally purchase 50 percent urea from a supplier. Fuel Tech quoted a price range for 50 percent urea solution in Central Michigan of $1.60 to $1.80 per gallon. The upper end of this range equates to about $758 per ton of urea. EPA has adjusted its urea-based cost estimates (discussed below) to use this urea cost. However, use of ammonia is cheaper and more effective, so the cost of urea was not a significant factor in

EPA’s evaluation of the cost

effectiveness of SNCR.

Comment: As noted above, SMC provided cost-effectiveness estimates for an option that may be labeled a ‘‘replacement pre-calciner’’ option and for an option that may be labeled an ‘‘existing equipment’’ option. These

estimates were that NO X emission reduction would cost $6,767 and $6,249 per ton, respectively, which SMC considers too expensive to be found to

be BART.

Response: SMC’s estimates include a

number of elements that SMC includes

without comment that nevertheless

warrant review. SMC’s cost estimates include a number of ancillary costs ostensibly related to installation of a purchased SNCR, including instrumentation, freight, foundations and supports, handling and erection, electrical equipment, piping, insulation, painting, engineering, construction and field expenses, contractor fees, start-up costs, performance test costs, and contingencies. These cost estimates are substantial, adding up to more than 150 percent of the purchased equipment cost, i.e. yielding a total capital cost that

is more than two and a half times the cost of the equipment itself.

While SMC cites the EPA Air

Pollution Control Cost Manual as the basis for these cost estimates, SMC used an inappropriate method from this

manual. The EPA Air Pollution Control

Cost Manual recommends different cost estimation approaches for different types of control devices, and SMC appears to have used the approach recommended for estimating costs of gas

absorbers 5 rather than the approach recommended for SNCR. The approach

recommended in the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual for estimating costs

of SNCR does not include all the costs listed above for gas absorbers. Instead,

the Control Cost Manual recommends assuming only the following costs: A


### 71543 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 232 / Monday, December 3, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

6 The molecular weight of urea is 60. Each molecule of urea yields two molecules of ammonia.Therefore, 30 pounds of urea yields one poundmole of ammonia. That is, 30 pounds of urea is one pound-mole of ammonia equivalent. general facilities cost (5 percent of SNCR purchase cost), engineering and home office fees (10 percent), process contingency cost (5 percent), project contingency (15 percent of installed cost), pre-production cost (2 percent of total plant cost), and inventory cost (cost of two weeks of reagent). These

costs are estimated to add about 42 percent to the purchase cost of the SNCR. Thus, the cost estimation approach used by SMC significantly

overestimates SNCR installation costs.

In using the cost estimation approach recommended for gas absorbers rather than the approach recommended for SNCR, SMC has also overestimated the annual cost of operating SNCR. Most significantly, as EPA noted in its proposed rulemaking notice, EPA recommends assuming that overhead for operating SNCR is negligible, unlike the 60 percent of labor and materials that

the Control Cost Manual recommends for gas absorbers. Similarly, the Control Cost Manual recommends assuming administrative charges and insurance for SNCR (unlike for gas absorbers) are also negligible. This results in a significant difference in cost estimates: For the replacement pre-calciner option, for example, SMC estimates the sum of overhead, administrative charges, and insurance to be $4,397,697, whereas EPA finds these costs to be negligible.

In addition, SMC inappropriately assumes that the multipliers used to estimate ancillary costs associated with installation of emission control systems based on emission control equipment purchase costs may also be applied to modifications of SMC’s kiln system such as replacement of its pre-calciner. SMC provides no justification for applying these SNCR-related multipliers to the cost of a replacement pre-calciner,

and EPA believes that installation of a replacement pre-calciner would not require such costs.

In many respects, the cost estimates EPA provided in its notice of proposed rulemaking also mistakenly used the gas absorber approach to estimate costs. Thus, EPA’s proposed rule also substantially overestimated the costs of SNCR. An exception concerns overhead costs: The gas absorber approach recommends significant costs, but the notice of proposed rulemaking observed that the SNCR approach in the EPA Air

Pollution Control Cost Manual recommends assuming that overhead costs are negligible. (SMC neglected this

observation and continued in its comments to estimate substantial, unjustified overhead costs.)

For this final rule, the primary basis

of EPA’s views on the cost effectiveness

of SNCR at SMC-Charlevoix are revised cost estimates derived according to the approach recommended in the EPA Air

Pollution Control Cost Manual for estimating costs of SNCR. Nevertheless, EPA for this final rule also prepared cost estimates using an approach that was similar to the approach used in its proposed rule. This approach resembled the gas absorber approach, except that the approach assumed negligible overhead costs, which the notice of proposed rulemaking observed is the recommended assumption for SNCR.

These estimates assumed the use of ammonia as the reagent, based on information indicating that urea is a less effective reagent. While EPA believes this approach overstates likely costs, insofar as it includes significant

estimated installation costs that should not be assumed to apply to SNCR installations, these cost estimates nevertheless provide further perspective on the likely cost effectiveness of SNCR

at SMC-Charlevoix.

SMC is currently equipped with an SNCR system. SMC nevertheless

includes the cost of new SNCR equipment (estimated as $1,371,630) in

all of its cost estimates. SMC did not explain why it would be unable to use the existing equipment, except to say that $400,000 of the costs would provide for winter storage of reagent. One possibility is that the remaining $971,630 would be necessary to purchase a system that works more effectively than the system that is currently installed. Another possibility is that SMC will incur no such expense.

EPA has evaluated cost effectiveness for both possibilities, to assess the range of cost effectiveness according to whether replacement SNCR equipment is

necessary.

A significant factor affecting the cost of SNCR is the quantity of reagent needed to achieve the expected

emission reduction. The BART review that SMC provided to Michigan assumed that 180 gallons per hour of 40 percent urea solution, costing $1.06 per gallon, would be used for 8,000 hours

and would reduce NO X emissions by 524 tons per year. Assuming 9.5 lb per gallon of urea solution, this translates to an estimate that 182,400 pound-moles of ammonia-equivalent 6 would be neededto achieve a reduction of 22,800 poundmoles of NO X , i.e., that each mole of ammonia-equivalent achieves only

0.125 moles of NO X reduction. This efficiency is less than one third of the efficiency shown in the DeNO X Technology trials discussed above.

For all of its reagent cost estimates, EPA estimated reagent usage according to the targeted NO X reduction and the expected amount of reagent needed per

mole of NO X reduction. EPA’s expected

NO X reduction for both the replacement calciner option and the existing system option differs substantially from SMC’s values. SMC apparently used a peak allowable baseline (pre-control) NO X emission rate (5,741 tons per year),

whereas EPA used a 2006 to 2008 average actual baseline rate (2,518 tons per year).

Based on comments regarding

inefficient control at SMC-Charlevoix using urea, most of EPA’s cost

effectiveness estimates were based on the use of ammonia, though a few

estimates were based on the use of urea. As discussed above, EPA assumed a urea cost of $758 per ton of urea. Based on information provided by Fuel Tech, EPA assumed an ammonia cost of $600
per ton.

EPA then estimated reagent usage according to various estimates of the quantity of NO X reduced per mole of injected or created ammonia. One of

these estimates used the results of the tests conducted at SMC-Dixon, in which injection of reagent at an NSR of 0.62

sufficed to reduce NO X emissions by 50 percent. These results suggest the need for greater use of reagent than is

indicated in test results at ‘‘Plant A’’ in the Horton paper, which indicates on average that the NO X reduction is 92 percent of the amount of ammonia injection, so that an NSR of 0.54 would

suffice to reduce NO X emissions by 50 percent. Another estimate used the average of the tests at SMC-Charlevoix using urea, i.e., that the number of

moles of NO X reduced is 40 percent of

the number of moles of ammonia that the injected urea creates.

Table 2 shows cost effectiveness estimates for an option in which SMC uses largely its existing configuration and injects ammonia. This option is assumed at most to have only minor modifications, except for installation of a replacement SNCR system and except for installation of ammonia storage equipment, which is assumed to have

the same cost as SMC’s estimate for urea winter storage equipment. This table

assumes the effectiveness of ammonia

found at SMC-Dixon. This table assumes

that sufficient ammonia is added to achieve a 12-month average limit of 2.40 lb per ton of clinker (the limit in the final FIP), which is estimated on average to require a 47 percent emission reduction, a reduction from baseline


### 71544 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 232 / Monday, December 3, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

NO X emission levels of 1182 tons per

year.



### TABLE 

### 2—C OST 

### E FFECTIVENESS 

### U SING 

### A MMONIA 

### W ITH 

### E XISTING 

### C ONFIGURATION

[With replacement of the SNCR system]

Capital costs Percent Cost Notes

SNCR ........................................................................................................................... ................ $1,371,630 Includes winterizing cost.

General facilities ........................................................................................................... 5 68,582 Engineering .................................................................................................................. 10137,163 Process contingency .................................................................................................... 5 68,582 Project contingency ...................................................................................................... 15 246 ,893

Subtotal SNCR ...................................................................................................... ............ .... 1,892,849 Preproduction ............................................................................................................... 2 3 7,857 Ammonia inventory ...................................................................................................... ................ 12,465 2 weeks inventory.

Total Capital cost ........................................................................................... ................ 1, 943,171

Annual costs: Ammonia ............................................................................................................... ................ 324,970 Maintenance .......................................................................................................... 1.5 28,393 Electricity ............................................................................................................... ................ 8,600

Power loss ............................................................................................................ ......... ....... 16,427

Total direct Annual ......................................................................................... ................ 378 ,389 Capital recovery ............................................................................................. ................ 183,435 Amortizes over 20 years.

Total ............................................................................................................... ................ 561,825 Cost per ton .......................................................................................................... ................ 475 Reduction is 1182 tons/yr.

This cost effectiveness estimate in

Table 2 assumes that SMC will need to replace its existing SNCR. Alternatively,

EPA estimated cost effectiveness for the possibility that SMC will be able to use its existing SNCR. This evaluation assumed the same estimate of ancillary costs (e.g., general facilities costs, engineering, and contingency costs) as

are shown in Table 2 but assumed that the equipment purchase cost would only be $400,000 for a reagent winter storage system. This resulted in a cost effectiveness estimate of $398 per ton of

NO X , somewhat below the $475 per ton

of NO X estimated assuming the need for a replacement SNCR.

Although EPA, consistent with the Horton paper, believes that ammonia would be considerably more efficient at reducing NO X than urea, EPA also estimated ammonia costs assuming that SMC achieved the same efficiency with

ammonia as it achieved with urea. Specifically, these cost estimates

assumed that each mole of ammonia

reduced 0.4 moles of NO X . To achieve a reduction of 1182 tons per year, this

resulted in an estimate that ammonia costs would be $655,181, leading to a total annualized cost of $893,032, or $756 per ton of NO X reduced.

These estimates reflect considerably less expense for using ammonia than for using urea. This is partly because ammonia is likely to be more effective,

but this is also because ammonia is somewhat cheaper per ton and because

the ammonia content of a ton of ammonia is almost twice the amount of ammonia yielded by a ton of urea. For the plant as currently configured, EPA did not estimate costs using urea.

A second set of scenarios EPA evaluated reflect an option noted bySMC involving replacing the precalciner, which would provide

conditions more suitable for use of urea for reducing NO X emissions. SMC estimated that this replacement would cost $18,000,000. Although SMC does not document the basis for this estimate,

EPA nevertheless used SMC’s estimate

of this cost. EPA viewed this as an

estimate of total installed cost. Therefore, EPA believes that the typical approach in the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, starting with the cost of purchasing control equipment and adding multipliers to account for various installation costs, would double

count these installation costs.

Arguably, much of the cost ofreplacing the pre-calciner at SMCCharlevoix would be offset by savings to the company through more efficient operation and ability to use cheaper fuels. Indeed, the fact that SMC applied for and received a permit to replace its pre-calciner but then cancelled the permit suggests that the company believed that this replacement would have had benefits that mostly but not entirely would have offset the costs of its implementation. To address this issue, EPA evaluated cost effectiveness

both for a scenario in which none of the costs of a replacement pre-calciner are offset and for a scenario in which all of the costs are offset, in order to evaluate the range of cost effectiveness estimates according to the range of possible degrees to which the costs of a replacement pre-calciner would be offset by economic benefits to SMC.

EPA estimated costs both for the use of

ammonia and for the use of urea. EPA agrees with SMC’s view that a redesigned pre-calciner would address

the issues that SMC asserts make urea usage problematic under the current plant design, and so EPA’s cost estimates for this option assumed that

NO X removal efficiency under thisoption would match that found at SMCDixon.

The resulting estimates were that the option using a replaced pre-calciner, with no cost offset, would cost $2,252 per ton of NO X removed using urea and $1,901 per ton using ammonia. With a full cost offset, using urea as the reagent, the cost was estimated to be $815 per

ton of NO X removed. The derivation of

these estimates is shown in more detail in a technical support document for this rulemaking.

SMC’s comments indicate that the replacement calciner will improve the efficiency of SMC-Charlevoix and

reduce the baseline NO X emission rate to 3.9 lb per ton of clinker. This suggests that achievement of a limit of 2.4 lb per ton of clinker on average would require about a 40 percent NO X emission reduction rather than about a 50 percent reduction, requiring correspondingly


### 71545 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 232 / Monday, December 3, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

less reagent. EPA estimated reagent costs accordingly, yielding an estimate of $1,835 per ton of NO X removed using ammonia as the reagent.

As discussed above, EPA believes that SMC has a variety of options for meeting the limits EPA is promulgating. Thus, EPA prepared additional cost estimates reflecting other scenarios that may be

associated with achievement of the limits EPA is promulgating. One scenario involves various physical changes to the plant to facilitate use of SNCR, such as straightening flows to minimize the likelihood of problems from material buildup. EPA’s proposed rulemaking reflected consideration of such an option, and SMC’s comments

include cost estimates for such an option as well. EPA and SMC assumed that these physical changes would require a capital expenditure equal to half the cost of the SNCR plus the urea winter storage system. (SMC

commented that this cost estimate was unjustified, but SMC used this estimate nevertheless, and EPA believes that this cost estimate provides a useful indication of whether control options that involve varying degrees of plant modifications would be cost effective.) As proposed by SMC, the cost estimates

for this scenario also assumed that the

use of SNCR would result in the need for two additional days of shutdown to address material buildup, costing SMC $387,200 of production. As noted above, EPA believes that SMC can implement

SNCR at SMC-Charlevoix without significant material buildup or production loss, particularly if it uses ammonia as the reagent, to achieve the successful SNCR operation that other companies have achieved. However, EPA prepared this estimate to assess whether such production loss would significantly alter the cost effectiveness of SNCR use. Finally, while this

scenario could involve use of either urea or ammonia, EPA estimated costs for this scenario using ammonia because available evidence suggests that the promulgated emission limits are most likely to be met using ammonia. To obtain conservative cost estimates, EPA

assumed the NO X removal efficiency

found in the DeNO X Technologies tests at SMC-Charlevoix, even though EPA expects SMC to be able to achieve better efficiency through use of ammonia. As discussed in the technical support document, EPA estimated that this scenario would cost $1,138 per ton of

NO X removed.

Another scenario EPA examined involved lime injection. Material buildup is a function of the chemistry of the gases within the kiln system, and one option for addressing material buildup may be to inject lime at an appropriate point to minimize the sulfur concentration in the gases, to reduce the potential for sulfate formation. SMC has provided material to EPA suggesting that it already operates a bypass system to achieve this purpose. Nevertheless, EPA believes that it may be helpful to supplement this bypass system with lime injection, and in any case the costs for a scenario involving lime injection may be viewed as a representation of likely costs for a broad range of options (including, for example, the use of additional excess air) that may be warranted for optimizing gas chemistry to optimize SNCR effectiveness. This scenario involved capital costs of $300,000 to install a lime injection system and an annual cost of $300,000 for lime. (To the extent that SMC could use lime it produces itself without loss of production, the annual cost could be considerably lower.) Again, to obtain conservative cost estimates, EPA made these estimates assuming the NO X reduction efficiency found in the

DeNO X Technologies tests, even though EPA anticipates that SMC will be able to obtain better efficiency. The resulting estimate, based on the use of ammonia,

was that annualized costs would be $1,034 per ton of NO X removed.

In discussions between SMC and EPA, SMC raised the possibility that it could achieve 10 percent reduction of

NO X emissions through facility modifications and operational changes. These might include mid-kiln firing, other burner changes, water suppression, tire firing, and other changes that might reduce NO X formation. EPA did not attempt to estimate the costs of these approaches. Nevertheless, these approaches constitute additional options that SMC

has to achieve the limits that EPA is promulgating. Some of these approaches may well be cheaper for SMC to implement than SNCR, in which case the use of the approaches would allow

SMC to reduce NO X more cost effectively.

As noted above, the cost effectiveness estimates underlying EPA’s proposed rulemaking in most respects reflected

the method recommended in the EPA

Air Pollution Control Cost Manual for estimating costs of gas absorbers. The technical support document describes two cost estimates using this method,reflecting the efficiency found at SMCDixon and the efficiency found using urea at SMC-Charlevoix, respectively. Both cost estimates amortize capital costs over 20 years, both use ammonia as the reagent, and both assume that new SNCR equipment will be needed. These resulting cost effectiveness estimates were $720 and $999 per ton of

NO X removed, respectively. Thus, using the gas absorber method, like using the more appropriate SNCR method, leads to the conclusion that control using

SNCR is cost effective.

Comment: SMC stated, ‘‘The economic impact of EPA’s proposed

NO X limit would be devastating to northern Michigan.’’ SMC cited statistics regarding the employment and taxes paid by SMC-Charlevoix. SMC commented on the fragile economy. ‘‘In particular, the cement industry has been

hit hard.’’ SMC noted that it ‘‘was forced to shift production from its Dixon, Illinois facility to Charlevoix * * * to

make a return on its investment.’’ SMC raised the possibility of SMC suspending or ceasing operations in Charlevoix, and comments on the devastating effect this would have on the northern Michigan economy.

Response: EPA has thoroughly considered the expected costs of several available options for controlling NO X at SMC, evaluating SMC’s estimates and information we gathered from vendors and analyses performed for other comparable facilities. SMC has not justified a statement that implementing a set of controls that many other facilities are currently implementing, and incurring the costs to do so, would make SMC-Charlevoix unprofitable to operate or otherwise cause SMC to suspend or cease operations. EPA

believes further that the costs of control would be considerably lower than SMC

estimates. EPA does not believe that meeting the BART limits in the FIP

would lead to the shutdown of SMCCharlevoix.

Comment: SMC cited a third factor in determining BART, namely the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance. SMC

commented that addition of urea would cause ammonia slip.

Response: As stated above, SMC has not demonstrated that ammonia slip would be a problem at SMC-Charlevoix. Numerous cement plants are successfully operating SNCR in a manner that does not cause significant ammonia slip, and EPA believes thatSMC would be able to operate SMCCharlevoix in a manner that avoids significant ammonia slip as well.

Comment: SMC cited a fourth factor in determining BART, namely any pollution control equipment in use or in

existence at the source. SMC noted that it has ‘‘purchased and installed a state of the art fabric filter baghouse and has installed an Indirect Fire system which

includes low NO X burners.’’

Response: EPA recognizes the presence of these control systems.


### 71546 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 232 / Monday, December 3, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

Indeed, the indirect fire system

facilitates the achievement of lower

NO X emissions, and EPA believes that this system in combination with SNCR is necessary to achieve the BART emission limit that EPA proposed. Given the availability and costs

effectiveness of additional NO X controls, however, these existing

controls alone do not meet the BART requirement.

Comment: SMC cited a fifth factor in determining BART, namely the remaining useful life of the source. SMC repeated its statement, addressed above,

that the EPA Control Cost Manual allows for 10 year equipment life schedules which more closely match SMC’s short- and long-term plans.

Response: EPA has addressed this

comment above. The consolidation of cement production at SMC-Charlevoix, mentioned in SMC’s comments, further suggests that SMC-Charlevoix is unlikely to be shut down in 10 years.

Comment: SMC commented, ‘‘EPA is not empowered to substitute its judgment for that of the State of Michigan as to the appropriate BART

limit.’’

Response: The Clean Air Act gives EPA the authority and responsibility to determine whether Michigan has met the applicable requirements. In selected circumstances, such as apply here, if the state plan does not meet the requirements, the Clean Air Act does empower EPA to promulgate limits in lieu of those proposed by the state. Further discussion of this topic is provided in response to a similar comment by Michigan. As noted above, however, EPA prefers SIPs to FIPs, and will work with Michigan if it wants to submit a SIP to replace the FIP.

Comment: SMC cited a sixth factor in determining BART, namely the degree of improvement in visibility that a control option would yield. SMC did not dispute EPA’s estimate of the benefit of SNCR but argues that a reduction of permitted emission levels would yield greater visibility benefits.

SMC ‘‘proposes to reduce its permitted emission levels to meet a 30- day rolling average limit for NO X of 4.85 [lb per ton, which] represents a 25 percent reduction in potential NO X emissions.’’ SMC also ‘‘proposes that it meet a 30-day rolling average limit for

SO 2 of 7.5 [lb per ton, which] represents a 16 percent reduction in potential SO 2 emissions.’’ Finally, ‘‘SMC proposes a cap on its clinker production,’’ representing ‘‘a 9.4 percent reduction

from its current maximum.’’

SMC conducted CALPUFF modeling to assess the visibility improvement associated with its proposed reduction in permitted emissions. ‘‘The results show an improvement of 1.6 dv at Seney, which is significantly better than the 0.4 dv improvement EPA projected would be achieved with its proposed

NO X limit.’’

Response: SMC proposes a reduction in permitted emissions, but its proposed limits would only require minimal actual emission reductions. According to emissions data for 2006 to 2008,

which is the most recent detailed data that SMC has provided to EPA, most 30- day average emission levels are well below SMC’s proposed limit. For the

occasions in 2006 to 2008 in which the 30-day averages exceeded 4.85 lb per ton of clinker, the emission reductions

that would have been needed to meet this limit are only about 3 percent of annual total emissions. EPA’s proposed

SO 2 limit, which SMC proposes to apply on a 30-day average basis, expressly requires no actual emission reductions. SMC’s proposed production cap is well above 2006 to 2008 production levels, and thus also would require no actual

emission reductions.

In contrast, EPA proposed a limit that would require approximately a 50 percent reduction in actual NO X emissions. EPA’s assessment of the visibility benefits of BART was based on projected actual emission reductions. A comparable analysis of SMC’s proposal

would find no reductions and thus no

benefits for the SO 2 limit or the production cap. SMC’s proposal is estimated to require about a 3 percent

NO X emission reduction, compared to EPA’s approximately 50 percent, and so an assessment using EPA’s methodology would likely estimate a real visibility

benefit of about 0.02 dv.

SMC does not explain why its proposal, which clearly requires less

emission reduction than EPA’s proposal, nevertheless would show significantly more visibility benefit. While SMC does not provide sufficient information about its modeling to make a complete comparison, the disparity reflects significant differences between the two benefit assessments, in particular including the fact that SMC compared its suggested limits to current allowable emissions, whereas EPA

assessed the benefits of actual emission reductions that would be expected with imposition of EPA’s proposed limits.

Cliffs

Comment: Cliffs objected to EPA addressing Tilden Mining in a separate rulemaking focused on Michigan and Minnesota taconite facilities (August 15, 2012 rulemaking) rather than in the rulemaking addressing most of the rest of Michigan’s plan. Cliffs commented ‘‘EPA fails to provide an adequate basis for regulating Tilden separately.’’ Cliffs acknowledged that EPA stated that this approach was ‘‘to ensure that the Tilden Mining taconite plant and similar facilities in Minnesota are subject to similar requirements.’’ However, Cliffs objected that EPA provided neither factual data nor explanation of its legal interpretations in support of this approach. Furthermore, Cliffs objected to EPA’s rationale for rulemaking on Tilden Mining in conjunction with rulemaking on other taconite plants, arguing that the Regional Haze Rule requires case-by-case BART

determinations.

Response: The Clean Air Act requires that EPA complete rulemaking on Michigan’s submittal but does not limit EPA’s flexibility in choosing to conduct rulemakings on selected elements of the State’s submittal, potentially in

combination with similar elements of other states’ submittals, even simply for

EPA’s administrative convenience. Cliffs provides no rationale to the contrary. Moreover, Cliffs identifies no basis for concluding that rulemaking on Tilden Mining along with the Minnesota taconite plants could be expected to yield an inappropriate conclusion regarding Tilden Mining or is otherwise

harmful to Cliffs’ interests. EPA believes that case-by-case review of sources

should reach similar conclusions for similar facilities, but EPA need not find Tilden Mining similar to Cliffs’ other

taconite facilities to have the discretion to conduct rulemaking on all of the taconite facilities together.

Comment: Cliffs stated, ‘‘EPA does not give Michigan’s [BART] determinations the requisite deference.’’ Further, ‘‘EPA can only disapprove a

SIP where it fails to meet minimum Clean Air Act requirements.’’ Cliffs noted its intent to identify its detailed concerns regarding BART for Tilden Mining in comments addressing the August 15, 2012, rulemaking that in fact prompts these concerns. Nevertheless, Cliffs commented that ‘‘EPA improperly tries to substitute its own judgment for Michigan’s.’’

Response: EPA has not tried in this rulemaking to ‘‘substitute its own judgment for Michigan’s’’ with respect to Cliff’s facility, because EPA is taking no action with respect to this facility in this rulemaking. More generally, this proposal was promulgated more than three years after EPA published a notice in which EPA found that Michigan failed to submit the required regional haze SIP. (74 FR 2392, January 15, 2009) In the absence of an adequate state submittal, more than two years after this finding, the Clean Air Act mandates that


### 71547 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 232 / Monday, December 3, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

EPA promulgate a federal plan. See Clean Air Act section 110(c). A more detailed response is provided in response to a similar comment by Michigan. To the extent that Cliffs’ comment pertains to EPA’s proposal on the separate rulemaking that promulgates federal limits for taconite plants including the Tilden Mining facility, this comment is not germane to this rulemaking.

Comment: Cliffs requested that EPA hold ‘‘the public hearing proposed for September 19, 2012. That hearing must be broad enough to address both comments on this Proposed Rule and

concerns associated with EPA’s related

determinations for the Tilden taconite facility.’’ Cliffs commented that a hearing with this alternate purpose ‘‘is necessary * * * to allow local parties [in Michigan] to provide feedback on the proposed Tilden implementation plan.’’

Response: By letter dated September 14, 2012, EPA denied Cliffs’ request

because it related to matters addressed in the separate proposed rulemaking published August 15, 2012. Under Clean Air Act section 307(d), EPA must offer interested parties the opportunity for oral presentation of their comments on a proposed FIP but need not offer such opportunity for comments relevant to reviews of state plans, such as the proposed partial approval and partial disapproval of the Michigan SIP. Cliffs requested that EPA hold a public hearing in Michigan, but Cliffs urged that this hearing be held to provide Cliffs opportunity to provide extensive comments regarding Tilden Mining. Cliffs expressed no intent to comment on the proposed FIP elements for BART for SMC or Escanaba Paper. That is, Cliffs in its request did not demonstrate that it was an interested party with respect to the proposed federal limits for SMC or Escanaba Paper.

Implicit in EPA’s proposed rulemaking was that EPA was offering to hold a public hearing for purposes of receiving oral comments on its proposed

federal limits for SMC and Escanaba Paper. This purpose was clarified in

EPA’s letter to Cliffs and in EPA’s Web site announcing terms of the potential hearing, which stated, ‘‘EPA is providing the public the opportunity to request a public hearing regarding its proposal to establish emission limits for two facilities in Michigan: St. Mary’s Cement facility in Charlevoix, and NewPage Paper in Escanaba.’’

Finally, Cliffs has had multiple opportunities to provide oral comments on EPA’s proposed actions regarding Tilden Mining and Cliffs’ other taconite facilities and on any other issues Cliffs may have wished to address. These opportunities included a public hearing on August 29, 2012, in St. Paul, Minnesota (at which a Cliffs representative testified) and multiple meetings with EPA.

III. What are EPA’s final BART

determinations?

As noted above, in absence of a state

submittal that satisfies the BART requirements for SMC-Charlevoix and for Escanaba Paper’s Escanaba facility, EPA is under an obligation to promulgate a FIP satisfying these requirements. The following summary

reflects EPA’s final evaluation of appropriate limits that satisfy the BART requirement for these facilities. As noted above, EPA is addressing Tilden Mining’s facility near Ishpeming in a separate rulemaking.

A. SMC

EPA proposed to determine that

BART for SMC-Charlevoix includes operation of SNCR achieving an average of 50 percent reduction of NO X emissions. EPA continues to believe that BART for this facility includes operation of SNCR. SMC provided results of tests using urea showing achievement of only 30 to 37 percent

reduction of NO X , which SMC believes reflect conditions that yield suboptimal

results for use of urea. Available evidence suggests that use of ammonia is likely to be considerably more effective at SMC-Charlevoix, and in fact most cement plants using SNCR use

ammonia as the NO X control reagent.

EPA finds this control to be cost effective, and a review of relevant factors supports the conclusion that effective implementation of SNCR is BART for this facility. EPA continues to believe that a requirement for 50 percent

reduction in NO X emissions is

warranted.

However, the proposed limit would have required approximately 60 percent

NO X reduction on occasions when the emission rates equaled the 95th percentile of baseline emission rates. In response to comments, EPA is promulgating a limit that requires 50 percent control of such emissions, in order to provide increased confidence that the limit can be met. To limit peak emissions, EPA is promulgating a limit based on the rolling average emissions of 30 consecutive operating days. In addition, to ensure BART level control on days with typical emissions as well as on days with elevated emissions, EPA is also promulgating a limit on 12- month average emissions. These limits

are 2.8 lb of NO X per ton of clinker and

2.4 lb of NO X per ton of clinker, respectively. EPA is requiring that SMC comply with these limits by January 1, 2017, such that the averaging periods beginning on January 1, 2017, are the first periods for which emissions must be at or below the required level. This provides a four year period for compliance instead of three years as proposed, because EPA believes that four years represents the most expeditious schedule for SMC to install appropriate controls to meet the limit.

EPA proposed to limit SO 2 emissions at SMC-Charlevoix to 7.5 lbs per ton of clinker, based on a view that add-on

control is not warranted under current

circumstances but would be warranted if higher sulfur feed materials were used. EPA’s proposed rule cited estimated costs of $3,500 and $4,500 per

ton of SO 2 removed (estimated for emissions at permitted levels), but this proposal reflected consideration of a variety of factors that needed to beconsidered in assessing BART at SMCCharlevoix, including the fact that at normal emission rates for this facility, costs per ton of SO 2 removed would be much higher. EPA is promulgating its proposed SO 2 emission limit.

B. Escanaba Paper

In its proposed rulemaking, EPA proposed to determine that BART for boilers 8 and 9 at Escanaba Paper’s Escanaba facility included combustion control as a means of reducing NO X emissions. The notice of proposed rulemaking provides detailed discussion of particular control options and the cost effectiveness of these options. The notice of proposed rulemaking further observed that Escanaba Paper has already implemented improvements in its combustion control, such that EPA proposed to establish limits that merely

mandated that Escanaba continue to

maintain the current level of NO X emission control.

No commenters objected to this proposed BART determination, and EPA has no reason to change its views regarding BART for Escanaba Paper. As discussed above, EPA received various comments from Escanaba Paper regarding the emission limits that are to be established to require BART and the test method, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements that are to be

established. Pursuant to these comments, EPA is promulgating a

modified form of the limit for Boiler Number 8, based on a fixed limit of 0.35

lb of NO X per MMBTU, rather than limit emissions based on the weighted average of separate limits for emissions from oil firing and for emissions from gas firing. The limits for Boilers Number

8 and Number 9 are effective


### 71548 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 232 / Monday, December 3, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

immediately upon the effective date of this rule, as proposed. As discussed above, EPA is also modifying assorted elements of the test methods, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements that will apply to Escanaba Paper.

IV. What actions is EPA Taking?

EPA is finalizing approval of elements of Michigan’s SIP submittal, submitted on November 5, 2010, addressing regional haze for the first implementation period. The submittal was intended to satisfy Clean Air Act and Regional Haze Rule requirements for states to remedy any existing anthropogenic and prevent future impairment of visibility at Class I areas.

EPA finds that Michigan’s submission satisfies BART requirements for some of the non-EGUs, based in part on existing SIP emission limits and most notably

based on a Federal consent decree requiring new controls for SO 2 and NO X emissions for the Lafarge plant. On the other hand, EPA is finalizing disapproval of the NO X and SO 2 BART

determination for the cement kiln andassociated equipment at SMCCharlevoix and of the NO X BART

determination for boilers Number 8 and Number 9 at Escanaba Paper. Further, EPA is promulgating a FIP that imposes

NO X and SO 2 limits mandating BART

for the cement kiln and associated equipment for the SMC-Charlevoix and

NO X limits mandating BART for boilers Numbers 8 and 9 at Escanaba Paper.

EPA is not addressing Michigan’s BART determination for Tilden Mining taconite plant in this action. EPA has proposed separate action and plans separate final action regarding this facility in separate rulemaking action

that also addresses taconite facilities in

Minnesota.

Michigan’s submission provides an approvable analysis of the emission reductions needed to satisfy reasonable progress and other regional haze planning requirements. Michigan’s submittal includes a long-term strategy that provides for reasonable progress except to the extent that the deficiencies with respect to BART for SMC and Escanaba Paper (and, according to a separate proposed rule, Tilden Mining)

constitute shortfalls in the set of measures needed to provide reasonable progress. EPA is approving Michigan’s submittal as meeting other regional haze planning requirements including identification of affected Class I areas, provision of a monitoring plan, and consultation with other parties. V. Statutory and Executive Order

Reviews

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

This action will promulgate requirements for two facilities and is therefore not a rule of general applicability. This type of action is exempt from review under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

This action does not impose an

information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Because this FIP only applies to two facilities, the Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impacts of today’s rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not

dominant in its field.

After considering the economic impacts of this action on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

The net result of this FIP action is that EPA is promulgating emission controls on selected units at only two facilities. The facilities in question are a large cement plant and a large paper mill that are not owned by small entities, and

therefore are not small entities. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. It is a rule of particular applicability that affects only two facilities in Michigan. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of

UMRA.

This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This rule only applies to two facilities in Michigan.

E. Executive Order 13132 Federalism

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

Executive Order 13132. This action addresses Michigan not meeting its obligation to adopt a SIP that meets the regional haze requirements under the Clean Air Act. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action. Although section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action, EPA did consult with Michigan in developing this action.

F. Executive Order 13175

This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the action EPA is taking neither imposes substantial direct compliance costs on tribal governments, nor preempts tribal law. It will not have

substantial direct effects on tribal government. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. However, to the extent this rule will limit emissions, the rule will have a beneficial effect on tribal health by reducing air pollution.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of

Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5–501 of the EO has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO 13045 because it implements specific standards established by Congress in statutes. However, to the


### 71549 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 232 / Monday, December 3, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

extent this rule will limit emissions, the

rule will have a beneficial effect on children’s health by reducing air pollution.

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

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

12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities

unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary

consensus standards.

This action does not involve technical standards. Today’s action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to the use of voluntary consensus standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal

Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high

and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.

We have determined that this rule will not have disproportionately high

and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it

increases the level of environmental protection for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-income population. This rule limits

emissions from two facilities.

K. Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types of rules (1) Rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S 804(3). EPA is not required to submit a rule report regarding today’s action under section 801 because this is a rule of particular applicability.

L. Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 1, 2013.

Pursuant to Clean Air Act section 307(d)(1)(B), this action is subject to the requirements of Clean Air Act section 307(d) as it promulgates a FIP under Clean Air Act section 110(c). Filing a petition for reconsideration by the

Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See Clean Air Act section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: November 26, 2012.

Lisa P. Jackson,

Administrator.

Title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal regulations is amended as

follows:

**PART 52—[AMENDED]**

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

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

■ 2. Section 52.1170 is amended by adding a new entry at the end of the table in paragraph (e) for ‘‘Regional

Haze Plan’’ to read as follows:

**§ 52.1170 Identification of plan.**

* * * * *

(e) * * *



### EPA-A PPROVED 

### M ICHIGAN 

### N ONREGULATORY AND 

### Q UASI 

### -R EGULATORY 

### P ROVISIONS

Name of nonregulatory SIP provision Applicable geographic or
nonattainment

area State submittal
date EPA approved date Comments

******* Regional Haze Plan ..... statewide ........... 11/5/2010 12/3/2012 [Insert page number

where the document begins]. Addresses all regional haze plan elements except BARTemission limitations for EGUs, St. Marys Cement, Escanaba Paper, and Tilden Mining


### 71550 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 232 / Monday, December 3, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

■ 3. Section 52.1183 is amended by adding paragraphs (g), (h), and (i), to

read as follows:

**§ 52.1183 Visibility protection.**

* * * * *

(g) The requirements of section 169A

of the Clean Air Act are not met because the regional haze plan submitted on November 5, 2010, does not meet the best available retrofit technology requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of NO X and SO 2 from Saint Marys Cement in Charlevoix

and NO X from Escanaba Paper Company in Escanaba. These requirements for these two facilities are satisfied by 40 CFR 52.1183(h) and 40 CFR 52.1183(i), respectively.

(h)(1) For the 30-day period beginning January 1, 2017, and thereafter, Saint Marys Cement, or any subsequent owner or operator of the Saint Marys Cement facility located in Charlevoix, Michigan, shall not cause or permit the emission of oxides of nitrogen (expressed as NO 2 ) to exceed 2.80 lb per ton of clinker as a 30-day rolling average.

(2) For the 12-month period beginning January 1, 2017, and thereafter, Saint Marys Cement, or any subsequent owner or operator of the Saint Marys Cement facility located in Charlevoix, Michigan, shall not cause or permit the emission

of NO X (expressed as NO 2) to exceed 2.40 lb per ton of clinker as a 12-month

average.

(3) Saint Marys Cement, or any subsequent owner or operator of the Saint Marys Cement facility located in Charlevoix, Michigan, shall not cause or permit the emission of SO 2 to exceed 7.50 lb per ton of clinker as a 12-month

average.

(4) Saint Marys Cement, or any subsequent owner or operator of the Saint Marys Cement facility located in Charlevoix, Michigan, shall operate continuous emission monitoring systems to measure NO X and SO 2 emissions from its kiln system in conformance with 40 CFR part 60 appendix F procedure 1.

(5) The reference test method for assessing compliance with the limit in paragraph (h)(1) of this section shall be

use of a continuous emission monitoring system operated in conformance with 40 CFR part 60, appendix F, procedure 1. A new 30-day average shall be computed at the end of each calendar day in which the kiln operates, based on the following procedure: First, sum the total pounds

of NO X (expressed as NO 2) emitted during the operating day and the previous twenty-nine operating days, second, sum the total tons of clinker produced during the same period, and third, divide the total number of pounds by the total clinker produced during the thirty operating days.

(6) The reference test method for assessing compliance with the limit in paragraphs (h)(2) and (h)(3) of this

section shall be use of a continuous emission monitoring system operated in conformance with 40 CFR part 60, appendix F, procedure 1. A new 12- month average shall be computed at the end of each calendar month, based on the following procedure: First, sum the total pounds of NO X or SO 2 , as applicable, emitted from the unit during the month and the previous eleven calendar months, second, sum the total tons of clinker production during the same period, and third, divide the total number of pounds of emissions of NO X or SO 2 , as applicable, by the total clinker production during the twelve

calendar months.

(7) Recordkeeping. The owner/ operator shall maintain the following records for at least five years:

(i) All CEMS data, including the date, place, and time of sampling or measurement; parameters sampled or measured; and results.

(ii) All records of clinker production,

which shall be monitored in accordance

with 40 CFR 60.63.

(iii) Records of quality assurance and quality control activities for emissions measuring systems including, but not limited to, any records required by 40 CFR part 60, appendix F, Procedure 1.

(iv) Records of all major maintenance activities conducted on emission units, air pollution control equipment, CEMS and clinker production measurement

devices.

(v) Any other records required by 40 CFR part 60, subpart F, or 40 CFR part 60, appendix F, procedure 1.

(8) Reporting. All reports under this section shall be submitted to Chief, Air Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Mail Code AE–17J, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604–

3590.

(i) The owner/operator shall submit quarterly excess emissions reports for

SO 2 and NO X BART limits no later than the 30th day following the end of each calendar quarter. Excess emissions

means emissions that exceed the emissions limits specified in paragraph (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(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.

(ii) Owner/operator of each unit shall submit quarterly 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.

(iii) The owner/operator shall also submit results of any CEMS performance tests required by 40 CFR part 60, appendix F, Procedure 1 (Relative Accuracy Test Audits, Relative Accuracy Audits, and Cylinder Gas Audits).

(iv) When no excess emissions have

occurred or the CEMS has not been inoperative, repaired, or adjusted during the reporting period, such information shall be stated in the quarterly reports required by paragraphs (h)(7)(i) and (ii)

of this section.

(i) Escanaba Paper Company, or any subsequent owner or operator of the Escanaba Paper Company facility in Escanaba, Michigan, shall meet the following requirements and shall not cause or permit the emission of NO X (expressed as NO X) to exceed the following limits:

(1) For Boiler 8, designated as EU8B13, a rolling 30-day average limit of 0.35 lb per MMBTU.

(2) A continuous emission monitoring system shall be operated to measure

NO X emissions from Boiler 8 in conformance with 40 CFR part 60, appendix F.

(3) The reference test method for assessing compliance with the limit in paragraph (i)(1) of this section shall be a continuous emission monitoring system operated in conformance with 40 CFR part 60, appendix F. A new 30-day average shall be computed at the end of each calendar day in which the boiler operated, based on the following procedure: first, sum the total pounds of

NO X emitted from the unit during theoperating day and the previous twentynine operating days, second sum the total heat input to the unit in MMBTU during the same period, and third, divide the total number of pounds of

NO X emitted by the total heat input during the thirty operating days.

(4) For Boiler 9, also identified as EU9B03, a limit of 0.27 lb per MMBTU.

(5) The reference test method for assessing compliance with the limit in paragraph (i)(4) of this section shall be

a test conducted in accordance with 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Method 7.

(6) Recordkeeping. The owner/ operator shall maintain the following


### 71551 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 232 / Monday, December 3, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

records regarding Boiler 8 and Boiler 9 for at least five years:

(i) All CEMS data, including the date, place, and time of sampling or measurement; parameters sampled or measured; and results.

(ii) All stack test results. (iii) Daily records of fuel usage, heat input, and data used to determine heat

content.

(iv) Records of quality assurance and quality control activities for emissions measuring systems including, but not limited to, any records required by 40 CFR part 60, appendix F, Procedure 1.

(v) Records of all major maintenance activities conducted on emission units, air pollution control equipment, and

CEMS.

(vi) Any other records identified in 40 CFR 60.49b(g) or 40 CFR part 60, appendix F, Procedure 1.

(7) Reporting. All reports under this section shall be submitted to the Chief, Air Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Mail Code AE–17J, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago,

IL 60604–3590.

(i) Owner/operator of Boiler 8 shall submit quarterly excess emissions reports for the limit in paragraph (i)(1) no later than the 30th day following the end of each calendar quarter. Excess

emissions means emissions that exceed the emissions limit specified in paragraph (i)(1) 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.

(ii) Owner/operator of Boiler 8 shall submit quarterly 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 or when Boiler 8 is not operating), reason(s) why the CEMS was inoperative and steps taken to prevent recurrence, and any CEMS repairs or adjustments.

(iii) Owner/operator of Boiler 8 shall also submit results of any CEMS performance tests required by 40 CFR part 60, appendix F, procedure 1 (Relative Accuracy Test Audits, Relative Accuracy Audits, and Cylinder Gas Audits).

(iv) When no excess emissions have

occurred or the CEMS has not been inoperative, repaired, or adjusted during the reporting period, such information shall be stated in the quarterly reports required by paragraph (i)(7) of this

section.

(v) Owner/operator of Boiler 9 shall submit reports of any compliance test measuring NO X emissions from Boiler 9 within 60 days of the last day of the test. If owner/operator commences operation

of a continuous NO X emission monitoring system for Boiler 9, owner/ operator shall submit reports for Boiler 9 as specified for Boiler 8 in paragraphs (i)(7)(i) to (i)(7)(iv) of this section.

[FR Doc. 2012–29014 Filed 11–30–12; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION**

**AGENCY**

**40 CFR Part 52**

**[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0492; FRL–9757–1]**

**Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California;** 

**Determinations of Attainment for the**

**1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard**

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

**ACTION :**  Final rule.

**SUMMARY :**  EPA is making a number of determinations relating to 1997 8-hour

ozone nonattainment areas in California. First, EPA is determining that six 8-hour

ozone nonattainment areas in California (Amador and Calaveras Counties, Chico, Kern County, Mariposa and Tuolumne Counties, Nevada County, and Sutter County) (‘‘six CA areas’’) attained the

1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) by their applicable attainment dates. Second, in conjunction with its determinations for Mariposa and Tuolumne Counties and Nevada County, EPA is granting these areas one-year attainment date extensions. Lastly, EPA is determining

that the six CA areas and the Ventura County 8-hour ozone nonattainment

area in CA have attained and continue to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on the most recent three years of data. Under the provisions of EPA’s ozone implementation rule, these determinations suspend the requirements to submit revisions to the state implementation plans (SIP) for

these areas related to attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard for as long

as these areas continue to meet the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

**DATES :**  Effective Date: This rule is effective on January 2, 2013.

**ADDRESSES :**  EPA has established a

docket for this action under Docket

Identification No. EPA–R09–OAR–

2011–0492. The index to the docket is available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all

documents in the docket are listed in the index, some may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material) and some may not be publicly available at either location (e.g., confidential business information). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business

hours with the contact listed in the **FOR**

**FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT** section

below.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  John Ungvarsky, Air Planning Office, AIR–2, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, CA 94105–3901, telephone number (415) 972–3963, or

email ungvarsky.john@epa.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  Throughout this document, wherever ‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’ or ‘‘our’’ are used, we mean EPA. We are providing the following outline to aid in locating information in

this final rule.

Table of Contents

I. What determinations is EPA making? II. What is the background for these actions?

III. What comments did we receive on the proposed rule?

IV. What are the effects of these actions?

A. Attainment Date Extensions B. Determinations of Attainment by Areas’

Applicable Attainment Dates

C. Determinations of Current Attainment

and 40 CFR 51.918

V. EPA’s Final Actions VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What determinations is EPA making?

EPA is making a number of determinations with respect to 1997 8-

hour ozone nonattainment areas in California. First, pursuant to section 181(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA is determining that the Amador and Calaveras Counties (Central Mountain Counties), Chico (Butte County), Kern County (Eastern Kern), Mariposa and Tuolumne Counties (Southern Mountain Counties), Nevada County (Western Nevada County), and Sutter County (Sutter Buttes) 8-hour

ozone nonattainment areas in California (herein referred to as the ‘‘six CA areas’’) attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by their respective applicable attainment dates. Second, in connection with these determinations, EPA is also granting, pursuant to section 181(a)(5) and 40 CFR 51.907, applications submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) for extensions to the applicable attainment dates for

the Southern Mountain Counties and