[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