Document ID: EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0846-0034
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Arizona; Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan; Reconsideration
Posted Date: 2016-11-21T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 224 (Monday, November 21, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 83144-83152]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-27422]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

[[Page 83145]]

     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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 42 U.S.C. 7491(a)(1).
    \3\ See CAA section 169B, 42 U.S.C. 7492.
    \4\ 81 FR 26942, May 4, 2016.
    \5\ Areas 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).
    \6\ See generally 40 CFR 51.308.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Memorandum 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).
    \13\ Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, 
``Colorado Regional Haze SIP'', January 2011; See Reasonable 
Progress (RP) Four-Factor Analysis of Control Options for Holcim 
Portland Plant, Florence, Colorado.
    \14\ Letter 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 83146]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Letter 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).
    \16\ Letter 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.
    \17\ Letter dated November 3, 2014, from Verle C. Martz (PCC) to 
Regina McCarthy (EPA) at 2.
    \18\ We 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Letter 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 81 FR 42600 (June 30, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 83147]]

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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Letter dated July 13, 2016, from Verle C. Martz (PCC) to 
Vijay Limaye (EPA).
    \24\ Letter dated August 15, 2016, from Jay M. Grady (CPC) to 
Vijay Limaye (EPA).
    \25\ Letter dated August 12, 2016, from Michael Hiatt 
(Earthjustice) to Vijay Limaye (EPA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\

    \26\ Ibid.

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 re-examining 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

[[Page 83148]]

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 site-specific 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\

    \28\ Ibid.

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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, low-income 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/laws-regulations/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,

[[Page 83149]]

small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the 
Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; 
(2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, 
county, town, school district or special district with a population of 
less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not 
dominant in its field. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Taiheiyo Cement Corporation Annual Report 2015 at 1 and 
36.
    \31\ Letter dated December 20, 2012, from Diane Enos (SRPMIC) to 
Jared Blumenfield (EPA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Memorandum 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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, low-income 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

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart D--Arizona

0
2. Amend Sec.  52.145 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (k); and
0
b . Removing ``Appendix A to Sec.  52.145--Cement Kiln Control 
Technology Demonstration Requirements''.
    The revision reads as follows:

Sec.  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):

[[Page 83150]]

    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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21NO16.024

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 x 10-\7\ for NOX; 
and
n = number of kiln operating hours over 30 kiln operating days, n = 
1 up to 720.

    (2) For each kiln operating hour for which the owner/operator does 
not have at least one valid 15-minute CEMS data value, the owner/
operator must use the average emissions rate 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

[[Page 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

[[Page 83152]]

(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