53926 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

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. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by October 14, 2016. 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 section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: July 20, 2016. 

Mark Hague, 

Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 

as set forth below: 

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 Q—Iowa 

■ 2. In § 52.820(e) the table is amended 

by adding and reserving entry (43), and 

by adding entry (44) in numerical order 

to read as follows: 

§ 52.820 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED IOWA NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS

Name of nonregulatory SIP provision Applicable geographic or 

nonattainment area 

State submittal 

date EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

(43) Reserved] 

(44) State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Revision for the Attainment and Maintenance of National 

Ambient Air Quality 

Standards for Regional Haze (2013 

Five-Year Progress 

Report).

Statewide .................................... 7/19/13 8/15/16, [Insert Federal Register citation].[EPA–R07–OAR–2014–0365; 

FRL–9949–82–Region 7. 

[FR Doc. 2016–19041 Filed 8–12–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2012–0865; A–1–FRL– 

9950–60–Region 1] 

Air Plan Approval; NH; Control of 

Volatile Organic Compound Emissions 

From Minor Core Activities 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the State of New 

Hampshire on October 4, 2012. The 

revision clarifies Reasonably Available 

Control Technology (RACT) 

requirements as they apply to minor 

core activities of volatile organic 

compound (VOC) sources. The intended 

effect of this action is to approve these 

requirements into the New Hampshire 

SIP. This action is being taken in 

accordance with the Clean Air Act. 

DATES: This direct final rule will be 

effective October 14, 2016, unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by 

September 14, 2016. If adverse 

comments are received, EPA will 

publish a timely withdrawal of the 

direct final rule in the Federal Register 

informing the public that the rule will 

not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R01– 

OAR–2012–0865 at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

Mackintosh.David@epa.gov. For 

comments submitted at Regulations.gov, 

follow the online instructions for 

submitting comments. Once submitted, 

comments cannot be edited or removed 

from Regulations.gov. For either manner 

of submission, the EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 53927 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e. on the Web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the ‘‘For 

Further Information Contact’’ section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David L. Mackintosh, Air Quality 

Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA New England 

Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square— 

Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05–2), Boston, 

MA 02109–3912, tel. 617–918–1584, fax 

617–918–0668, email 

Mackintosh.David@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. 

Organization of this document. The 

following outline is provided to aid in 

locating information in this preamble. 

I. What action is EPA taking? 

II. What is the background for this action? 

III. What is EPA’s evaluation of New 

Hampshire’s submittal? 

IV. Final Action 

V. Incorporation by Reference 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is approving, and incorporating 

into the New Hampshire SIP, revised 

sections of New Hampshire’s Chapter 

Env-A 1200 ‘‘Volatile Organic 

Compounds (VOCs) Reasonably 

Available Control Technology (RACT),’’ 

submitted by the New Hampshire 

Department of Environmental Services 

(NH DES) to EPA as a SIP revision on 

October 4, 2012. Specifically, EPA is 

approving New Hampshire’s revised 

Env-A 1201.04 ‘‘Exemptions: 

Conditions,’’ revised Env-A 1203.38 

definition of ‘‘minor core activity,’’ and 

revised Env-A 1222.01 ‘‘Applicability 

Criteria for Miscellaneous and 

Multicategory Stationary VOC Sources.’’ 

II. What is the background for this 

action? 

EPA has established, and periodically 

reviews and revises, the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) 

for ground-level ozone. On March 27, 

2008 (73 FR 16436), EPA published a 

final rule for a new 8-hour ozone 

standard of 0.075 parts per million 

(ppm). On May 21, 2012 (77 FR 30088), 

EPA designated areas for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS and designated New Hampshire 

as Unclassifiable/Attainment for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. Subsequently, EPA 

revised the ozone NAAQS on October 

26, 2015 (80 FR 65292). EPA has not yet, 

however, issued designations for the 

2015 ozone NAAQS. 

New Hampshire is also part of the 

Ozone Transport Region (OTR) under 

Section 184(a) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). Sections 182(b)(2) and 184 of the 

CAA compel states with moderate and 

above ozone nonattainment areas, as 

well as areas in the OTR respectively, to 

submit a SIP revision requiring the 

implementation of RACT for sources 

covered by a Control Techniques 

Guideline (CTG) and for all major 

sources. A CTG is a document issued by 

EPA which establishes a ‘‘presumptive 

norm’’ for RACT for a specific VOC 

source category. 

III. What is EPA’s evaluation of New 

Hampshire’s submittal? 

EPA previously approved New 

Hampshire’s Env-A 1200 on November 

8, 2012 (77 FR 66921). New 

Hampshire’s October 4, 2012 submittal 

includes revisions to three sections of 

this regulation. 

Revised Env-A 1201.04 extends by 

one year, from June 1, 2012 until May 

31, 2013, the option for a source to 

voluntarily restrict their emissions to 

remain below the relevant applicability 

threshold and thus not be subject to 

certain requirements. Specifically, this 

option applies to newly regulated 

source categories added to Env-A 1200 

on June 1, 2011. The process shall be 

exempt if the owner or operator files an 

application for a permit before May 31, 

2013 and accepts an enforceable permit 

that limits emissions below the relevant 

applicability threshold and contains the 

necessary testing and recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements to demonstrate 

compliance. 

Revised Env-A 1203.38 clarifies the 

definition of ‘‘minor core activity’’ as 

any core activity at a stationary source 

for which the VOC emissions from 

processes and devices are less than the 

relevant RACT threshold and less than 

5 tons per consecutive 12-month period. 

The interpretation of the definition did 

not change but rather the language was 

revised to make the definition clearer. 

Lastly, in revised Env-A 1222.01, a 

prior exemption for minor core 

activities has been removed. Previously, 

minor core activities with VOC 

emissions less than 5 tons per 

consecutive 12 month period were 

exempt from New Hampshire’s Env-A 

1222 emission control and 

recordkeeping requirements. In the 

revised regulations, minor core 

activities are considered in a source’s 

applicability determination and thus, 

may be subject to the emission control 

and recordkeeping requirements in EnvA 1222. 

The three revisions discussed above 

serve to clarify the existing regulation 

and are not intended to significantly 

impact its original interpretation. New 

Hampshire’s Env-A 1200 VOC RACT 

regulation remains consistent with the 

Clean Air Act and EPA guidance. 

Therefore, the revised provisions satisfy 

the anti-back sliding requirements in 

Section 110(l) of the CAA and EPA is 

approving these revised provisions into 

the New Hampshire SIP. 

IV. Final Action 

EPA is approving, and incorporating 

into the New Hampshire SIP, revised 

sections of New Hampshire’s Chapter 

Env-A 1200, ‘‘Volatile Organic 

Compounds (VOCs) Reasonably 

Available Control Technology (RACT),’’ 

submitted on October 4, 2012. 

Specifically, EPA is approving New 

Hampshire’s revised Env-A 1201.04 

‘‘Exemptions: Conditions,’’ revised EnvA 1203.38 definition of ‘‘minor core 

activity,’’ and revised Env-A 1222.01 

‘‘Applicability Criteria for 

Miscellaneous and Multicategory 

Stationary VOC Sources.’’ 

The EPA is publishing this action 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

amendment and anticipates no adverse 

comments. However, in the proposed 

rules section of this Federal Register 

publication, EPA is publishing a 

separate document that will serve as the 

proposal to approve the SIP revision 

should relevant adverse comments be 

filed. This rule will be effective October 

14, 2016 without further notice unless 

the Agency receives relevant adverse 

comments by September 14, 2016. 

If the EPA receives such comments, 

then EPA will publish a notice 

withdrawing the final rule and 

informing the public that the rule will 

not take effect. All public comments 

received will then be addressed in a 

subsequent final rule based on the 

proposed rule. The EPA will not 

institute a second comment period on 

the proposed rule. All parties interested 

in commenting on the proposed rule 

should do so at this time. If no such 

comments are received, the public is 

advised that this rule will be effective 

on October 14, 2016 and no further 

action will be taken on the proposed 

rule. Please note that if EPA receives 

adverse comment on an amendment, 

paragraph, or section of this rule and if 

that provision may be severed from the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
53928 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. 

V. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing 

regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, the EPA is finalizing the 

incorporation by reference of the State 

of New Hampshire regulations 

described in the amendments to 40 CFR 

part 52 set forth below. The EPA has 

made, and will continue to make, these 

documents generally available 

electronically through http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

approves state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

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

January 21, 2011); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

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. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

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 October 14, 2016. 

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. Parties with 

objections to this direct final rule are 

encouraged to file a comment in 

response to the parallel notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this action 

published in the proposed rules section 

of today’s Federal Register, rather than 

file an immediate petition for judicial 

review of this direct final rule, so that 

EPA can withdraw this direct final rule 

and address the comment in the 

proposed rulemaking. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: August 1, 2016. 

H. Curtis Spalding, 

Regional Administrator, EPA New England. 

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 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. 

Subpart EE—New Hampshire 

■ 2. In § 52.1520(c), the table is 

amended by revising the entry for ‘‘EnvA 1200’’ to read as follows: 

§ 52.1520 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED NEW HAMPSHIRE REGULATIONS

State citation Title/subject State effective 

date EPA approval date 1 Explanations 

*******

Env-A 1200 ............... Volatile Organic Compounds 

(VOCs) Reasonably Available 

Control Technology (RACT).

6/1/2011 8/15/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation].Revised sections 1201.04, 

1203.38, and 1222.01 approved in this action. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 53929 

1 81 FR 42600 (June 30, 2016). 

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

Regional Haze ‘‘Phase 3’’ Rule). 

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

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

Grady, CPC, to Regina McCarthy, EPA (November 

3, 2014). 

4Letter from Jay Grady, CPC, to Regina McCarthy, 

EPA (November 3, 2014), attachment entitled 

‘‘Petition of CalPortland Company for Partial 

Reconsideration and Request for Administrative 

Stay of EPA Final Rule, Promulgation of Air Quality 

Implementation Plans; Arizona; Regional Haze and 

Interstate Visibility Transport Federal 

Implementation Plan Published at 79 FR 52420’’ at 

4. 

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

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

6We note that while the Clarkdale Plant is tribally 

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

to State jurisdiction and is regulated by ADEQ. 

EPA-APPROVED NEW HAMPSHIRE REGULATIONS—Continued 

State citation Title/subject State effective 

date EPA approval date 1 Explanations 

*******

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

* * * * * 

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

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0846, FRL–9950–41– 

Region 9] 

Partial Stay; Arizona; Regional Haze 

Federal Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Partial stay. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is granting an 

administrative stay of specific 

provisions of the Arizona Regional Haze 

Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) 

applicable to the Phoenix Cement 

Company (PCC) Clarkdale Plant and the 

CalPortland Company (CPC) Rillito 

Plant under the Clean Air Act (CAA). In 

response to requests from PCC and CPC, 

we are staying the effectiveness of 

control technology optimization 

requirements for nitrogen oxides (NOX) 

applicable to Kiln 4 at the Clarkdale 

Plant and Kiln 4 at the Rillito Plant 

during the EPA’s reconsideration of 

these requirements under CAA section 

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

Today’s action reflects this stay in the 

Code of Federal Regulations. 

DATES: Effective August 15, 2016, 40 

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

CFR 52.145 are stayed until November 

14, 2016. The addition of 40 CFR 

52.145(n) in this rule is also effective 

from August 15, 2016 until November 

14, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0846. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., confidential business information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available electronically through http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Colleen McKaughan, U.S. EPA, Region 

9, Air Division, Air-1, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. 

Colleen McKaughan can be reached at 

telephone number (520) 498–0118 and 

via electronic mail at 

mckaughan.colleen@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Administrative Stay 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

This section provides a brief overview 

of the background for today’s action. 

Please refer to our proposed action on 

reconsideration for additional 

background.1 On September 3, 2014, the 

EPA promulgated a FIP addressing 

certain requirements of the CAA and the 

EPA’s Regional Haze Rule for sources in 

Arizona.2 Among other things, the 

Arizona Regional Haze FIP includes 

NOX emission limits achievable with 

selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) 

applicable to Clarkdale Kiln 4 and 

Rillito Kiln 4. In particular, the EPA 

established two alternative emission 

limits for NOX on Clarkdale Kiln 4: A 

2.12 lb/ton limit or an 810 tons/year 

limit. The lb/ton limit equates to the 

installation of a SNCR system, based on 

a 50 percent control efficiency, while 

the ton/year limit could be met either by 

installing SNCR or by maintaining 

recent production levels. We set an 

emission limit for NOX at Rillito Kiln 4 

of 3.46 lb/ton, based on a 35 percent 

control efficiency. The FIP also includes 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements and a 

compliance deadline for the final NOX

emission limits of December 31, 2018. 

Finally, in response to comments 

alleging that SNCR control efficiencies 

of 50 percent for Clarkdale Kiln 4 and 

35 percent for Rillito Kiln 4 were 

unsupported and that SNCR was 

capable of achieving higher control 

efficiencies, we established 

requirements for control technology 

demonstrations (‘‘optimization 

requirements’’) for the SNCR systems at 

both kilns, which would entail the 

collection of data that then could be 

used to determine if a higher control 

efficiency was achievable. 

PCC and CPC each submitted a 

petition to the EPA on November 3, 

2014, seeking administrative 

reconsideration and a partial stay of the 

final FIP under CAA section 

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

Procedure Act (APA).3 In their petitions, 

both companies raised multiple 

objections to the optimization 

requirements in the FIP. CPC asserted 

that the requirements were burdensome, 

expensive, and unnecessary, given that 

CPC had already ‘‘evaluated fuels, fuel 

fineness, and the other characteristics 

listed in the Optimization Protocol’’ as 

part of its effort to reduce energy usage.4

PCC stated that the requirements 

‘‘would be burdensome to implement’’ 

and ‘‘would substantially interfere with 

the cement manufacturing operations’’ 

at the Clarkdale Plant.5 PCC further 

asserted that requirements would harm 

the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian 

Community (SRPMIC), which relies on 

revenue from the Clarkdale Plant.6

The EPA sent letters to PCC and CPC 

on January 16, 2015 and January 27, 

2015, respectively, granting 

reconsideration of the optimization 

requirements pursuant to CAA section 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES