[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 157 (Monday, August 15, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53929-53931]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19113]


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

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 [email protected].

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

    \1\ 81 FR 42600 (June 30, 2016).
    \2\ 79 FR 52420 (September 3, 2014)(Arizona Regional Haze 
``Phase 3'' Rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \3\ Letter from Verle C. Martz, PCC, to Regina McCarthy, EPA 
(November 3, 2014); Letter from Jay Grady, CPC, to Regina McCarthy, 
EPA (November 3, 2014).
    \4\ Letter 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.
    \5\ Letter from Verle C. Martz, PCC, to Regina McCarthy, EPA 
(November 3, 2014) at 2.
    \6\ 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 optimization 
requirements pursuant to CAA section

[[Page 53930]]

307(d)(7)(B).\7\ However, the EPA did not act on the companies' request 
for a stay of those requirements. On June 30, 2016, the EPA issued its 
proposed action on reconsideration, proposing to replace the 
optimization requirements for both kilns with a series of revised 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Letter from Jared Blumenfeld, EPA, to Verle C. Martz, PCC 
(January 16, 2015); Letter from Jared Blumenfeld, EPA, to Jay Grady, 
CPC (January 27, 2015).
    \8\ 81 FR 42600.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Administrative Stay

    In light of the EPA's proposed rule to replace the optimization 
requirements applicable to Clarkdale Kiln 4 and Rillito Kiln 4 and the 
fact that these provisions require implementation of various 
operational adjustments and submittal of protocols and reports in 
advance of the December 31, 2018 compliance deadline for the 
NOX emission limits, the EPA is now granting PCC's and CPC's 
petitions for a stay of the effectiveness of those requirements under 
CAA section 307(d)(7)(B). In particular, we are staying the 
effectiveness of 40 CFR 52.145(k)(6) and Appendix A to 40 CFR 52.145 
for a period of 90 days, which is the maximum length of a stay 
authorized under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B). The EPA anticipates that we 
will complete final action on reconsideration prior to the conclusion 
of this stay, but if we are unable to do so, we will consider granting 
a further stay of the optimization requirements under section 705 of 
the APA.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders 
can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/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 provisions of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is defined at 
5 CFR 1320.3(b).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    This action is not subject to the RFA. The RFA applies only to 
rules subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the 
APA, 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other statute. This rule is not subject to 
the APA but is subject to the CAA, which does not require notice and 
comment rulemaking to take this action.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in 
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, 
local, or tribal governments or the private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between 
the national government and the states, or in the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as 
specified in Executive Order 13132.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    This action has tribal implications. However, it will neither 
impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized 
tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. This action stays the 
effectiveness of optimization requirements that currently apply to the 
PCC Clarkdale Plant. The profits from the Clarkdale Plant are used to 
provide government services to SRPMIC's members.
    The EPA consulted with tribal officials under the EPA Policy on 
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes early in the process 
of developing our proposed action on reconsideration of the 
optimization requirements to permit them to have meaningful and timely 
input into its development.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Summary of Consultation with SRPMIC Regarding Regional 
Haze FIP Reconsideration (Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0846-0026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those 
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks 
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect 
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in 
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to 
Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental 
health risk or safety risk.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is 
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not 
change the level of environmental protection for any affected 
populations.

K. Congressional Review Act

    This rule is exempt from the CRA because it is a rule of particular 
applicability.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Nitrogen oxides, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Visibility.

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

    Dated: August 1, 2016.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:

 PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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 adding paragraph (n) to read as follows:


Sec.  52.145  Visibility protection.

* * * * *
    (n) The effectiveness of paragraph (k)(6) of this section and 
Appendix A to

[[Page 53931]]

this section is stayed from August 15, 2016 until November 14, 2016.

[FR Doc. 2016-19113 Filed 8-12-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P