83144 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 224 / Monday, November 21, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

Subpart B—Alabama 

■ 2. Section 52.50(e), is amended by 

adding an entry for ‘‘110(a)(1) and (2) 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 

1-hour NO2 NAAQS’’ at the end of the 

table to read as follows: 

§ 52.50 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED ALABAMA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Name of 

nonregulatory 

SIP provision 

Applicable 

geographic or 

nonattainment 

area 

State submittal 

date/effective date EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements 

for the 2010 1-hour 

NO2 NAAQS.

Alabama ........ 4/23/2013 11/21/2016 [Insert citation of publication].With the exception of sections: 110(a)(2)(C) and 

(J) concerning PSD permitting requirements; 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1 through 4) 

concerning interstate transport requirements and 

the state boards of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). 

■ 3. Section 52.53 is amended by adding 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 52.53 Approval status. 

* * * * * 

(c) Disapproval. Submittal from the 

State of Alabama, through the Alabama 

Department of Environmental 

Management (ADEM) on April 23, 2013, 

and December 9, 2015, to address the 

Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for 

the 2010 1-hour nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) concerning state board 

requirements. EPA is disapproving 

section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of ADEM’s 

submittal because the Alabama SIP 

lacks provisions respecting state boards 

per section 128 of the CAA for the 2010 

Nitrogen Dioxide National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards. 

[FR Doc. 2016–27862 Filed 11–18–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0846; FRL–9955–17- 

Region 9] 

Promulgation of Air Quality 

Implementation Plans; Arizona; 

Regional Haze Federal Implementation 

Plan; Reconsideration 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is revising portions of the 

Arizona Regional Haze Federal 

Implementation Plan (2014 FIP) 

applicable to the Phoenix Cement 

Company (PCC) Clarkdale Plant and the 

CalPortland Cement (CPC) Rillito Plant. 

This 2014 FIP was adopted earlier under 

the provisions of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). We are finalizing without change 

our proposal to replace the control 

technology demonstration requirements 

for nitrogen oxides (NOX) applicable to 

Kiln 4 at the Clarkdale Plant and Kiln 

4 at the Rillito Plant with a series of 

revised recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements. When EPA finalized the 

2014 FIP, we had limited operating data 

for the use of Selective Non-Catalytic 

Reduction (SNCR) on cement plants. 

Therefore, we required that PCC and 

CPC perform control technology 

demonstration projects to support the 

control efficiencies for SNCR in the 

2014 FIP, as well as to determine if 

more stringent control efficiencies were 

achievable. In early 2015, a control 

technology demonstration project was 

performed on the SNCR installed at 

another CalPortland Cement facility, the 

Mojave Plant. Our analysis of the SNCR 

control efficiency data from that project 

indicated that more stringent SNCR 

control efficiencies were not achievable 

at PCC and CPC. As a result, the 

additional information from the control 

technology demonstration projects 

required by the 2014 FIP is no longer 

needed because the PCC and CPC SNCR 

control efficiencies in the 2014 FIP are 

consistent with the SNCR performance 

at the Mojave Plant. In addition, the 

EPA is making a minor technical 

correction to change an equation to 

match the language in the regulatory 

text. 

DATES: This rule will be effective 

December 21, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0846. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., confidential business information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available electronically through http://

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Colleen McKaughan, U.S. EPA, Region 

9, Air Division, Air-1, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105; 

telephone number: (520) 498–0118; 

email address: mckaughan.colleen@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Definitions 

II. Background 

III. Proposed Action 

IV. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

V. Final Action 

VI. Environmental Justice Considerations 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we 

are giving meaning to certain words or 

initials as follows: 

• The words or initials Act or CAA 

mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, 

unless the context indicates otherwise. 

• The initials ADEQ mean or refer to 

the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality. 

• The words Arizona and State mean 

the State of Arizona. 

• The initials BART mean or refer to 

Best Available Retrofit Technology. 

• The term Class I area refers to a 

mandatory Class I Federal area. 

• The initials CBI mean or refer to 

Confidential Business Information. 

• The initials CPC mean or refer to 

CalPortland Cement. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 224 / Monday, November 21, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 83145 

1 77 FR 42834, 42837–42839 (July 20, 2012), 

(Arizona Regional Haze ‘‘Phase 1’’ Rule); 77 FR 

75704, 75709–75712 (December 21, 2012), (Arizona 

Regional Haze ‘‘Phase 2’’ Rule). 

2 42 U.S.C. 7491(a)(1). 

3See CAA section 169B, 42 U.S.C. 7492. 

4 81 FR 26942, May 4, 2016. 

5Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal 

areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000 

acres, wilderness areas, and national memorial 

parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international 

parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 

U.S.C. 7472(a). 

6See generally 40 CFR 51.308. 

7 77 FR 72512 (December 5, 2012). 

8 78 FR 46142 (July 30, 2013). 

9 79 FR 52420 (September 3, 2014) (The 2014 FIP 

final rule). 

10Memorandum dated November 19, 2012, from 

John Summerhays (EPA), Subject: ‘‘Review of Cost 

Effectiveness of Selective Noncatalytic Reduction 

(SNCR) at St. Mary’s Cement’s (SMC) Facility in 

Charlevoix (SMC-Charlevoix).’’ 

11 De-NOX Technologies, LLC, ‘‘Report of NOX

Removal Measurements from an SNCR System at 

the St. Mary’s Cement Dixon IL Facility,’’ October 

2005. 

12 77 FR 181 (September 18, 2012) (Ash Grove 

Cement and Holcim Cement BART 5-factor 

analysis). 

13Colorado Department of Public Health and 

Environment, ‘‘Colorado Regional Haze SIP’’, 

January 2011; See Reasonable Progress (RP) FourFactor Analysis of Control Options for Holcim 

Portland Plant, Florence, Colorado. 

14Letter dated March 31, 2014 from Jay Grady 

(CPC) to Thomas Webb (EPA) and Exhibit 1, 

‘‘Evaluation of EPA’s Reasonable Progress Analysis 

for Kiln 4 at CalPortland Company’s Rillito Cement 

Plant.’’ 

15Letter dated November 3, 2014, from Verle C. 

Martz (PCC) to Regina McCarthy (EPA); letter dated 

November 3, 2014 from Jay Grady (CPC) to Regina 

McCarthy (EPA). 

16Letter November 3, 2014, from Jay Grady (CPC) 

to Regina McCarthy (EPA) with attachment 

‘‘Petition of CalPortland Company for Partial 

Reconsideration and Request for Administrative 

Stay of EPA Final Rule, Promulgation of Air Quality 

Implementation Plans; Arizona; Regional Haze and 

Interstate Visibility Transport Federal 

Implementation Plan Published at 79 FR 52420’’ at 

4. 

• The words EPA, we, us or our mean 

or refer to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

• The initials FIP mean or refer to 

Federal Implementation Plan. 

• The initials NOX mean or refer to 

nitrogen oxides. 

• The initials PCC mean or refer to 

Phoenix Cement Company. 

• The initials SCR mean or refer to 

selective catalytic reduction. 

• The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

• The initials SNCR mean or refer to 

selective non-catalytic reduction. 

• The initials SRPMIC mean or refer 

to Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian 

Community. 

II. Background 

A. Summary of Statutory and 

Regulatory Requirements 

This section provides a brief overview 

of the requirements of the CAA and the 

EPA’s Regional Haze Rule, as they apply 

to this particular action. Please refer to 

our previous rulemakings on the 

Arizona Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for 

additional background regarding the 

visibility protection provisions of the 

CAA and the Regional Haze Rule.1

Congress created a program for 

protecting visibility in the nation’s 

national parks and wilderness areas in 

section 169A of the 1977 Amendments 

to the CAA. This section of the CAA 

establishes as a national goal the 

‘‘prevention of any future, and the 

remedying of any existing, impairment 

of visibility in mandatory Class I 

Federal areas which impairment results 

from man-made air pollution.’’ 2

Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of 

the CAA requires states to revise their 

SIPs to contain such measures as may be 

necessary to make reasonable progress 

towards the natural visibility goal. In 

the 1990 CAA Amendments, Congress 

amended the visibility provisions in the 

CAA to focus attention on the problem 

of regional haze, which is visibility 

impairment produced by a multitude of 

sources and activities located across a 

broad geographic area.3 The Regional 

Haze Rule was promulgated in 1999 and 

is in the process of being revised.4 It 

requires states to develop and 

implement SIPs to ensure reasonable 

progress toward improving visibility in 

mandatory Class I Federal areas 5

(‘‘Class I area’’) by reducing emissions 

that cause or contribute to regional 

haze.6

B. History of FIP Requirements for the 

State of Arizona 

The Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality (ADEQ) 

submitted a Regional Haze SIP to the 

EPA on February 28, 2011. The EPA 

acted on ADEQ’s Regional Haze SIP in 

three separate rulemakings. Specifically, 

the first final rule approved in part and 

disapproved in part the State’s Best 

Available Retrofit Technology (BART) 

determinations for three power plants 

(Apache Generating Station, Cholla 

Power Plant, and Coronado Generating 

Station), and promulgated a FIP for NOX

BART as well as the compliance 

requirements for all three power plants.7

The second final rule, which addressed 

the remaining elements of the Arizona 

Regional Haze SIP, included our 

disapproval of the State’s analysis of 

reasonable progress measures for point 

sources of NOX.8 In the third final rule, 

the EPA promulgated a FIP in 2014 

(2014 FIP) addressing the requirements 

of the Regional Haze Rule and interstate 

visibility transport for the remainder of 

the disapproved portions of Arizona’s 

Regional Haze SIP.9

Among other things, the 2014 FIP 

includes requirements for NOX emission 

controls applicable to PCC Clarkdale 

Plant Kiln 4 and CPC Rillito Plant Kiln 

4 under the reasonable progress 

requirements of the Regional Haze Rule. 

In particular, the EPA established two 

alternative emission limits for NOX on 

Kiln 4 of the Clarkdale Plant: An 

emission limit of 2.12 pounds per ton 

(lb/ton) of clinker produced or an 

emission limit of 810 tons/year. The 

2.12 lb/ton limit is achievable through 

installation of selective non-catalytic 

reduction (SNCR), based on a 50 percent 

control efficiency, while the 810 ton/ 

year limit could be met either by 

installing SNCR or by maintaining 

recent production levels.10 11 12 13 We set 

an emission limit for NOX at the Rillito 

Plant of 3.46 lb/ton of clinker produced, 

based on a 35 percent control 

efficiency.14 The 2014 FIP also includes 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements and a 

compliance deadline for the final NOX

emission limits of December 31, 2018. 

Finally, in response to comments 

asserting that SNCR control efficiencies 

of 50 percent for Kiln 4 at the Clarkdale 

Plant and 35 percent for Kiln 4 at the 

Rillito Plant were unsupported and that 

SNCR was capable of achieving higher 

control efficiencies, we included in the 

final 2014 FIP requirements for a control 

technology demonstration project for 

the SNCR system at each plant, which 

entailed the collection of data and 

preparation of a SNCR optimization 

protocol that would be used to 

determine if a higher control efficiency 

would be achievable. 

C. Petitions for Reconsideration and 

Stay 

PCC and CPC each submitted a 

petition to the EPA on November 3, 

2014, seeking administrative 

reconsideration and a partial stay of the 

2014 FIP under CAA section 

307(d)(7)(B) and the Administrative 

Procedure Act.15 In their petitions, both 

companies raised multiple objections to 

the control technology demonstration 

requirements in the 2014 FIP. CPC 

asserted that the requirements were 

burdensome, expensive, and 

unnecessary, given that CPC had already 

‘‘evaluated fuels, fuel fineness, and the 

other characteristics listed in the 

Optimization Protocol’’ as part of its 

effort to reduce energy usage.16 PCC 

stated that the requirements ‘‘would be 

burdensome to implement’’ and ‘‘would 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
83146 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 224 / Monday, November 21, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

17Letter dated November 3, 2014, from Verle C. 

Martz (PCC) to Regina McCarthy (EPA) at 2. 

18We note that while the Clarkdale Plant is 

tribally owned, it is not located on tribal land. It 

is subject to State jurisdiction and is regulated by 

ADEQ. 

19Letter dated January 16, 2015, from Jared 

Blumenfeld (EPA) to Verle C. Martz, PCC; letter 

dated January 27, 2015, from Jared Blumenfeld 

(EPA) to Jay Grady (CPC). 

20 81 FR 53929 (Aug. 15, 2016). 

21 81 FR 42600 (June 30, 2016). 

substantially interfere with the cement 

manufacturing operations’’ at the 

Clarkdale Plant.17 PCC further asserted 

that requirements would harm the Salt 

River Pima-Maricopa Indian 

Community (SRPMIC), which relies on 

revenue from the Clarkdale Plant.18

The EPA sent letters to PCC and CPC 

on January 16, 2015 and January 27, 

2015, respectively, granting 

reconsideration of the control 

technology demonstration project 

requirements pursuant to CAA section 

307(d)(7)(B).19 Although we did not act 

on the companies’ request for a stay at 

that time, we subsequently granted a 

stay of the control technology 

demonstration project requirements 

under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), 

effective from August 15, 2016 to 

November 14, 2016.20

III. Proposed Action 

On June 30, 2016, the EPA proposed 

to revise the 2014 FIP based on our 

reconsideration of the control 

technology demonstration requirements 

for the PCC Clarkdale Plant and CPC 

Rillito Plant.21 In particular, we 

proposed to replace these requirements, 

applicable to Kiln 4 at the Clarkdale 

Plant and to Kiln 4 at the Rillito Plant, 

with a series of revised recordkeeping 

and reporting conditions. We also 

proposed to find that these revisions to 

the 2014 FIP would comply with CAA 

section 110(l). 

A. The EPA’s Evaluation of Control 

Technology Demonstration 

Requirements 

1. Rillito Plant Kiln 4 

In light of the objections to the control 

technology demonstration requirements 

raised by CPC and PCC, we re-evaluated 

the necessity of these requirements for 

the Rillito and Clarkdale plants once 

additional information became available 

on the performance of SNCR at cement 

kilns. Although one of the objections to 

the control technology demonstration 

requirements raised in the petitions for 

reconsideration was that EPA lacks 

authority to impose such a requirement 

in a regional haze FIP, we disagree with 

that narrow interpretation of our 

authority. We note that the EPA’s 

authority in promulgating a regional 

haze FIP derives not only from the 

visibility protection provisions of the 

CAA and our implementing regulations, 

but also from other provisions of the 

CAA. CAA section 302(y) defines a FIP, 

in pertinent part, as a plan (or portion 

thereof) promulgated by the EPA ‘‘to fill 

all or a portion of a gap or otherwise 

correct all or a portion of an 

inadequacy’’ in a SIP, ‘‘and which 

includes enforceable emission 

limitations or other control measures, 

means or techniques (including 

economic incentives, such as 

marketable permits or auctions or 

emissions allowances).’’ CAA section 

302(k), in turn, defines ‘‘emission 

limitation’’ to include (among other 

things) ‘‘any design, equipment, work 

practice or operational standard 

promulgated under [the CAA].’’ 

Therefore, the EPA has authority to 

include design, equipment, work 

practice and operational standards, such 

as those included in the control 

technology demonstration requirements, 

in a FIP. Furthermore, CAA section 114 

provides that in order to develop any 

SIP or FIP, or to ‘‘carry[] out any 

provision of [the CAA],’’ the EPA may 

require owners or operators of emission 

sources to install monitoring equipment, 

sample emissions, and ‘‘provide such 

other information as the [EPA] may 

reasonably require.’’ Accordingly, the 

EPA also has authority to require 

collection and submittal of emission 

and operating data in the manner set 

forth in the control technology 

demonstration requirements. 

Nonetheless, we are now finalizing our 

action to remove the control technology 

demonstration requirements, including 

the requirement for an optimization 

protocol, from the 2014 FIP for the 

reasons set out in our proposal and 

elsewhere in this document. 

The EPA proposed to remove the 

control technology demonstration 

requirements for Kiln 4 at the CPC 

Rillito Plant after we evaluated NOX

emission data from a SNCR system 

operating at a similar kiln at another 

CPC facility, the Mojave Plant in 

California, which gave us the 

information that we were seeking 

regarding SNCR performance. The data 

from the Mojave Plant demonstrated 

that the installed SNCR system could 

only achieve a control efficiency of 40 

percent. In our proposed action to revise 

the FIP, we specifically noted several 

site-specific factors indicating that a 

SNCR system at CPC Rillito Kiln 4 

would underperform the SNCR system 

at the Mojave Plant. Given the relatively 

low SNCR effectiveness on the Mojave 

Plant, we proposed to find that a SNCR 

control efficiency more stringent than 

the 35 percent required by the 2014 FIP 

was not achievable at CPC. Therefore, 

the additional information from the 

2014 FIP control technology 

demonstration project is no longer 

needed because the CPC SNCR control 

efficiency in the 2014 FIP is consistent 

with the SNCR performance at Mojave. 

Based on our analysis of emissions data 

and control efficiencies from the Mojave 

Plant, we proposed to find that it is no 

longer necessary for CPC to meet the 

relatively detailed and prescriptive 

control technology demonstration 

requirements in the 2014 FIP, including 

submittal of a SNCR optimization 

protocol. We therefore proposed to 

remove the control technology 

demonstration requirements. As 

explained in section III.B below, we 

proposed to replace these requirements 

with a set of revised recordkeeping and 

reporting conditions. 

2. Clarkdale Plant Kiln 4 

In our proposed action to revise the 

2014 FIP, we noted that the 50 percent 

control efficiency for PCC Clarkdale 

Kiln 4 is already more stringent than the 

control efficiency demonstrated at the 

Mojave Plant, and we proposed to find 

that the 50 percent control efficiency 

specified in the 2014 FIP for PCC 

Clarkdale was supported by the 

available data. Therefore, the additional 

information from the 2014 FIP control 

technology demonstration project is no 

longer needed because the PCC SNCR 

control efficiency in the 2014 FIP is 

more stringent than the SNCR 

performance at Mojave. The EPA 

proposed to remove the control 

technology demonstration requirements 

for Kiln 4 at the PCC Clarkdale Plant 

and replace them with revised 

recordkeeping and reporting conditions. 

B. Revised Recordkeeping and Reporting 

Requirements 

As described in III.A above, we 

proposed to find that it is no longer 

necessary for CPC and PCC to comply 

with the relatively prescriptive and 

detailed control technology 

demonstration requirements established 

in our 2014 FIP, and we are replacing 

those provisions with a set of revised 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements. 

C. Non-Interference With Applicable 

Requirements 

The CAA requires that any revision to 

an implementation plan shall not be 

approved by the Administrator if the 

revision would interfere with any 

applicable requirement concerning 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 224 / Monday, November 21, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 83147 

22 42 U.S.C. 7410(l). 

23Letter dated July 13, 2016, from Verle C. Martz 

(PCC) to Vijay Limaye (EPA). 

24Letter dated August 15, 2016, from Jay M. 

Grady (CPC) to Vijay Limaye (EPA). 

25Letter dated August 12, 2016, from Michael 

Hiatt (Earthjustice) to Vijay Limaye (EPA). 

26 Ibid. 

27 Ibid. 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress or any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA.22 We proposed 

to find that the revisions to the 2014 FIP 

would not affect any applicable 

requirements of the CAA because they 

would not alter the amount or timing of 

emission reductions from the Clarkdale 

Plant or the Rillito Plant. In particular, 

the replacement of the control 

technology demonstration requirements 

with revised recordkeeping and 

reporting conditions would not alter any 

of the applicable emission limitations, 

compliance determination 

methodologies, or compliance 

deadlines. Therefore, we proposed to 

find that these revisions would comply 

with CAA section 110(l). 

IV. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

Our proposed action provided a 45- 

day public comment period. During this 

period, we received three comments: A 

comment letter from PCC,23 a comment 

letter from CPC,24 and a comment letter 

from Earthjustice on behalf of National 

Parks Conservation Association and 

Sierra Club.25 The significant comments 

and our responses are set forth below. 

Comment: PCC commented that the 

EPA’s reconsideration rulemaking is 

necessary for the reasons stated in PCC’s 

petition for reconsideration and in its 

opening and reply briefs filed with 

Ninth Circuit in litigation over the 

Arizona Regional Haze FIP. PCC 

included each of these documents as 

attachments to its comments and 

incorporated them by reference into its 

comments. PCC also requested that the 

rulemaking be finalized as soon as 

possible. 

Response: We acknowledge PCC’s 

support for our action on 

reconsideration. However, PCC’s 

references to and incorporation of the 

documents it has filed in litigation 

concerning the Arizona Regional Haze 

FIP go far beyond the narrow scope of 

the revisions to the 2014 FIP that we are 

considering in this action. For example, 

PCC’s arguments regarding the adequacy 

of notice and the EPA’s reasoning 

concerning the inclusion of the 

optimization provisions in the FIP are 

not relevant to this action because the 

EPA has already completed its 

proceeding for reconsideration of these 

provisions under CAA section 

307(d)(7)(B) (i.e., this rulemaking 

action). 

Comment: CPC expressed support for 

this reconsideration action to replace 

control technology demonstration 

requirements at CPC with a series of 

revised recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements. 

Response: We acknowledge CPC’s 

support for our action on 

reconsideration. 

Comment: Earthjustice submitted 

comments on behalf of the National 

Parks Conservation Association and 

Sierra Club (collectively referred to as 

Earthjustice). The comment letter asserts 

that the EPA should require PCC and 

CPC to install Selective Catalytic 

Reduction (SCR) rather than SNCR 

technology as reasonable progress 

controls in our final action. Earthjustice 

states that the EPA rejected SCR in our 

initial action in the 2014 FIP because 

SCR was not being used in the United 

States to control cement manufacturing 

facilities. The comment letter indicates 

that two cement manufacturing facilities 

in the United States have installed SCR 

technology since our 2014 FIP. Noting 

that the EPA proposed reconsideration 

of the control technology demonstration 

requirements based on data from the 

CPC Mojave Plant in California, 

Earthjustice states: 

If EPA is going to revise the existing FIP’s 

requirements based on recent data from a 

cement plant in California, it should also 

examine the recent success of SCR controls 

at the cement plants in Illinois and Texas. 

Reconsidering the FIP’s requirements based 

on recent data from other plants should not 

be a one-way ratchet toward weakening the 

FIP’s requirements. Instead, in order to make 

a reasonable and fully–informed decision on 

reconsideration, EPA should also re-examine 

whether more stringent SCR controls are 

warranted. [Footnote omitted] 26

The comment letter concludes: ‘‘Given 

this recent information documenting the 

success of SCR at cement plants, EPA 

should reconsider whether SCR at the 

Rillito and Clarkdale plants is necessary 

to ensure reasonable progress.’’ 27

Response: Our proposed revision to 

the FIP in this action is very limited in 

scope. The proposed FIP revision 

followed petitions for reconsideration 

filed by PCC and CPC in November 

2014. The EPA granted reconsideration 

in January 2015, at which time we 

stated that the scope of our 

reconsideration of the 2014 FIP was 

narrowly limited to the control 

technology demonstration requirements 

for SNCR at the Clarkdale and Rillito 

facilities. When we proposed to revise 

the FIP, we proposed only ‘‘to replace 

the control technology optimization 

requirements at the PCC Clarkdale Plant 

and CPC Rillito Plant with a series of 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements.’’ 81 FR 42600, 42603 

(June 30, 2016). 

Contrary to Earthjustice’s contention, 

our evaluation of the data from the 

Mojave Plant does not justify reexamining all other cement 

manufacturing facilities in the United 

States to establish whether a NOX

emission limit achievable through 

installation of SNCR or SCR should be 

required for reasonable progress at PCC 

or CPC. The scope of our revision to the 

2014 FIP was limited to evaluating the 

need for the control technology 

demonstration requirements to ensure 

that the NOX emission limits at the 

Clarkdale and Rillito facilities are 

appropriate and to ensure that the 

performance of the SNCR systems at 

these facilities is optimized. As 

explained in our proposal, the data from 

the Mojave Plant demonstrated that 

SNCR could only achieve a control 

efficiency of 40 percent. The analysis of 

data from the Mojave Plant indicated 

that more stringent SNCR control 

efficiencies were not achievable at PCC 

and CPC. Therefore, the additional 

information from the 2014 FIP control 

technology demonstration projects is no 

longer needed because the PCC and CPC 

SNCR control efficiencies are consistent 

with the SNCR performance at Mojave. 

As a result, we no longer consider the 

SNCR control technology demonstration 

provisions in the 2014 FIP to be 

necessary. Therefore, we disagree with 

Earthjustice that we should consider 

SCR technology in the context of the FIP 

revision at issue in this action. 

Comment: Earthjustice also 

commented that the NOX emission data 

from the Mojave plant’s SNCR 

demonstration period does not warrant 

elimination of the control technology 

optimization project requirements for 

CPC and PCC. Specifically, Earthjustice 

asserts that because optimization of the 

SNCR system is a site-specific inquiry, 

the fact that the Mojave plant’s 

optimization did not result in 

significant improvement does not mean 

that SNCR optimization at CPC and PCC 

would be similarly unsuccessful. As a 

result, the control technology 

optimization project requirements 

should remain in place. 

Response: We disagree with the 

commenter’s assertion. We acknowledge 

that control technology determinations 

for cement kilns are site specific in 

nature; however, while a site-specific 

analysis involves consideration of 

special circumstances and 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
83148 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 224 / Monday, November 21, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

28 Ibid. 29 40 CFR 52.145(n); 81 FR 53929 (Aug. 15, 2016). 

characteristics pertinent to the source 

under review, it does not require 

excluding information from other, 

similar facilities, and information from 

these facilities can be highly relevant. 

For many control technologies with a 

wide range of performance levels, it is 

important to take into account their 

performance at other, similar sources. 

In our proposed action to revise the 

FIP, we specifically noted several sitespecific factors indicating that a SNCR 

system at CPC Rillito Kiln 4 would 

underperform the SNCR system at the 

kiln at the Mojave Plant. Given the 

relatively low SNCR effectiveness on the 

Mojave Plant, we noted in our proposed 

action that the final NOX limit for CPC 

Rillito Kiln 4 was adequately supported 

by the available data. Aside from a 

general assertion about the site-specific 

nature of SNCR optimization, the 

commenter has not provided any 

additional information suggesting that 

retaining the control technology 

demonstration requirements for Rillito 

Kiln 4 would result in a more stringent 

NOX limit, or that a comparison to the 

Mojave Plant is inappropriate. 

Similarly, in our proposed action to 

revise the 2014 FIP, we noted that the 

final NOX limit for PCC Clarkdale Kiln 

4 is already more stringent than the NOX

limit demonstrated at the Mojave Plant, 

both in terms of emission limit and 

control effectiveness. Given that a more 

stringent limit was not demonstrated at 

the Mojave Plant, we find that the 50 

percent control efficiency specified in 

the 2014 FIP for PCC Clarkdale is still 

supported, and we do not consider that 

the information from the control 

technology demonstration project will 

support re-evaluating the final NOX

limit for PCC Clarkdale Kiln 4. Aside 

from a general assertion about the site 

specific nature of SNCR optimization, 

the commenter has not provided any 

additional information or detail 

indicating that information from the 

control technology demonstration 

requirements will support re-evaluation 

of the NOX limit that is achievable, or 

that a comparison to the Mojave Plant 

is inappropriate. 

Comment: Earthjustice also states that 

our proposed revision of the 2014 FIP is 

a ‘‘one-way ratchet toward weakening 

the FIP requirements,’’ that we are 

replacing ‘‘existing ‘control 

optimization’ requirements for the two 

Arizona plants with less stringent 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements’’ and that we should not 

eliminate the control optimization 

provisions. The comment letter states: 

In the current rulemaking, EPA proposes to 

relax the existing FIP requirements for the 

Rillito and Clarkdale cement plants because 

of recent information regarding SNCR 

performance on other cements kilns in the 

United States. 81 FR at 42602–03. 

Specifically, EPA has reviewed recent SNCR 

performance data from the Mojave cement 

plant in California. EPA believes this recent 

SNCR data from California justifies replacing 

the existing ‘‘control optimization’’ 

requirements for the two Arizona plants with 

less stringent recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements.28

Response: We do not agree that 

today’s rule will ‘‘relax’’ the relevant 

requirements of the 2014 FIP. When we 

finalized the 2014 FIP, we 

acknowledged that data being collected 

at the Mojave Plant could potentially 

support more stringent NOX emission 

limits at the Rillito and Clarkdale 

facilities. However, data obtained from 

the Mojave Plant in early 2015 did not 

support any re-evaluation of the NOX

emission limits in the 2014 FIP at the 

Rillito and Clarkdale facilities. 

Accordingly, we proposed and are now 

finalizing the removal of the control 

technology demonstration requirements 

in the 2014 FIP. This action does not 

weaken or relax the NOX emission 

limits in the 2014 FIP or the 

requirement to achieve the specified 

control efficiency when SNCR controls 

are used. This FIP revision merely 

removes a process that EPA has 

determined is no longer necessary. 

There will not be any additional NOX

emissions from these facilities and the 

2014 FIP requirements remain fully 

enforceable. 

V. Final Action 

The EPA is taking final action to 

revise portions of the Arizona Regional 

Haze FIP to replace the control 

technology demonstration requirements 

at the PCC Clarkdale Plant and the CPC 

Rillito Plant with a series of 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements. The revisions to the 

reporting and recordkeeping conditions 

we are finalizing in this action, exactly 

as we proposed them, require 

documenting and submitting certain 

design and optimization activities that 

are part of a typical SNCR system 

installation. These revisions are detailed 

in the regulatory text at 40 CFR 

52.145(k). 

We are also making a minor technical 

correction to the regulatory text for this 

action by correcting the equation 

provided in 40 CFR 52.145(k)(7)(ii)(B)(1) 

to make the equation consistent with the 

text in that section. 

We find that today’s revision will not 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment, 

reasonable further progress, or any other 

applicable requirement of the CAA, 

because the FIP revision will not alter 

the amount or timing of emission 

reductions from the Clarkdale Plant or 

the Rillito Plant. 

Finally, the EPA granted a 90-day 

administrative stay on August 15, 2016 

that expires on November 14, 2016.29 In 

this action, we are deleting the 

regulatory text in 40 CFR 52.145(n) 

establishing the administrative stay. We 

are deleting the regulatory provision 

because the stay will no longer be in 

effect after the effective date of our final 

action on the FIP revision. 

VI. Environmental Justice 

Considerations 

The EPA believes that this action does 

not have disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority populations, lowincome populations, and/or indigenous 

peoples, as specified in Executive Order 

12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

Today’s revisions to portions of the 

Arizona Regional Haze FIP will not alter 

the amount or timing of emission 

reductions from the Clarkdale Plant or 

the Rillito Plant. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at http://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is exempt from review by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) because it applies to only two 

facilities and is therefore not a rule of 

general applicability. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

PRA. This rule applies to only two 

facilities. Therefore, its recordkeeping 

and reporting provisions do not 

constitute a ‘‘collection of information’’ 

as defined under 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 

5 CFR 1320.3(c). 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. This action will not 

impose any requirements on small 

entities. For purposes of assessing the 

impacts of today’s rule on small entities, 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 224 / Monday, November 21, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 83149 

30See Taiheiyo Cement Corporation Annual 

Report 2015 at 1 and 36. 

31Letter dated December 20, 2012, from Diane 

Enos (SRPMIC) to Jared Blumenfield (EPA). 

32Memorandum dated June 15, 2016, from 

Charlotte Withey (EPA) to Rulemaking Docket EPA– 

R09–OAR–2015–0846, Subject: ‘‘Summary of 

Consultation with SRPMIC Regarding Regional 

Haze FIP Reconsideration.’’ 33 Id. 

small entity is defined as: (1) A small 

business as defined by the Small 

Business Administration’s (SBA) 

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a 

small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. Pursuant to 13 

CFR 121.201, footnote 1, a firm is small 

if it is in NAICS 327310 (cement 

manufacturing) and the concern and its 

affiliates have no more than 750 

employees. CPC is owned by Taiheiyo 

Cement Corporation, which has more 

than 750 employees.30 PCC is a division 

of SRPMIC.31 For the purposes of the 

RFA, tribal governments are not 

considered small governments. 5 U.S.C. 

601(5). Therefore, SRPMIC is not a small 

entity. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain an 

unfunded mandate of $100 million or 

more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538. This action may 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. As a tribal government, 

SRPMIC is considered a ‘‘small 

government’’ under UMRA. See 2 U.S.C. 

658(11) and (13). The EPA consulted 

with SRPMIC concerning the regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect it.32

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. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action has tribal implications. 

However, it will neither impose 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

federally recognized tribal governments, 

nor preempt tribal law. This action 

eliminates the SNCR optimization 

requirements that currently apply to the 

PCC Clarkdale Plant. The profits from 

the Clarkdale Plant are used to provide 

government services to SRPMIC’s 

members. 

The EPA consulted with tribal 

officials under the EPA Policy on 

Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribes early in the process of 

developing this regulation to permit 

them to have meaningful and timely 

input into its development.33

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that concern health or 

safety risks that the EPA has reason to 

believe may disproportionately affect 

children, per the definition of ‘‘covered 

regulatory action’’ in section 2–202 of 

the Executive Order. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it does not concern an 

environmental health risk or safety risk. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. The EPA is not 

revising any technical standards or 

imposing any new technical standards 

in this action. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

The EPA believes that this action does 

not have disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority populations, lowincome populations and/or indigenous 

peoples, as specified in Executive Order 

12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

The documentation for this decision is 

contained in section VI above. 

K. Determination Under Section 307(d) 

Pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(1)(B), 

this action is subject to the requirements 

of CAA section 307(d), as it revises a FIP 

under CAA section 110(c). 

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

This rule is exempt from the CRA 

because it is a rule of particular 

applicability. 

M. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by January 20, 2017. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this rule for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. See CAA 

section 307(b)(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen oxides, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Visibility. 

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

Dated: November 4, 2016. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart D—Arizona 

■ 2. Amend § 52.145 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (k); and 

■ b . Removing ‘‘Appendix A to 

§ 52.145—Cement Kiln Control 

Technology Demonstration 

Requirements’’. 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 52.145 Visibility protection. 

* * * * * 

(k) Source-specific federal 

implementation plan for regional haze 

at Clarkdale Cement Plant and Rillito 

Cement Plant—(1) Applicability. This 

paragraph (k) applies to each owner/ 

operator of the following cement kilns 

in the state of Arizona: Kiln 4 located at 

the cement plant in Clarkdale, Arizona, 

and kiln 4 located at the cement plant 

in Rillito, Arizona. 

(2) Definitions. Terms not defined in 

this paragraph (k)(2) shall have the 

meaning given them in the Clean Air 

Act or EPA’s regulations implementing 

the Clean Air Act. For purposes of this 

paragraph (k): 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
83150 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 224 / Monday, November 21, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

Ammonia injection shall include any 

of the following: Anhydrous ammonia, 

aqueous ammonia or urea injection. 

Continuous emission monitoring 

system or CEMS means the equipment 

required by this section to sample, 

analyze, measure, and provide, by 

means of readings recorded at least once 

every 15 minutes (using an automated 

data acquisition and handling system), a 

permanent record of NOX emissions, 

diluent, or stack gas volumetric flow 

rate. 

Kiln operating day means a 24-hour 

period between 12 midnight and the 

following midnight during which the 

kiln operates at any time. 

Kiln operation means any period 

when any raw materials are fed into the 

kiln or any period when any 

combustion is occurring or fuel is being 

fired in the kiln. 

NOX means nitrogen oxides. 

Owner/operator means any person 

who owns or who operates, controls, or 

supervises a cement kiln identified in 

paragraph (k)(1) of this section. 

Unit means a cement kiln identified 

in paragraph (k)(1) of this section. 

(3) Emissions limitations. (i) The 

owner/operator of kiln 4 of the 

Clarkdale Plant, as identified in 

paragraph (k)(1) of this section, shall not 

emit or cause to be emitted from kiln 4 

NOX in excess of 2.12 pounds of NOX

per ton of clinker produced, based on a 

rolling 30-kiln operating day basis. 

(ii) The owner/operator of kiln 4 of 

the Rillito Plant, as identified in 

paragraph (k)(1) of this section, shall not 

emit or cause to be emitted from kiln 4 

NOX in excess of 3.46 pounds of NOX

per ton of clinker produced, based on a 

rolling 30-kiln operating day basis. 

(4) Alternative emissions limitation. 

In lieu of the emission limitation listed 

in paragraph (k)(3)(i) of this section, the 

owner/operator of kiln 4 of the 

Clarkdale Plant may choose to comply 

with the following limitation by 

providing notification per paragraph 

(k)(13)(iv) of this section. The owner/ 

operator of kiln 4 of the Clarkdale Plant, 

as identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this 

section, shall not emit or cause to be 

emitted from kiln 4 NOX in excess of 

810 tons per year, based on a rolling 12- 

month basis. 

(5) Compliance date. (i) The owner/ 

operator of each unit identified in 

paragraph (k)(1) of this section shall 

comply with the NOX emissions 

limitations and other NOX-related 

requirements of this paragraph (k)(3) of 

this section no later than December 31, 

2018. 

(ii) If the owner/operator of the 

Clarkdale Plant chooses to comply with 

the emission limit of paragraph (k)(4) of 

this section in lieu of paragraph (k)(3)(i) 

of this section, the owner/operator shall 

comply with the NOX emissions 

limitations and other NOX-related 

requirements of paragraph (k)(4) of this 

section no later than December 31, 2018. 

(6) [Reserved] 

(7) Compliance determination— 

(i) Continuous emission monitoring 

system. (A) At all times after the 

compliance date specified in paragraph 

(k)(5) of this section, the owner/operator 

of the unit at the Clarkdale Plant shall 

maintain, calibrate, and operate a 

CEMS, in full compliance with the 

requirements found at 40 CFR 60.63(f) 

and (g), to accurately measure 

concentration by volume of NOX,

diluent, and stack gas volumetric flow 

rate from the in-line/raw mill stack, as 

well as the stack gas volumetric flow 

rate from the coal mill stack. The CEMS 

shall be used by the owner/operator to 

determine compliance with the 

emission limitation in paragraph (k)(3) 

of this section, in combination with data 

on actual clinker production. The 

owner/operator must operate the 

monitoring system and collect data at all 

required intervals at all times the 

affected unit is operating, except for 

periods of monitoring system 

malfunctions, repairs associated with 

monitoring system malfunctions, and 

required monitoring system quality 

assurance or quality control activities 

(including, as applicable, calibration 

checks and required zero and span 

adjustments). 

(B) At all times after the compliance 

date specified in paragraph (k)(5) of this 

section, the owner/operator of the unit 

at the Rillito Plant shall maintain, 

calibrate, and operate a CEMS, in full 

compliance with the requirements 

found at 40 CFR 60.63(f) and (g), to 

accurately measure concentration by 

volume of NOX, diluent, and stack gas 

volumetric flow rate from the unit. The 

CEMS shall be used by the owner/ 

operator to determine compliance with 

the emission limitation in paragraph 

(k)(3) of this section, in combination 

with data on actual clinker production. 

The owner/operator must operate the 

monitoring system and collect data at all 

required intervals at all times the 

affected unit is operating, except for 

periods of monitoring system 

malfunctions, repairs associated with 

monitoring system malfunctions, and 

required monitoring system quality 

assurance or quality control activities 

(including, as applicable, calibration 

checks and required zero and span 

adjustments). 

(ii) Methods. (A) The owner/operator 

of each unit shall record the daily 

clinker production rates. 

(B)(1) The owner/operator of each 

unit shall calculate and record the 30- 

kiln operating day average emission rate 

of NOX, in pounds per ton (lb/ton) of 

clinker produced, as the total of all 

hourly emissions data for the cement 

kiln in the preceding 30-kiln operating 

days, divided by the total tons of clinker 

produced in that kiln during the same 

30-day operating period, using the 

following equation: 

Where: 

E[D] = 30 kiln operating day average 

emission rate of NOX, lb/ton of clinker; 

C[i] = Concentration of NOX for hour i as 

recorded by the CEMS required by 

paragraph (k)(7)(i) of this section, ppm; 

Q[i] = volumetric flow rate of effluent gas for 

hour i as recorded by the CEMS required 

by paragraph (k)(7)(i) of this section, 

where C[i] and Q[i] are on the same basis 

(either wet or dry), scf/hr; 

P[i] = total kiln clinker produced during 

production hour i, ton/hr; 

k = conversion factor, 1.194 × 10¥7 for NOX; 

and 

n = number of kiln operating hours over 30 

kiln operating days, n = 1 up to 720. 

(2) For each kiln operating hour for 

which the owner/operator does not have 

at least one valid 15-minute CEMS data 

value, the owner/operator must use the 

average emissions rate in pounds per 

ton (lb/hr) from the most recent 

previous hour for which valid data are 

available. Hourly clinker production 

shall be determined by the owner/ 

operator in accordance with the 

requirements found at 40 CFR 60.63(b). 

(C) At the end of each kiln operating 

day, the owner/operator shall calculate 

and record a new 30-day rolling average 

emission rate in lb/ton clinker from the 

arithmetic average of all valid hourly 

emission rates for the current kiln 

operating day and the previous 29 

successive kiln operating days. 

(D) Upon and after the completion of 

installation of ammonia injection on a 

unit, the owner/operator shall install, 

and thereafter maintain and operate, 

instrumentation to continuously 

monitor and record levels of ammonia 

injection for that unit. 

(8) Alternative compliance 

determination. If the owner/operator of 

the Clarkdale Plant chooses to comply 

with the emission limits of paragraph 

(k)(4) of this section, this paragraph may 

be used in lieu of paragraph (k)(7) of 

this section to demonstrate compliance 

with the emission limits in paragraph 

(k)(4) of this section. 

(i) Continuous emission monitoring 

system. At all times after the compliance 

date specified in paragraph (k)(5) of this 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULESER21NO16.024</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 224 / Monday, November 21, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 83151 

section, the owner/operator of the unit 

at the Clarkdale Plant shall maintain, 

calibrate, and operate a CEMS, in full 

compliance with the requirements 

found at 40 CFR 60.63(f) and (g), to 

accurately measure concentration by 

volume of NOX, diluent, and stack gas 

volumetric flow rate from the in-line/ 

raw mill stack, as well as the stack gas 

volumetric flow rate from the coal mill 

stack. The CEMS shall be used by the 

owner/operator to determine 

compliance with the emission limitation 

in paragraph (k)(4) of this section. The 

owner/operator must operate the 

monitoring system and collect data at all 

required intervals at all times the 

affected unit is operating, except for 

periods of monitoring system 

malfunctions, repairs associated with 

monitoring system malfunctions, and 

required monitoring system quality 

assurance or quality control activities 

(including, as applicable, calibration 

checks and required zero and span 

adjustments). 

(ii) Method. Compliance with the ton 

per year NOX emission limit described 

in paragraph (k)(4) of this section shall 

be determined based on a rolling 12- 

month basis. The rolling 12-month NOX

emission rate for the kiln shall be 

calculated within 30 days following the 

end of each calendar month in 

accordance with the following 

procedure: Step one, sum the hourly 

pounds of NOX emitted for the month 

just completed and the eleven (11) 

months preceding the month just 

completed, to calculate the total pounds 

of NOX emitted over the most recent 

twelve (12) month period for that kiln; 

Step two, divide the total pounds of 

NOX calculated from Step one by two 

thousand (2,000) to calculate the total 

tons of NOX. Each rolling 12-month NOX

emission rate shall include all emissions 

that occur during all periods within the 

12-month period, including emissions 

from startup, shutdown and 

malfunction. 

(iii) Upon and after the completion of 

installation of ammonia injection on the 

unit, the owner/operator shall install, 

and thereafter maintain and operate, 

instrumentation to continuously 

monitor and record levels of ammonia 

injection for that unit. 

(9) Recordkeeping. The owner/ 

operator of each unit shall maintain the 

following records for at least five years: 

(i) All CEMS data, including the date, 

place, and time of sampling or 

measurement; emissions and parameters 

sampled or measured; and results. 

(ii) All records of clinker production. 

(iii) Daily 30-day rolling emission 

rates of NOX, calculated in accordance 

with paragraph (k)(7)(ii) of this section. 

(iv) Records of quality assurance and 

quality control activities for emissions 

measuring systems including, but not 

limited to, any records specified by 40 

CFR part 60, Appendix F, Procedure 1. 

(v) Records of ammonia injection, as 

recorded by the instrumentation 

required in paragraph (k)(7)(ii)(D) of this 

section. 

(vi) Records of all major maintenance 

activities conducted on emission units, 

air pollution control equipment, CEMS 

and clinker production measurement 

devices. 

(vii) Any other records specified by 40 

CFR part 60, subpart F, or 40 CFR part 

60, Appendix F, Procedure 1. 

(10) Alternative recordkeeping 

requirements. If the owner/operator of 

the Clarkdale Plant chooses to comply 

with the emission limits of paragraph 

(k)(4) of this section, the owner/operator 

shall maintain the records listed in this 

paragraph in lieu of the records 

contained in paragraph (k)(9) of this 

section. The owner or operator shall 

maintain the following records for at 

least five years: 

(i) All CEMS data, including the date, 

place, and time of sampling or 

measurement; emissions and parameters 

sampled or measured; and results. 

(ii) Monthly rolling 12-month 

emission rates of NOX, calculated in 

accordance with paragraph (k)(8)(ii) of 

this section. 

(iii) Records of quality assurance and 

quality control activities for emissions 

measuring systems including, but not 

limited to, any records specified by 40 

CFR part 60, Appendix F, Procedure 1. 

(iv) Records of ammonia injection, as 

recorded by the instrumentation 

required in paragraph (k)(8)(iii) of this 

section. 

(v) Records of all major maintenance 

activities conducted on emission units, 

air pollution control equipment, and 

CEMS measurement devices. 

(vi) Any other records specified by 40 

CFR part 60, subpart F, or 40 CFR part 

60, Appendix F, Procedure 1. 

(11) Reporting. All reports and 

notifications required under this 

paragraph (k) shall be submitted by the 

owner/operator to U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 9, 

Enforcement Division via electronic 

mail to aeo_r9@epa.gov and to Air 

Division via electronic mail to 

R9AirPermits@epa.gov. Reports required 

under this paragraph (k)(11)(iii) through 

(k)(11)(vii) of this section shall be 

submitted within 30 days after the 

applicable compliance date in 

paragraph (k)(5) of this section and at 

least semiannually thereafter, within 30 

days after the end of a semiannual 

period. The owner/operator may submit 

reports more frequently than 

semiannually for the purposes of 

synchronizing reports required under 

this section with other reporting 

requirements, such as the title V 

monitoring report required by 40 CFR 

70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), but at no point shall 

the duration of a semiannual period 

exceed six months. 

(i) Prior to commencing construction 

of the ammonia injection system, the 

owner/operator shall submit to the EPA 

a report describing the design of the 

SNCR system. This report shall include: 

reagent type, description of the 

locations selected for reagent injection, 

reagent injection rate (expressed as a 

molar ratio of reagent to exhaust gas), 

equipment list, equipment arrangement, 

and a summary of kiln characteristics 

that were relied upon as the design basis 

for the SNCR system. 

(ii) Within 30 days following the NOX

compliance date in paragraph (k)(5)(i) of 

this section, the owner/operator shall 

submit to the EPA a report of any 

process improvement or debugging 

activities that were performed on the 

SNCR system. This report shall include: 

a description of each process adjustment 

performed on the SNCR system or the 

kiln, a discussion of whether the 

adjustment affected NOX emission rates, 

a description of the range (if applicable) 

over which the adjustment was 

examined, and a discussion of how the 

adjustment will be reflected or 

accounted for in kiln operating 

practices. If CEMS data or kiln operating 

data were recorded during process 

improvement or debugging activities, 

the owner/operator shall submit the 

recorded CEMS and kiln operating data 

with the report. The data shall be 

submitted in an electronic format 

consistent with and able to be 

manipulated by a spreadsheet program 

such as Microsoft Excel. 

(iii) The owner/operator shall submit 

a report that lists the daily 30-day 

rolling emission rates for NOX. 

(iv) The owner/operator shall submit 

excess emissions reports for NOX limits. 

Excess emissions means emissions that 

exceed the emissions limits specified in 

paragraph (k)(3) of this section. The 

reports shall include the magnitude, 

date(s), and duration of each period of 

excess emissions, specific identification 

of each period of excess emissions that 

occurs during startups, shutdowns, and 

malfunctions of the unit, the nature and 

cause of any malfunction (if known), 

and the corrective action taken or 

preventative measures adopted. 

(v) The owner/operator shall submit 

CEMS performance reports, to include 

dates and duration of each period 

during which the CEMS was inoperative 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
83152 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 224 / Monday, November 21, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

(except for zero and span adjustments 

and calibration checks), reason(s) why 

the CEMS was inoperative and steps 

taken to prevent recurrence, and any 

CEMS repairs or adjustments. 

(vi) The owner/operator shall also 

submit results of any CEMS 

performance tests specified by 40 CFR 

part 60, Appendix F, Procedure 1 

(Relative Accuracy Test Audits, Relative 

Accuracy Audits, and Cylinder Gas 

Audits). 

(vii) When no excess emissions have 

occurred or the CEMS has not been 

inoperative, repaired, or adjusted during 

the reporting period, the owner/operator 

shall state such information in the 

reports required by paragraph (k)(9)(ii) 

of this section. 

(12) Alternative reporting 

requirements. If the owner/operator of 

the Clarkdale Plant chooses to comply 

with the emission limits of paragraph 

(k)(4) of this section, the owner/operator 

shall submit the reports listed in this 

paragraph in lieu of the reports 

contained in paragraph (k)(11) of this 

section. All reports required under this 

paragraph (k)(12) shall be submitted 

within 30 days after the applicable 

compliance date in paragraph (k)(5) of 

this section and at least semiannually 

thereafter, within 30 days after the end 

of a semiannual period. The owner/ 

operator may submit reports more 

frequently than semiannually for the 

purposes of synchronizing reports 

required under this section with other 

reporting requirements, such as the title 

V monitoring report required by 40 CFR 

70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), but at no point shall 

the duration of a semiannual period 

exceed six months. 

(i) The owner/operator shall submit a 

report that lists the monthly rolling 12- 

month emission rates for NOX. 

(ii) The owner/operator shall submit 

excess emissions reports for NOX limits. 

Excess emissions means emissions that 

exceed the emissions limits specified in 

paragraph (k)(3) of this section. The 

reports shall include the magnitude, 

date(s), and duration of each period of 

excess emissions, specific identification 

of each period of excess emissions that 

occurs during startups, shutdowns, and 

malfunctions of the unit, the nature and 

cause of any malfunction (if known), 

and the corrective action taken or 

preventative measures adopted. 

(iii) The owner/operator shall submit 

CEMS performance reports, to include 

dates and duration of each period 

during which the CEMS was inoperative 

(except for zero and span adjustments 

and calibration checks), reason(s) why 

the CEMS was inoperative and steps 

taken to prevent recurrence, and any 

CEMS repairs or adjustments. 

(iv) The owner/operator shall also 

submit results of any CEMS 

performance tests specified by 40 CFR 

part 60, Appendix F, Procedure 1 

(Relative Accuracy Test Audits, Relative 

Accuracy Audits, and Cylinder Gas 

Audits). 

(v) When no excess emissions have 

occurred or the CEMS has not been 

inoperative, repaired, or adjusted during 

the reporting period, the owner/operator 

shall state such information in the 

reports required by paragraph (k)(9)(ii) 

of this section. 

(13) Notifications. (i) The owner/ 

operator shall submit notification of 

commencement of construction of any 

equipment which is being constructed 

to comply with the NOX emission limits 

in paragraph (k)(3) of this section. 

(ii) The owner/operator shall submit 

semiannual progress reports on 

construction of any such equipment. 

(iii) The owner/operator shall submit 

notification of initial startup of any such 

equipment. 

(iv) By June 30, 2018, the owner/ 

operator of the Clarkdale Plant shall 

notify EPA Region 9 by letter whether 

it will comply with the emission limits 

in paragraph (k)(3)(i) of this section or 

whether it will comply with the 

emission limits in paragraph (k)(4) of 

this section. In the event that the owner/ 

operator does not submit timely and 

proper notification by June 30, 2018, the 

owner/operator of the Clarkdale Plant 

may not choose to comply with the 

alternative emission limits in paragraph 

(k)(4) of this section and shall comply 

with the emission limits in paragraph 

(k)(3)(i) of this section. 

(14) Equipment operation. (i) At all 

times, including periods of startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction, the owner 

or operator shall, to the extent 

practicable, maintain and operate the 

unit including associated air pollution 

control equipment in a manner 

consistent with good air pollution 

control practices for minimizing 

emissions. Pollution control equipment 

shall be designed and capable of 

operating properly to minimize 

emissions during all expected operating 

conditions. Determination of whether 

acceptable operating and maintenance 

procedures are being used will be based 

on information available to the Regional 

Administrator which may include, but 

is not limited to, monitoring results, 

review of operating and maintenance 

procedures, and inspection of the unit. 

(ii) After completion of installation of 

ammonia injection on a unit, the owner 

or operator shall inject sufficient 

ammonia to achieve compliance with 

NOX emission limits set forth in 

paragraph (k)(3) of this section for that 

unit while preventing excessive 

ammonia emissions. 

(15) Enforcement. Notwithstanding 

any other provision in this 

implementation plan, any credible 

evidence or information relevant as to 

whether the unit would have been in 

compliance with applicable 

requirements if the appropriate 

performance or compliance test had 

been performed, can be used to establish 

whether or not the owner or operator 

has violated or is in violation of any 

standard or applicable emission limit in 

the plan. 

[FR Doc. 2016–27422 Filed 11–18–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2014–0767; FRL–9955–19– 

Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval; KY Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 2010 1-Hour NO2

NAAQS 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action to 

approve portions of the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submission, 

submitted by the Commonwealth of 

Kentucky, Energy and Environment 

Cabinet, Department for Environmental 

Protection, through the Kentucky 

Division for Air Quality (KDAQ), on 

April 26, 2013, to demonstrate that the 

Commonwealth meets the infrastructure 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or Act) for the 2010 1-hour nitrogen 

dioxide (NO2) national ambient air 

quality standard (NAAQS). The CAA 

requires that each state adopt and 

submit a SIP for the implementation, 

maintenance and enforcement of each 

NAAQS promulgated by EPA, which is 

commonly referred to as an 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP. KDAQ certified 

that Kentucky’s SIP contains provisions 

that ensure the 2010 1-hour NO2

NAAQS is implemented, enforced, and 

maintained in Kentucky. EPA has 

determined that portions of Kentucky’s 

infrastructure submission, submitted on 

April 26, 2013, addresses certain 

required infrastructure elements for the 

2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS. 

DATES: This rule will be effective 

December 21, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR– 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES