82_FR_18019 82 FR 17948 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Montana; Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan

82 FR 17948 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Montana; Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 71 (April 14, 2017)

Page Range17948-17959
FR Document2017-07597

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing revisions pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) to the Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) addressing regional haze in the State of Montana. The EPA promulgated a FIP on September 18, 2012, in response to the State's decision in 2006 to not submit a regional haze State Implementation Plan (SIP); we are proposing revisions to that FIP. The EPA is proposing revisions to the FIP's requirement for best available retrofit technology (BART) for the Trident cement kiln owned and operated by Oldcastle Materials Cement Holdings, Inc., (Oldcastle), located in Three Forks, Montana. In response to a request from Oldcastle, and in light of new information that was not available at the time we originally promulgated the FIP, we are proposing to revise the nitrogen oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>) emission limit for the Trident cement kiln. We are also proposing to correct errors we made in our FIP regarding the reasonable progress determination for the Blaine County #1 Compressor Station and the instructions for compliance determinations for particulate matter (PM) BART emission limits at electrical generating units (EGUs) and cement kilns. This action does not address the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's June 9, 2015 vacatur and remand of portions of the FIP regarding the Colstrip and Corette power plants; we will address the court's remand in a separate action.

Federal Register, Volume 82 Issue 71 (Friday, April 14, 2017)
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 71 (Friday, April 14, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17948-17959]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2017-07597]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0062; FRL-9960-20-Region 8]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Montana; Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing 
revisions pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) to the 
Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) addressing regional haze in the State 
of Montana. The EPA promulgated a FIP on September 18, 2012, in 
response to the State's decision in 2006 to not submit a regional haze 
State Implementation Plan (SIP); we are proposing revisions to that 
FIP. The EPA is proposing revisions to the FIP's requirement for best 
available retrofit technology (BART) for the Trident cement kiln owned 
and operated by Oldcastle Materials Cement Holdings, Inc., (Oldcastle), 
located in Three Forks, Montana. In response to a request from 
Oldcastle, and in light of new information that was not available at 
the time we originally promulgated the FIP, we are proposing to revise 
the nitrogen oxides (NOX) emission limit for the Trident 
cement kiln. We are also proposing to correct errors we made in our FIP 
regarding the reasonable progress determination for the Blaine County 
#1 Compressor Station and the instructions for compliance 
determinations for particulate matter (PM) BART emission limits at 
electrical generating units (EGUs) and cement kilns. This action does 
not address the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's June 9, 
2015 vacatur and remand of portions of the FIP regarding the Colstrip 
and Corette power plants; we will address the court's remand in a 
separate action.

DATES: Comments: Written comments must be received on or before May 30, 
2017.
    Public Hearing: If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing 
on or before May 1, 2017, we will hold a hearing. Additional 
information about the hearing, if requested, will be published in a 
subsequent Federal Register document. Contact Jaslyn Dobrahner at (303) 
312-6252 or at [email protected] to request a hearing or to 
determine if a hearing will be held.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2017-0062, to the Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from 
Regulations.gov. 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

[[Page 17949]]

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, 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.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program, 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, 
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. The EPA requests that if at all possible, 
you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the 
hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., 
excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jaslyn Dobrahner, Air Program, EPA, 
Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-
1129, (303) 312-6252, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. General Information
II. What action is the EPA taking?
III. Background
    A. Requirements of the Clean Air Act and the EPA's Regional Haze 
Rule
    B. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
    C. Reasonable Progress Requirements
    D. Consultation With Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
    E. Regulatory and Legal History of the 2012 Montana FIP
IV. Trident Cement Kiln
V. Blaine County #1 Compressor Station Reasonable Progress Error 
Correction
VI. Regulatory Text Error Corrections for Compliance Determinations 
for Particulate Matter
VII. Coordination With FLMs
VIII. Clean Air Act Section 110(l)
IX. EPA's Proposed Revisions to the 2012 FIP
X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. General Information

What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI to the EPA through https://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the 
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on a disk or 
CD-ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM 
as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the 
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as 
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information 
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. 
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with 
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments, 
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other 
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register, date, and 
page number);
     Follow directions and organize your comments;
     Explain why you agree or disagree;
     Suggest alternatives and substitute language for your 
requested changes;
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical 
information and/or data that you used;
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how 
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be 
reproduced;
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and 
suggest alternatives;
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the 
use of profanity or personal threats; and
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period 
deadline identified.

II. What action is the EPA taking?

    On September 18, 2012, the EPA promulgated a FIP that included a 
NOX BART emission limit for the Holcim (US), Inc., Trident 
cement kiln located in Three Forks, Montana.1 2 The EPA is 
proposing to revise the 2012 FIP with respect to the BART emission 
limit for the Trident cement kiln. Specifically, the EPA is proposing 
to revise the NOX emission limit from 6.5 lb/ton clinker to 
7.6 lb/ton clinker (both as 30-day rolling averages). The EPA is also 
proposing to correct errors we made in our FIP regarding the reasonable 
progress determination for the Blaine County #1 Compressor Station and 
in the instructions for compliance determinations for particulate 
matter (PM) BART emission limits at EGUs and cement kilns. Our proposed 
correction to our erroneous reasonable progress determination for the 
Blaine County #1 Compressor Station will result in the source no longer 
being subject to a NOX emission limit of 21.8 lbs 
NOX/hr (average of three stack test runs). The EPA is 
proposing to revise the specific portions of Montana's regional haze 
FIP described in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking under our general 
rulemaking and CAA-specific authority. See 5 U.S.C. 551(5); 42 U.S.C. 
7601(a)(1), 7410(c)(1), 7410(k)(6). We are not addressing the Ninth 
Circuit's June 9, 2015 vacatur and remand of unrelated portions of the 
FIP in this action and will address the court's remand in a separate 
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Oldcastle Materials Cement Holdings, Inc., (Oldcastle) is 
the current owner and operator of the Trident cement kiln.
    \2\ 77 FR 57864.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Background

A. Requirements of the Clean Air Act and the EPA's Regional Haze Rule

    In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created 
a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and 
wilderness areas. 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 manmade air pollution.'' \3\ On December 2, 
1980, the EPA promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment 
in Class I areas that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source 
or small group of sources, i.e., reasonably attributable visibility

[[Page 17950]]

impairment.\4\ These regulations represented the first phase in 
addressing visibility impairment. The EPA deferred action on regional 
haze that emanates from a variety of sources until monitoring, modeling 
and scientific knowledge about the relationships between pollutants and 
visibility impairment were improved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 42 U.S.C. 7491(a). 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). In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, 
EPA, in consultation with the Department of Interior, promulgated a 
list of 156 areas where visibility is identified as an important 
value. 44 FR 69122 (November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory 
Class I area includes subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park 
expansions. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). Although states and tribes may 
designate as Class I additional areas which they consider to have 
visibility as an important value, the requirements of the visibility 
program set forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to 
``mandatory Class I Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal 
area is the responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' 42 U.S.C. 
7602(i). When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this section, we 
mean a ``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
    \4\ 45 FR 80084, 80084 (December 2, 1980).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional 
haze issues. The EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on 
July 1, 1999.\5\ The Regional Haze Rule (RHR) revised the existing 
visibility regulations to integrate provisions addressing regional haze 
and established a comprehensive visibility protection program for Class 
I areas. The requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 
51.309, are included in the EPA's visibility protection regulations at 
40 CFR 51.300-309. The EPA revised the RHR on January 10, 2017.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 64 FR 35714, 35714 (July 1, 1999) (codified at 40 CFR part 
51, subpart P).
    \6\ 82 FR 3078 (January 10, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CAA requires each state to develop a SIP to meet various air 
quality requirements, including protection of visibility.\7\ Regional 
haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress toward the national goal of 
achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I areas. A state must 
submit its SIP and SIP revisions to the EPA for approval. Once 
approved, a SIP is enforceable by the EPA and citizens under the CAA; 
that is, the SIP is federally enforceable. If a state elects not to 
make a required SIP submittal, fails to make a required SIP submittal 
or if we find that a state's required submittal is incomplete or not 
approvable, then we must promulgate a FIP to fill this regulatory 
gap.\8\ Montana is on the path towards a SIP and working closely with 
the Region to make that happen as soon as practicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(a), 7491, and 7492(a), CAA sections 110(a), 
169A, and 169B.
    \8\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)

    Section 169A of the CAA directs states, or the EPA if developing a 
FIP, to evaluate the use of retrofit controls at certain larger, often 
uncontrolled, older stationary sources in order to address visibility 
impacts from these sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the 
CAA requires states' implementation plans to contain such measures as 
may be necessary to make reasonable progress toward the natural 
visibility goal, including a requirement that certain categories of 
existing major stationary sources built between 1962 and 1977 procure, 
install, and operate the ``Best Available Retrofit Technology'' as 
determined by the states, or in the case of a FIP, the EPA. Under the 
RHR, states or the EPA are directed to conduct BART determinations for 
such ``BART-eligible'' sources that may reasonably be anticipated to 
cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area.
    On July 6, 2005, the EPA published the Guidelines for BART 
Determinations under the RHR at appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51 
(hereinafter referred to as the ``BART Guidelines'') to assist states 
and the EPA in determining which sources should be subject to the BART 
requirements and the appropriate emission limits for each applicable 
source.\9\ The process of establishing BART emission limitations 
follows three steps: First, identify the sources that meet the 
definition of ``BART-eligible source'' set forth in 40 CFR 51.301; \10\ 
second, determine which of these sources ``emits any air pollutant 
which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any 
impairment of visibility in any such area'' (a source which fits this 
description is ``subject to BART''); and third, for each source subject 
to BART, identify the best available type and level of control for 
reducing emissions. Section 169A(g)(7) of the CAA requires that states, 
or the EPA if developing a FIP, must consider the following 5 factors 
in making BART determinations: (1) The costs of compliance; (2) the 
energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; (3) any 
existing pollution control technology in use at the source; (4) the 
remaining useful life of the source; and (5) the degree of improvement 
in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the 
use of such technology. States or the EPA must address all visibility-
impairing pollutants emitted by a source in the BART determination 
process. The most significant visibility impairing pollutants are 
sulfur dioxide (SO2), NOX, and PM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 70 FR 39104.
    \10\ BART-eligible sources are those sources that have the 
potential to emit 250 tons or more of a visibility-impairing air 
pollutant, were not in operation prior to August 7, 1962, but were 
in existence on August 7, 1977, and whose operations fall within one 
or more of 26 specifically listed source categories. 40 CFR 51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A SIP or FIP addressing regional haze must include source-specific 
BART emission limits and compliance schedules for each source subject 
to BART. Once a state or the EPA has made a BART determination, the 
BART controls must be installed and operated as expeditiously as 
practicable, but no later than 5 years after the date of the EPA's 
approval of the final SIP or the date of the EPA's promulgation of the 
FIP.\11\ In addition to what is required by the RHR, general SIP 
requirements mandate that the SIP or FIP include all regulatory 
requirements related to monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for 
the BART emission limitations. See CAA section 110(a); 40 CFR part 51, 
subpart K.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ CAA section 169A(g)(4); 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Reasonable Progress Requirements

    In addition to BART requirements, as mentioned previously each 
regional haze SIP or FIP must contain measures as necessary to make 
reasonable progress towards the national visibility goals. As part of 
determining what measures are necessary to make reasonable progress, 
the SIP or FIP must first identify anthropogenic sources of visibility 
impairment that are to be considered in developing the long-term 
strategy for addressing visibility impairment.\12\ States or the EPA 
must then consider the four statutory reasonable progress factors in 
selecting control measures for inclusion in the long-term strategy--the 
costs of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, the energy and 
non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the remaining 
useful life of potentially affected sources. See CAA section 169A(g)(1) 
(defining the reasonable progress factors); 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A). 
Finally, the SIP or FIP must establish reasonable progress goals (RPGs) 
for each Class I area within the State for the plan implementation 
period (or ``planning period''), based on the measures included in the 
long-term strategy.\13\ If an RPG provides for a slower rate of 
improvement in visibility than the rate needed to attain the national 
goal by 2064, the SIP or FIP must demonstrate, based on the four 
reasonable progress factors, why the rate to attain the national goal 
by 2064 is not reasonable and the RPG is reasonable.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iv).
    \13\ 40 CFR 51.308(d), (f).
    \14\ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Consultation With Federal Land Managers (FLMs)

    The RHR requires that a state, or the EPA if promulgating a FIP 
that fills a gap in the SIP with respect to this requirement, consult 
with FLMs before adopting and submitting a required SIP or SIP 
revision, or a required FIP or FIP revision.\15\ Further, the EPA must 
include in its proposed FIP a

[[Page 17951]]

description of how it addressed any comments provided by the FLMs. 
Finally, a FIP must provide procedures for continuing consultation 
between the EPA and FLMs regarding the EPA's FIP, visibility protection 
program, including development and review of FIP revisions, 5-year 
progress reports, and the implementation of other programs having the 
potential to contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 40 CFR 51.308(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Regulatory and Legal History of the 2012 Montana FIP

    On September 18, 2012, the EPA promulgated a FIP that included BART 
emission limits for two power plants and two cement kilns, and an 
emission limit for a natural gas compressor station based on reasonable 
progress requirements.\16\ The EPA took this action because Montana 
decided not to submit a regional haze SIP, knowing that as a result the 
EPA would be required to promulgate a FIP.\17\ The BART emission limits 
for the two cement kilns and the reasonable progress requirements for 
the compressor station were not at issue in the petitions filed with 
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.\18\ The EPA plans to address the 
court's remand in a separate action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 77 FR 57864.
    \17\ Letter from Richard H. Opper, Director Montana Department 
of Environmental Quality to Laurel Dygowski, EPA Region 8 Air 
Program, June 19, 2006.
    \18\ Several parties petitioned the Ninth Circuit Court of 
Appeals to review EPA's NOX and SO2 BART 
determinations at the power plants, Colstrip and Corette (PPL 
Montana, LLC, the National Parks Conservation Association, Montana 
Environmental Information Center, and the Sierra Club). The court 
vacated the NOX and SO2 BART emission limits 
at Colstrip Units 1 and 2 and Corette and remanded those portions of 
the FIP back to EPA for further proceedings. National Parks 
Conservation Association v. EPA, 788 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Trident Cement Kiln

    Among other things, the 2012 FIP for Montana established a BART 
NOX emission limit for the kiln at the Trident cement plant 
(owned by Holcim, Inc., at the time of our 2012 final action). The 
Trident kiln is a ``long kiln,'' meaning that all of the pyroprocessing 
is accomplished in the rotary kiln. By contrast, with more recent 
designs, such as preheater and precalciner (PH/PC) kilns, much of the 
pyroprocessing occurs in stationary vessels placed upstream of the 
rotary kiln. The PH/PC kilns are also generally shorter in length, more 
thermally efficient, and generate less NOX. The EPA 
promulgated a BART emission limit for the Trident kiln of 6.5 lb 
NOX/ton clinker (as a 30-day rolling average), which 
reflected installation of selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR). 
Based on information available at the time, the emission limit was 
derived using a 50% reduction in the baseline NOX 
emissions.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 77 FR 24003-24004, 24014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In May 2016, Oldcastle representatives contacted the EPA and 
updated us of the change in ownership of the Trident facility, and 
requested a meeting with the EPA to discuss challenges with meeting the 
BART emission limit, which Oldcastle became aware of from its 
contractors assisting with the design and installation of the SNCR 
control system to meet the BART requirement.\20\ The EPA and Oldcastle 
met on July 25, 2016, to discuss these issues.\21\ In September 2016, 
Oldcastle requested that the EPA revise the emission limit due to its 
concerns that it cannot achieve the 50% emission reduction the EPA 
assumed was possible with SNCR on a continuous basis without 
unacceptable levels of ammonia slip, which may in turn negatively 
impact operations, unduly increase reagent costs, and create a 
localized visible detached plume.\22\ Accordingly, we have reevaluated 
the NOX control effectiveness (percent reduction), and 
thereby the emission limit, that can be achieved with SNCR when applied 
to long kilns. In particular, we have considered new information 
concerning SNCR performance that was not available at the time the 2012 
FIP was promulgated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Oldcastle acquired the facility on August 1, 2015. 
Oldcastle July 25, 2016, PowerPoint Presentation at 3.
    \21\ Oldcastle presentation to EPA, July 25, 2016.
    \22\ See submittals from Bison Engineering, Inc., to EPA on 
behalf of Oldcastle dated September 30, 2016, January 27, 2017, and 
February 13, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an initial matter, the EPA recognizes that it is challenging to 
predict the control effectiveness of SNCR for long cement kilns for a 
few reasons. First, whereas SNCR has been applied to many industrial 
sources, and in particular to coal-fired utility and industrial 
boilers, the number of long cement kilns that have been retrofitted 
with SNCR is relatively small. In fact, until recently SNCR was not 
considered technically feasible for long kilns because the appropriate 
temperature window is in the middle of the kiln, requiring that the 
reagent be injected into the rotating kiln.\23\ Second, there is 
inherent variability in the operation of long kilns, particularly in 
comparison to PH/PC kilns, that makes injection of reagent at the 
optimal temperature window difficult. Third, the available SNCR 
performance data for long kilns does not reflect a contemporaneous 
measurement of uncontrolled and controlled NOX emission 
rates because it is not possible to measure the uncontrolled 
NOX emission rate inside the kiln. Instead, the uncontrolled 
NOX emission rate (measured at the kiln exhaust), is taken 
from a baseline period prior to the installation of SNCR. Thus, it is 
difficult to prospectively estimate the control effectiveness of one 
long kiln from the operation of another long kiln already equipped with 
SNCR. Collectively, these factors introduce uncertainty when predicting 
the control effectiveness of SNCR when applied to long kilns, which is 
a necessary step in setting the NOX emission limit. This 
uncertainty has been the impetus for the use of post-installation 
control technology demonstrations to set NOX emission limits 
in association with consent decree enforcement actions for long kilns 
(as discussed later in this preamble).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ NOX Control Technologies for the Cement 
Industry: Final Report, p. 70, EPA-457/R-00-002, September 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in its submittals to the EPA, Oldcastle is committed to 
installing and operating the SNCR system on its Trident kiln.\24\ The 
construction of the SNCR system is underway and will likely be 
integrated into plant operations beginning during a shutdown scheduled 
for April 2017.\25\ As such, the EPA's consideration of Oldcastle's 
concerns and the resulting proposed FIP revision for the Trident kiln 
address only the appropriate emission limit associated with the 
operation of SNCR. Because the EPA is not revisiting the question of 
what control technology represents BART, this proposed rule does not 
include an updated 5-factor BART analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Oldcastle submittal to the EPA, p. 23, January 27, 2017.
    \25\ See photographs of SNCR construction attached to email from 
Bison Engineering, Inc., dated November 11, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To assess whether the new information supports revising the 
emission limits for the Trident kiln, we first reviewed the EPA's 
evaluation of SNCR control effectiveness for long kilns in the 2012 
FIP. There, the EPA determined that a 50% control effectiveness was an 
appropriate estimate for SNCR at long kilns, such as the Trident kiln. 
This was largely based on the SNCR performance observed on the three 
Ash Grove Cement long wet kilns located in Midlothian, Texas. Emissions 
data submitted by Ash Grove to the Texas Commission on Environmental 
Quality (TCEQ) showed that the Midlothian kilns achieved emission rates 
in the range of 1.6 to 2.9 lb NOX/ton of clinker from June 
through

[[Page 17952]]

August 2008 when using SNCR. The EPA compared this to baseline 
emissions data for the same 3-month period in 2006. Table 1 summarizes 
the 2006 and 2008 emissions rates, and associated percent reductions, 
that the EPA used in support of the 2012 FIP.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Ash Grove Midlothian Plant Actual Emissions Data, 2005-
2010, obtained from TCEQ.

               Table 1--Ash Grove Midlothian Monthly NOX Emissions, June Through August, 2006-2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     June through August 2006 emission rate  June through August 2008 emission rate
                                (lb/ton clinker)                        (lb/ton clinker)              Percentage
                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------  reduction
                       June      July     August    Average    June      July     August    Average      (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kiln 1.............       5.2       5.0       4.5       4.9       1.7       1.6       2.2       1.8         62.5
Kiln 2.............       5.0       4.1       3.9       4.4       2.7       2.6       2.8       2.7         37.7
Kiln 3.............       5.0       4.4       4.2       4.5       2.9       2.6       2.5       2.7         40.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the control effectiveness values for all three kilns were 
averaged together, the EPA found that SNCR achieved a 47.5% reduction 
in NOX.
    During the public comment period for the 2012 FIP, commenters 
questioned the usefulness of the Midlothian data in setting emission 
limits for other long kilns. Oldcastle has repeated some of those 
concerns in its recent submittals to the EPA that request a less 
stringent emission limit. In particular, the previous commenters, and 
now Oldcastle, pointed to the fact the Midlothian NOX 
emission rates (in lb/ton clinker) in subsequent years (2009 and 2010) 
were much higher than in 2008. In response to comments on the 2012 FIP, 
we suggested that these higher NOX emission rates indicated 
that SNCR was not utilized to the fullest extent in 2009 and 2010 and 
thus were not representative of the potential control efficiency of 
SNCR. Based on information recently obtained from Ash Grove Cement, we 
have been able to confirm that SNCR was underutilized in those two 
years.\27\ In 2008, while the Midlothian kilns were not yet subject to 
a NOX emission limit associated with the operation of SNCR, 
Ash Grove operated SNCR on the three kilns in order to understand how 
the control technology would work in preparation for upcoming emission 
requirements. Then, beginning in 2009, the Midlothian facility was 
required to comply with a facility-wide SIP emission limit of 4.41 tons 
NOX/day during the ozone season.\28\ Also, demand for cement 
was low during 2009 and 2010. As a result, Ash Grove was often able to 
meet the facility-wide emission limit with limited use of SNCR because 
one or more of the kilns was idle. For example, in 2009, SNCR was only 
operated for 131, 1,051, and 142 hours, respectively on kilns 1, 2, and 
3.\29\ Subsequently, starting in March 2011, in accordance with a 
settlement agreement, the Midlothian kilns were individually required 
to comply with a 30-day rolling average emission limit of 3.6 lb/ton 
clinker at all times throughout the year.\30\ Consequently, and despite 
higher demand for cement, NOX emissions (in lb/ton clinker) 
dropped significantly when compared to 2009 and 2010. Therefore, the 
SNCR performance data for Midlothian considered by the EPA during the 
2012 FIP development (2006-2008 data) was reliable and remains 
informative in setting a BART emission limit for the Trident kiln. 
Regardless, as noted further in this preamble, the EPA is now in 
possession of additional SNCR performance data for long kilns obtained 
through consent decree control technology demonstrations. This more 
recent SNCR performance data, along with earlier data from the 
Midlothian kilns, has been used to inform the SNCR performance 
expectations for the Trident kiln.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Email (with attachments) from Ash Grove Cement Company to 
EPA of December 6, 2016.
    \28\ NOX Emissions Control Plan for Ash Grove Texas, 
L. P., Midlothian Texas--Ellis County. Submitted to TCEQ and dated 
March 3, 2009.
    \29\ Kiln operating hours taken from spreadsheet attached to Ash 
Grove email to EPA of December 6, 2016.
    \30\ March 2011 settlement agreement between Ash Grove Texas, L. 
P, City of Dallas, Texas, and City of Arlington, Texas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since promulgation of our 2012 FIP, SNCR has been installed on a 
number of wet or dry long kilns in association with consent decree 
enforcement actions. SNCR has been installed on 6 long kilns (2 wet, 4 
dry) owned by LaFarge North America Inc., and on an additional long wet 
kiln owned by the Ash Grove Cement Company.\31\ The Ash Grove kiln is 
the Montana City kiln for which the EPA had earlier established a BART 
emission limit of 8.0 lb NOX/ton clinker (30-day rolling 
average) in our 2012 FIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Ash Grove consent decree, August 14, 2013. LaFarge consent 
decree, July 21, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each of the kilns subject to a consent decree was required to 
establish an SNCR-based emission limit through a control technology 
demonstration. The demonstrations were designed to establish the 
optimal performance of SNCR, and were carried out through a number of 
steps, including design report, baseline period, optimization period, 
and demonstration period.\32\ The control effectiveness data for these 
kilns, along with the data from the 2012 FIP for the three Midlothian 
kilns, is summarized in the associated Technical Support Document (TSD) 
prepared by the EPA.\33\ The control effectiveness shown for the kilns 
subject to consent decrees is highly variable and ranges from 29% to 
47%, with a mean of 40%. This control effectiveness reflects the 
percent reduction in the NOX emissions between the baseline 
and demonstration periods. As noted earlier, it does not reflect 
contemporaneous NOX measurements. These values compare 
favorably to the range of reductions (3-month average) observed for 
three Midlothian kilns of 37.7% to 62.5%, although the latter are 
somewhat higher.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Refer to respective consent decree for details.
    \33\ Technical Support Document--Oldcastle Trident Federal 
Implementation Plan Revision, March 8, 2017. In particular, See 
Attachment 1 to the TSD, Summary of SNCR Performance Data for Long 
Cement Kilns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The kiln that is most comparable to the Oldcastle Trident kiln is 
the Ash Grove Montana City kiln because both are long wet kilns and 
operate in similar environments in Montana. As such, it is reasonable 
to conclude that the Montana City kiln and the Oldcastle Trident kiln 
should be able to achieve comparable levels of NOX reduction 
per mole of uncontrolled NOX to injected reagent, i.e., at a 
given molar ratio (NOX:NH3). During the baseline 
period of the control technology demonstration for Ash Grove Montana 
City, lasting approximately six months between March and August 2014, 
the kiln emitted NOX at a rate of 11.6 lb/ton clinker.\34\ 
Following optimization of the SNCR system, the kiln emitted 
NOX at a rate of 7.0 lb/ton clinker over a period of 
approximately 10 months between July 2015 and April

[[Page 17953]]

2016.\35\ Again, this reflects an emission reduction between the two 
periods of roughly 40% based on the use of SNCR. Subsequently, as 
required by the consent decree, Ash Grove proposed, and the EPA 
approved, a 30-day rolling average emission limit of 7.5 lb 
NOX/ton clinker, which is lower than the BART emission limit 
of 8.0 lb NOX/ton clinker.\36\ The 7.5 lb NOX/ton 
clinker emission limit was approved by the EPA on December 29, 
2016.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See spreadsheet ``Summary of Ash Grove Montana City Control 
Technology Demonstration Data.xlsx'', March 8, 2017, prepared by the 
EPA.
    \35\ Department of Justice (DOJ) No. 90-5-2-1-08221, Ash Grove 
Cement Co., Montana City MT NOX Demonstration Report, and 
Data, August 25, 2016. Also, see spreadsheet titled ``Summary of Ash 
Grove Montana City Control Technology Demonstration Data.xlsx'', 
March 8, 2017, prepared by the EPA.
    \36\ Paragraph 28, Ash Grove consent decree.
    \37\ EPA letter to Ash Grove Cement Co., December 29, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is of particular importance that the SNCR installed at the 
Montana City kiln was ultimately optimized around ammonia slip. The 
ammonia slip is the concentration of unreacted ammonia as measured at 
the kiln exhaust that is above the background concentration established 
during the baseline period. Initially, the optimization of the kiln 
proceeded ``by injecting [increasing] set amounts of ammonia based on 
the estimated molar ratio of ammonia to the NOX emission 
rate identified during the baseline period.'' \38\ However, this 
approach at times resulted in high levels of ammonia slip and an 
objectionable detached plume that was visible in the immediate vicinity 
of the facility.\39\ In response, the optimization was then conducted 
based on an ammonia slip of 10 ppm. This too, at times, resulted in a 
detached plume. Therefore, Ash Grove ultimately optimized the operation 
of SNCR around an ammonia slip of 5 ppm. Ash Grove observed that 
``[r]educing ammonia slip from 10 ppm to 5 ppm did not significantly 
reduce the effectiveness of the SNCR system, as the average daily 
NOX emission rate during the 14-day period of 5 ppm ammonia 
slip was 6.4 lb/ton clinker and the maximum daily NOX 
emission rate was 7.3 lb/ton clinker.'' \40\ The ammonia slip during 
the demonstration period that followed was then set to a target of 5 
ppm, and Ash Grove demonstrated the ability to meet an emission limit 
of 7.5 lb/ton clinker (30-day rolling average) with this amount of 
ammonia slip. This approach to optimization established that a control 
effectiveness of 40% can be reached while addressing the same concerns 
about excess ammonia that Oldcastle raised in relation to the Trident 
kiln.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Department of Justice (DOJ) No. 90-5-2-1-08221, Ash Grove 
Cement Co., Montana City MT NOX Optimization Report, and 
associated data, June 16, 2015, p. 5. Also, see spreadsheet titled 
``Summary of Ash Grove Montana City Control Technology Demonstration 
Data.xlsx'', March 8, 2017, prepared by the EPA.
    \39\ Ibid, see photographs in Appendix A and B.
    \40\ Ibid, 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In consideration of the entirety of the SNCR performance results 
for long kilns now available to the EPA, and in particular that for the 
similar Ash Grove Montana City kiln, it is appropriate that the 
emission limit for the Trident kiln reflect a control effectiveness of 
40%.
    In order to propose a revised BART emission limit based on the 
updated control effectiveness of SNCR, we next considered the baseline 
emission rate for the Trident kiln. In the 2012 FIP, EPA used the 99th 
percentile 30-day rolling average NOX emission rate of 12.6 
lb/ton clinker for the period 2008-2011 as the baseline rate for 
calculating the BART emission limit. Applying a 50% reduction to the 
99th percentile figure yielded 6.3 lb NOX/ton clinker. To 
allow for a sufficient margin of compliance for a 30-day rolling 
average emission limit that would apply at all times, including 
startup, shutdown and malfunction, we set the BART emission limit at 
6.5 lb/ton clinker.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 77 FR 57881.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the EPA's request, Oldcastle submitted updated 30-day rolling 
average emissions data for the period of 2008 through 2016.\42\ The EPA 
evaluated this data in order to determine whether the baseline value of 
12.6 lb NOX/ton clinker used in the 2012 FIP remains a 
reasonable baseline for the purpose of setting the BART emission limit. 
The 99th percentile 30-day rolling average from the 9-year period is 
13.9 lb NOX/ton clinker. In its February 13, 2017 submittal 
to the EPA, Oldcastle (through Bison Engineering, Inc.,) proposed that 
the updated baseline value be used to calculate the BART emission 
limit. However, this baseline value is the result of a short period of 
unusually high daily NOX emissions that occurred on various 
days between September and November 2012. Oldcastle stated that one 
likely cause of the high NOX emissions during this time 
period was the result of ash ring buildup inside the kiln. Oldcastle 
also noted that ``ash ring build-up is a well-known problem that can 
develop in cement and lime kilns,'' and it can ``disrupt normal kiln 
mixing and heat transfer and can degrade fuel efficiency, effects that 
would tend to increase NOX emissions on a per-ton of 
production basis.'' \43\ Oldcastle also advocated that the high 
NOX emissions in late 2012 should be included when 
calculating the 99th percentile 30-day rolling average baseline 
emission rate used to calculate the BART emission limit because, though 
the emissions are atypical, they nonetheless represent operating 
conditions that may be anticipated to occur in the future. However, 
when compared to the emissions for the 9-year period as a whole, the 
emissions during late 2012 appear to reflect exceptional 
circumstances.\44\ Indeed, in the 4-year period that followed, 2013 
through 2016, the 99th percentile 30-day rolling average was identical 
to that used in the 2012 FIP (i.e., 12.6 lb NOX/ton 
clinker).\45\ In essence, the emissions in late 2012 represent an upset 
condition that should not be considered when calculating the BART 
emission limit. Moreover, the original emissions from 2008-2011, 
together with the emissions for 2013 through 2016, yield 8 years of 
data; this is more than sufficient for establishing the amount of 
NOX entering the SNCR treatment zone when the kiln is 
properly operated and maintained. Thus, the EPA concludes that an 
emission rate of 13.9 lb NOX/ton clinker is not an 
appropriate emissions baseline for purposes of setting the BART 
emission limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Email from Bison Engineering, Inc. to the EPA of February 
7, 2017, with attached spreadsheet.
    \43\ Bison Engineering, Inc., letter to the EPA (February 13, 
2017) at 2.
    \44\ This is depicted graphically in the chart included in 
Attachment 2 to the TSD, showing that the emissions in late 2012 
were far higher than any other period.
    \45\ See spreadsheet titled ``Oldcastle Trident NOX 
emissions 2008 through 2016 with additions by EPA.xlsx,'' March 8, 
2017, prepared by the EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, immediately after the ash ring buildup, the daily 
emissions data shows that Oldcastle did not operate the kiln between 
November 27 and December 1, 2012. Presumably, during this 5-day 
shutdown period, Oldcastle took corrective measures to remove the ash 
rings from the kiln and perform any other necessary repairs, thereby 
returning the kiln to normal operation. Emissions levels returned to 
typical levels immediately following the shutdown. Also, background 
information shared by Oldcastle indicates that proper kiln design, 
operation and maintenance can help to prevent ash ring formation.\46\ 
Thus, it is within Oldcastle's control to prevent ash ring formation, 
or at the very least, to promptly take corrective action when it does 
occur. The BART emission limit should be set such that an unreasonable 
delay in correcting an ash ring constitutes a violation of the limit. 
Given that compliance with the BART

[[Page 17954]]

emission limit is assessed over a 30-day rolling period, Oldcastle 
would be able to anticipate whether high short-term NOX 
emissions that occur due to ash ring deposits may lead to non-
compliance with the BART emission limit. In such case, Oldcastle would 
be able to take timely and appropriate operation and maintenance 
measures, and if necessary, shut down the kiln to remove the ash 
deposits--an action that they presumably would eventually take in any 
case to return the kiln to efficient operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Ring and Snowball Formation in the Kiln, presentation by 
Pradeep Kumar, undated. Available in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, we note that the Oldcastle Trident and Ash Grove Montana 
City kilns have very similar NOX baseline emissions (pre-
SNCR) when viewed as the 99th percentile 30-day rolling average. 
Baseline data collected for the Montana City kiln between March and 
August 2014 in association with the control technology demonstration 
shows that the 99th percentile 30-day rolling average emission rate was 
12.8 lb NOX/ton clinker.\47\ Though this baseline data was 
collected over a much shorter time than that for the Trident kiln, it 
is nearly equal to the value for Trident of 12.6 lb NOX/ton 
clinker. This is another indication that the two kilns should be able 
to achieve similar levels of controlled NOX emissions with 
SNCR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See spreadsheet titled ``Summary of Ash Grove Montana City 
Control Technology Demonstration Data.xlsx,'' March 8, 2017, 
prepared by the EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Again, in view of the SNCR performance results for long kilns now 
available to the EPA, it is appropriate that the emission limit for the 
Trident kiln reflect a control effectiveness of 40%. In addition, in 
consideration of the 9 years of baseline data from 2008 through 2016, 
it is appropriate to retain the original baseline used in the 2012 FIP 
of 12.6 lb NOX/ton clinker (99th percentile 30-day rolling 
average). Applying the 40% control effectiveness to this baseline 
emission rate yields a value of 7.6 lb NOX/ton clinker. This 
compares very favorably with the emission limit of 7.5 lb 
NOX/ton clinker set through a control technology 
demonstration for the Ash Grove Montana City kiln, particularly given 
that the two kilns have very similar baseline emissions (as 99th 
percentile 30-day rolling averages). Accordingly, we propose to revise 
the emission limit for the Trident kiln from the current value of 6.5 
lb NOX/ton clinker to 7.6 lb NOX/ton clinker (30-
day rolling average).\48\ We believe this is consistent with the new 
information available to the EPA, and will also address the concerns 
expressed by Oldcastle regarding unacceptable levels of ammonia slip, 
reagent costs, and creation of a localized detached plume.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ The performance level being achieved by Ash Grove is 
representative of the achievable level for Oldcastle. 40 CFR part 
51, Appendix Y, section IV.D.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although we find that the recent test data from multiple kilns, and 
particularly that for the Ash Grove Montana City kiln, is a very strong 
indicator of what can be expected for the Trident kiln, we again 
acknowledge that it is challenging to predict the performance of SNCR 
when applied to long kilns. Accordingly, we invite comment on whether, 
in place of the BART emission limit of 7.6 lb NOX/ton 
clinker proposed here, the emission limit for the Trident kiln should 
be established through a control technology demonstration in a manner 
similar to that in the consent decrees for the Ash Grove and LaFarge 
kilns discussed earlier. If so, we would most likely establish an 
interim emission limit that would be in place until a final emission 
limit is demonstrated. If we were to require a control technology 
demonstration, those requirements would also likely be similar to those 
for two cement kilns in Arizona subject to controls under the 
reasonable progress provisions of the RHR (though the demonstration 
requirements were ultimately removed in a revised 
action).49 50 The Agency is also asking if interested 
parties have additional information or comments on a control technology 
demonstration approach. The Agency will take the comments into 
consideration in a final promulgation. Supplemental information and 
comments received on this approach may lead the Agency to adopt final 
FIP regulations that reflect a different option, or impact other 
proposed regulatory provisions, which differ from the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See for example 79 FR 52420 (September 3, 2014), 52486 
(control technology demonstration requirements for the Clarkdale 
Cement Plant and Rillito Cement Plant at 40 CFR 52.145(k)(6)), 
52494-52496 (Appendix A to 52.145, Cement Kiln Control Technology 
Demonstration Requirements) (FR notice in the docket for this 
action).
    \50\ 81 FR 83144 (November 21, 2016, final rule revising 
portions of the FIP applicable to the Clarkdale and Rillito cement 
plants) (FR notice in the docket for this action).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 2012 FIP, we promulgated a compliance deadline for the 
Trident kiln of five years from the date the final FIP became 
effective. The effective date for the FIP was October 18, 2012; 
therefore, the compliance date is October 18, 2017. We are not 
proposing to change that date here; that is, we are retaining the 
compliance date for the Trident kiln of October 18, 2017. We also do 
not propose to alter the monitoring, record keeping, and reporting 
requirements established in the 2012 FIP that relate to compliance with 
the BART emission limit for NOX.

V. Blaine County #1 Compressor Station Reasonable Progress Error 
Correction

    The Blaine County #1 Compressor Station, located near Havre, 
Montana, serves as a natural gas gathering, transmission, and 
compressor station with two 5,500-hp Ingersoll-Rand KVR 616 natural gas 
compressor engines (Engine #1 and Engine #2). The PM and SO2 
emissions from these two engines are relatively low (0.32 tons per year 
(tpy) of PM and 0.02 tpy of SO2 per engine), and 
NOX emissions are the only potential contributor to regional 
haze.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ 77 FR 24068.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described in our April 20, 2012 proposal, our reasonable 
progress analysis identified point sources in Montana that potentially 
affect visibility in Class I areas by starting with the list of sources 
included in the 2002 National Emissions Inventory (NEI).\52\ We divided 
the sum of actual SO2 and NOX emissions (Q) in 
tons per year (tpy) from each source in the inventory by its distance 
(D) in kilometers to the nearest Class I Federal Area. The Q/D analysis 
for the Blaine County #1 Compressor Station is shown in Table 2 below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ An exception to the use of the 2002 NEI was that for 
Colstrip Units 3 and 4 we used NEI data from 2010.

                        Table 2-Q/D Analysis for the Blaine County #1 Compressor Station
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  SO2 + NOX
                                                                  emissions       Distance to
                            Source                                  (tons)      nearest Class I   Q/D (tons/km)
                                                                                   area (km)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Devon Energy Production Company, L.P., Blaine County #1                 1,155              107               11
 Compressor Station..........................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 17955]]

    We used a Q/D value of 10 as our threshold for further evaluation 
for reasonable progress controls based on the Federal Land Manager's 
(FLM) Air Quality Related Values Work Group guidance amendments \53\ 
for initial screening criteria, as well as statements in EPA's BART 
Guidelines.\54\ Based on the Blaine County #1 Compressor Station's Q/D 
value of 11, this source was evaluated for further controls using the 
four reasonable progress factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ Federal Land Managers' Air Quality Related Values Work 
Group (FLAG); Phase I Report--Revised 2010. Natural Resource Report 
NPS/NRPC/NRR--2010/232.
    \54\ The relevant language in our BART Guidelines reads, ``Based 
on our analyses, we believe that a State that has established 0.5 
deciviews as a contribution threshold could reasonably exempt from 
the BART review process sources that emit less than 500 tpy of 
NOX or SO2 (or combined NOX and 
SO2), as long as these sources are located more than 50 
kilometers from any Class I area; and sources that emit less than 
1000 tpy of NOX or SO2 (or combined 
NOX and SO2) that are located more than 100 
kilometers from any Class I area.'' (See 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, 
section III, How to Identify Sources ``Subject to BART.'') The 
values described equate to a Q/D of 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our evaluation only considered NOX emissions as PM and 
SO2 emissions were relatively small and thus not significant 
contributors to regional haze. Based on the 4 reasonable progress 
factors, we proposed to find non-selective catalytic reduction (NSCR) a 
reasonable control to address reasonable progress for the initial 
planning period, with an emission limit of 21.8 lb NOX/hr 
(30-day rolling average).\55\ Our final rule included the emission 
limit of 21.8 lb NOX/hr (average of three stack test runs) 
with a compliance date as expeditiously as possible, but not later than 
July 31, 2018.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ 77 FR 24069 (April 20, 2012).
    \56\ 77 FR 57916 (September 18, 2012) and 77 FR 24069 (April 20, 
2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA received a letter from Devon Energy Production Company, 
L.P. (Devon) \57\ dated August 14, 2012, which was after the public 
comment period for our proposal had closed on June 19, 2012, and was 
the day before our final action was signed on August 15, 2012. In this 
letter, Devon asserted, among other things, that the Q/D calculation is 
in error. Specifically, Devon claimed that the distance, or ``D'' in 
the Q/D calculation, for Blaine County #1 Compressor Station should be 
133 kilometers to the closest Class I area, the UL Bend Wilderness 
Area, instead of 107 kilometers as stated in our April 2012 proposal. 
Adjusting for this alleged error, the new Q/D calculation becomes 8.7, 
which falls below the threshold of 10 for further evaluation for 
reasonable progress controls. Based on this error, Devon concluded that 
Blaine County #1 Compressor Station should be removed from any further 
consideration of emission reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ Devon Energy Production Company, L.P. was the owner of the 
Blaine County #1 Compressor Station.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA agrees with Devon's claim in its August 14, 2012 letter 
that our Q/D calculation for the Blaine County #1 Compressor Station is 
in error. Specifically, we find that the distance (D) between the 
Blaine County #1 Compressor Station and the nearest Class I area, UL 
Bend Wilderness Area, to be 133 kilometers and not 107 kilometers as 
stated in our proposed rule.\58\ The corrected Q/D analysis for the 
Blaine County #1 Compressor Station is shown in Table 3 below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ Latitude-Longitude location for the Blaine County #1 
Compressor Station is N48.422443, W109.420960.

                   Table 3-Corrected Q/D Analysis for the Blaine County #1 Compressor Station
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  SO2 + NOX
                                                                  emissions       Distance to
                            Source                                  (tons)      nearest Class I   Q/D (tons/km)
                                                                                   area (km)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blaine County #1 Compressor Station..........................           1,155              133              8.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under CAA section 110(k)(6), whenever EPA determines that our 
action in promulgating a plan was in error, we may in the same manner 
revise the action. The EPA promulgated the reasonable progress 
requirements for Blaine County #1 Compressor Station pursuant to 
notice-and-comment rulemaking under CAA section 307(d), and is now 
proposing to revise those requirements using the same rulemaking 
procedures. In this case, it is appropriate to exercise our discretion 
to correct the error in order to maintain consistency in applying the 
same screening threshold Q/D value across all Montana sources 
identified in the 2002 NEI. We are proposing to correct the Q/D 
analysis for the Blaine County #1 Compressor Station so that the 
revised Q/D value would be 8.7, which is below the threshold value of 
10. This would remove the source from further evaluation for reasonable 
progress controls. Therefore, as part of the error correction we are 
also proposing to remove the reasonable progress NOX 
emission limit of 21.8 lb/hr (average of three stack test runs) for the 
Blaine County #1 Compressor Station, Engine #1 and Engine #2 from the 
FIP. In addition, we propose to remove the corresponding compliance 
date, test method, and monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements from the FIP.

VI. Regulatory Text Error Corrections for Compliance Determinations for 
Particulate Matter

    Finally, we are proposing to also use our authority under CAA 
section 110(k)(6) to correct errors in the regulatory text in our 
September 18, 2012 final action related to compliance determinations 
for particulate matter for EGUs and cement kilns. In response to a 
verbal communication \59\ received on our proposed rule in June 2012, 
we stated our intent \60\ in section V. Changes From Proposed Rule and 
Reasons for the Changes of our final rule to finalize the compliance 
determinations for PM BART emission limits at EGUs and cement kilns, 
found at 40 CFR 52.1396(f)(1) and (f)(2), differently than had been 
proposed, in order to allow sources to retain the PM stack testing 
schedule already established under state permits. This intended 
revision was to allow sources to use the results from a stack test 
meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 52.1396(f)(1) and (f)(2) that was 
completed within 12 months prior to the compliance deadline in lieu of 
the first stack test required per 40 CFR 52.1396(f)(1) and (f)(2) 
within 60 days of the compliance deadline. Our intention was that if 
this option were selected, then the next annual stack test would be due 
no more than 12 months after the stack test that was used. However, in 
the regulatory text of our final action, we inadvertently omitted a 
portion of this intended revision from 40 CFR 52.1396(f)(1) and the 
entire intended revision from 40 CFR 52.1396(f)(2). In

[[Page 17956]]

addition, we inadvertently stated in the regulatory text found at 40 
CFR 52.1396(f)(1) that ``results from a stack test meeting the 
requirements of 40 CFR 52.1396(f)(1) that were completed within 120 
days prior to the compliance date can be used by the owner/operator in 
lieu of the first stack test required'' instead of ``results from a 
stack test meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 52.1396(f)(1) that were 
completed within 12 months prior to the compliance date can be used by 
the owner/operator in lieu of the first stack test required.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ Meeting between Holcim and EPA Region 8. June 5, 2012, 
memorandum.
    \60\ 77 FR 57912 (September 18, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, we are proposing to correct these errors by amending the 
regulatory text found at 40 CFR 52.1396(f)(1) and (f)(2) so that both 
of these sections contain the following sentences after the sentence in 
section 40 CFR 52.1396(f)(1) and (f)(2) that requires the first annual 
PM performance stack test for PM within 60 days after the PM compliance 
deadline:

    ``The results from a stack test meeting the requirements of this 
paragraph that was completed within 12 months prior to the 
compliance deadline can be used in lieu of the first stack test 
required. If this option is chosen, then the next annual stack test 
shall be due no more than 12 months after the stack test that was 
used.''

VII. Coordination With FLMs

    The Forest Service manages Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness Area, Bob 
Marshall Wilderness Area, Cabinet Mountains Wilderness Area, Gates of 
the Mountains Wilderness Area, Mission Mountains Wilderness Area, 
Scapegoat Wilderness Area, and Selway-Bitteroot Wilderness Area. The 
Fish and Wildlife Service manages the Medicine Lake Wilderness Area, 
Red Rocks Lake Wilderness Area, and UL Bend Wilderness Area. The 
National Park Service manages Glacier National Park and Yellowstone 
National Park. These are the Class I Federal areas affected by sources 
in Montana. The RHR grants the FLMs a special role in the review of 
regional haze FIPs, summarized in section III.D in this preamble.
    As this proposed action is not a required plan revision, the 
detailed consultation provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2) do not apply. 
However, there are obligations to consult on other plan revisions under 
40 CFR 51.308(i)(3) and (i)(4). Because this plan revision changes the 
substance of the FIP, we have consulted with the Forest Service, Fish 
and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service. We described the 
proposed revisions to the regional haze FIP with the Forest Service, 
the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service on 
Thursday, March 2, 2017 and sent a draft of our proposed regional haze 
FIP revisions to the Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and 
the National Park Service on March 9, 2017.\61\ Based on these actions, 
we are proposing that we have satisfied the applicable requirements for 
consultation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ We did not receive any formal comments from the FLM 
agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIII. Clean Air Act Section 110(l)

    Under CAA section 110(l), the EPA cannot approve a plan revision 
that interferes with any applicable requirement concerning attainment 
and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable CAA 
requirement. We propose to find that this revision satisfies section 
110(l). The previous sections of the notice explain how the FIP 
revision will comply with applicable regional haze requirements and 
general SIP requirements such as enforceability. With respect to 
requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, the 
Montana Regional Haze FIP, as revised by this action, will result in a 
significant reduction in emissions compared to current levels. Although 
this revision will allow an increase in emissions after October 2017 as 
compared to the prior FIP, the FIP as a whole will still result in 
overall NOX and SO2 reductions compared to those 
currently allowed. In addition, the areas where the Trident cement kiln 
and the Blaine County #1 Compressor Station are located have not been 
designated nonattainment for any National Ambient Air Quality Standards 
(NAAQS). Thus, the revised FIP will ensure a significant reduction in 
NOX and SO2 emissions compared to current levels 
in an area that has not been designated nonattainment for the relevant 
NAAQS at those current levels.

IX. EPA's Proposed Revisions to the 2012 FIP

    In this action, the EPA is proposing to revise the BART 
NOX emission limit in the second line of the table in 40 CFR 
52.1396(c)(2) for the Oldcastle Trident kiln from 6.5 lb 
NOX/ton clinker to 7.6 lb NOX/ton clinker (30-day 
rolling averages).\62\ We are also proposing to delete the reasonable 
progress emission limit at 40 CFR 52.1396(c)(3) in our 2012 FIP for the 
Blaine County #1 Compressor Station as well as the associated 
compliance date found at 40 CFR 52.1396(d), the compliance 
determination test method found at 40 CFR 52.1396(e)(5), testing 
requirements at 40 CFR 52.1396(j), and monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
reporting requirements found at 40 CFR 52.1396(k) in order to correct 
the error we made in applying the reasonable progress screening metric, 
Q/D. In addition, we are proposing to correct errors in the regulatory 
text of the 2012 FIP for PM determinations for EGUs and cement kilns 
found at 40 CFR 52.1396(f)(1) and (f)(2) and change references to 
``Holcim'' to ``Oldcastle'' and ``Trident'' at 40 CFR 52.1396(a), 
(c)(2), and (f)(2)(ii). Finally, we are proposing to replace compliance 
date timeframes in 40 CFR 52.1396(d) with the actual compliance dates 
based on the effective date of the 2012 FIP. We are not proposing to 
change any other regulatory text in 40 CFR 52.1396. Montana is on the 
path towards a SIP and working closely with the Region to make that 
happen as soon as practicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ The table in 40 CFR 52.1396(c)(2) currently refers to 
``Holcim (US) Inc. As described later on, the EPA is also proposing 
to update this table to reflect the Trident kiln's new ownership.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the 
terms of Executive Order 12866 \63\ and was therefore not submitted to 
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. This proposed 
rule applies to only 5 facilities in the State of Montana. It is 
therefore not a rule of general applicability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ 58 FR 51735, 51738 (October 4, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed action does not impose an information collection 
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).\64\ A 
``collection of information'' under the PRA means ``the obtaining, 
causing to be obtained, soliciting, or requiring the disclosure to an 
agency, third parties or the public of information by or for an agency 
by means of identical questions posed to, or identical reporting, 
recordkeeping, or disclosure requirements imposed on, ten or more 
persons, whether such collection of information is mandatory, 
voluntary, or required to obtain or retain a benefit.'' \65\ Because 
this proposed rule revises the reporting requirements for 4 facilities 
and removes all requirements for an additional facility, the PRA does 
not apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
    \65\ 5 CFR 1320.3(c) (emphasis added).

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

[[Page 17957]]

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on 
small entities, 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.
    After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on 
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the 
RFA. This rule does not impose any requirements or create impacts on 
small entities as no small entities are subject to the requirements of 
this rule.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that may result in 
expenditures to State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, 
or to the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted for 
inflation) in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a 
written statement is needed, section 205 of UMRA generally requires the 
EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory 
alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least 
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The 
provisions of section 205 of UMRA do not apply when they are 
inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 of UMRA allows 
the EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-
effective, or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator 
publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was 
not adopted. Before the EPA establishes any regulatory requirements 
that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including 
Tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of UMRA a 
small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying 
potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected 
small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the 
development of EPA regulatory actions with significant federal 
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising 
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    Under Title II of UMRA, the EPA has determined that this proposed 
rule does not contain a federal mandate that may result in expenditures 
that exceed the inflation-adjusted UMRA threshold of $100 million \66\ 
by State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector in any one 
year. The proposed revisions to the FIP would reduce private sector 
expenditures. Additionally, we do not foresee significant costs (if 
any) for state and local governments. Thus, because the proposed 
revisions to the FIP reduce annual expenditures, this proposed rule is 
not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA. This 
proposed rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of 
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ Adjusted to 2014 dollars, the UMRA threshold becomes $152 
million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, Federalism,\67\ revokes and replaces 
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the 
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires the EPA 
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely 
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have federalism implications.'' \68\ ``Policies that have 
federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include 
regulations that 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.'' \69\ Under Executive Order 13132, the EPA may not 
issue a regulation ``that has federalism implications, that imposes 
substantial direct compliance costs, . . . and that is not required by 
statute, unless [the federal government provides the] funds necessary 
to pay the direct [compliance] costs incurred by the State and local 
governments,'' or the EPA consults with state and local officials early 
in the process of developing the final regulation.\70\ The EPA also may 
not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that 
preempts state law unless the Agency consults with state and local 
officials early in the process of developing the final regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ 64 FR 43255, 43255-43257 (August 10, 1999).
    \68\ 64 FR 43255, 43257.
    \69\ Id.
    \70\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This action does not have federalism implications. The proposed FIP 
revisions 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive 
Order 13132 does not apply to this action.

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

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'', requires the EPA to develop an 
accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by tribal 
officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal 
implications.'' \71\ This proposed rule does not have tribal 
implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 
13175 does not apply to this rule. However, the EPA did send letters to 
each of the Montana tribes explaining our regional haze FIP revision 
action and offering consultation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ 65 FR 67249, 67250 (November 9, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 
April 23, 1997). 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

[[Page 17958]]

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 (66 FR 28355 
(May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action 
under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing 
technical standards when developing a new regulation. Section 12(d) of 
NTTAA, Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the EPA 
to consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards'' in its regulatory 
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling 
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by 
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs the EPA to provide 
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use 
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. 
Therefore, the EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary 
consensus standards.

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

    Executive Order 12898, establishes federal executive policy on 
environmental justice.\72\ Its main provision directs federal agencies, 
to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make 
environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and 
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human 
health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and 
activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the 
United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ 59 FR 7629 (February 16, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I certify that the approaches under this proposed rule will not 
have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or 
environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous/tribal 
populations. As explained previously, the Montana Regional Haze FIP, as 
revised by this action, will result in a significant reduction in 
emissions compared to current levels. Although this revision will allow 
an increase in emissions after October 2017 as compared to the prior 
FIP, the FIP as a whole will still result in overall NOX and 
SO2 reductions compared to those currently allowed. In 
addition, the areas where the Trident cement kiln and the Blaine County 
#1 Compressor Station are located have not been designated 
nonattainment for any NAAQS. Thus, the revised FIP will ensure a 
significant reduction in NOX and SO2 emissions 
compared to current levels and will not create a disproportionately 
high and adverse human health or environmental effect on minority, low-
income, or indigenous/tribal populations. The EPA, however, will 
consider any input received during the public comment period regarding 
environmental justice considerations.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 
matter, Sulfur oxides.

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

    Dated: March 31, 2017.
 Debra H. Thomas,
 Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
    40 CFR part 52 is proposed to be 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 BB--Montana

0
2. Section 52.1396 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a);
0
b. Adding a note to paragraph (a);
0
c. Revising paragraph (c)(2);
0
d. Removing and reserving paragraph (c)(3);
0
e. Revising paragraph (d);
0
f. Adding a note to paragraph (d);
0
g. Removing paragraph (e)(5);
0
h. Revising paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2) introductory text, and 
(f)(2)(ii); and
0
i. Removing and reserving paragraphs (j) and (k).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  52.1396  Federal implementation plan for regional haze.

    (a) Applicability. This section applies to each owner and operator 
of the following coal-fired electric generating units (EGUs) in the 
State of Montana: PPL Montana, LLC, Colstrip Power Plant, Units 1, 2; 
and PPL Montana, LLC, JE Corette Steam Electric Station. This section 
also applies to each owner and operator of cement kilns at the 
following cement production plants: Ash Grove Cement, Montana City 
Plant; and Oldcastle Materials Cement Holdings, Inc., Trident Plant. 
This section also applies to each owner and operator of CFAC and M2 
Green Redevelopment LLC, Missoula site.

    Note to Paragraph (a): On June 9, 2015, the NOX and 
SO2 emission limits for Colstrip Units 1 and 2 and 
Corette were vacated by court order.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) The owners/operators of cement kilns subject to this section 
shall not emit or cause to be emitted PM, SO2 or 
NOX in excess of the following limitations, in pounds per 
ton of clinker produced, averaged over a rolling 30-day period for 
SO2 and NOX:

[[Page 17959]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   SO2 emission    NOX emission
                                                                                   limit (lb/ton   limit (lb/ton
                 Source name                           PM emission limit             clinker)        clinker)
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ash Grove, Montana City......................  If the process weight rate of the            11.5             8.0
                                                kiln is less than or equal to 30
                                                tons per hour, then the emission
                                                limit shall be calculated using
                                                E = 4.10p\0.67\ where E = rate
                                                of emission in pounds per hour
                                                and p = process weight rate in
                                                tons per hour; however, if the
                                                process weight rate of the kiln
                                                is greater than 30 tons per
                                                hour, then the emission limit
                                                shall be calculated using E =
                                                55.0p\0.11\ - 40, where E = rate
                                                of emission in pounds per hour
                                                and P = process weight rate in
                                                tons per hour.
Oldcastle, Trident...........................  0.77 lb/ton clinker..............             1.3             7.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (d) Compliance date. The owners and operators of the BART sources 
subject to this section shall comply with the emission limitations and 
other requirements of this section as follows, unless otherwise 
indicated in specific paragraphs: Compliance with PM emission limits is 
required by November 17, 2012. Compliance with SO2 and 
NOX emission limits is required by April 16, 2013, unless 
installation of additional emission controls is necessary to comply 
with emission limitations under this rule, in which case compliance is 
required by October 18, 2017.

    NOTE TO PARAGRAPH (d): On June 9, 2015, the NOX and 
SO2 emission limits, and thereby compliance dates, for 
Colstrip Units 1 and 2 and Corette were vacated by court order.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) EGU particulate matter BART emission limits. Compliance with 
the particulate matter BART emission limits for each EGU BART unit 
shall be determined by the owner/operator from annual performance stack 
tests. Within 60 days of the compliance deadline specified in this 
paragraph (d) of this section, and on at least an annual basis 
thereafter, the owner/operator of each unit shall conduct a stack test 
on each unit to measure the particulate emissions using EPA Method 5, 
5B, 5D, or 17, as appropriate, in 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A. A test 
shall consist of three runs, with each run at least 120 minutes in 
duration and each run collecting a minimum sample of 60 dry standard 
cubic feet. Results shall be reported by the owner/operator in lb/
MMBtu. The results from a stack test meeting the requirements of this 
paragraph that was completed within 12 months prior to the compliance 
deadline can be used in lieu of the first stack test required. If this 
option is chosen, then the next annual stack test shall be due no more 
than 12 months after the stack test that was used. In addition to 
annual stack tests, owner/operator shall monitor particulate emissions 
for compliance with the BART emission limits in accordance with the 
applicable Compliance Assurance Monitoring (CAM) plan developed and 
approved in accordance with 40 CFR part 64.
    (2) Cement kiln particulate matter BART emission limits. Compliance 
with the particulate matter BART emission limits for each cement kiln 
shall be determined by the owner/operator from annual performance stack 
tests. Within 60 days of the compliance deadline specified in paragraph 
(d) of this section, and on at least an annual basis thereafter, the 
owner/operator of each unit shall conduct a stack test on each unit to 
measure particulate matter emissions using EPA Method 5, 5B, 5D, or 17, 
as appropriate, in 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A. A test shall consist of 
three runs, with each run at least 120 minutes in duration and each run 
collecting a minimum sample of 60 dry standard cubic feet. The average 
of the results of three test runs shall be used by the owner/operator 
for demonstrating compliance. The results from a stack test meeting the 
requirements of this paragraph that was completed within 12 months 
prior to the compliance deadline can be used in lieu of the first stack 
test required. If this option is chosen, then the next annual stack 
test shall be due no more than 12 months after the stack test that was 
used.
    Clinker production shall be determined in accordance with the 
requirements found at 40 CFR 60.63(b). Results of each test shall be 
reported by the owner/operator as the average of three valid test runs. 
In addition to annual stack tests, owner/operator shall monitor 
particulate emissions for compliance with the BART emission limits in 
accordance with the applicable Compliance Assurance Monitoring (CAM) 
plan developed and approved in accordance with 40 CFR part 64.
* * * * *
    (ii) For Trident, the emission rate (E) of particulate matter shall 
be computed by the owner/operator for each run in lb/ton clinker, using 
the following equation:

    E = (CsQs)/PK

Where:
E = emission rate of PM, lb/ton of clinker produced;
Cs = concentration of PM in grains per standard cubic 
foot (gr/scf);
Qs = volumetric flow rate of effluent gas, where 
Cs and Qs are on the same basis (either wet or 
dry), scf/hr;
P = total kiln clinker production, tons/hr; and
K = conversion factor, 7000 gr/lb,

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-07597 Filed 4-13-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P



                                                    17948                     Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 71 / Friday, April 14, 2017 / Proposed Rules

                                                    PA). Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is the                      committee ‘‘shall complete a review of                 Act (CAA) to the Federal
                                                    component of oxides of nitrogen (NOX)                   the criteria . . . and the national                    Implementation Plan (FIP) addressing
                                                    for which we have the greatest concern                  primary and secondary ambient air                      regional haze in the State of Montana.
                                                    for public health. Accordingly, the                     quality standards . . . and shall                      The EPA promulgated a FIP on
                                                    current primary (health-based) National                 recommend to the Administrator any                     September 18, 2012, in response to the
                                                    Ambient Air Quality Standards                           new . . . standards and revisions of the               State’s decision in 2006 to not submit a
                                                    (NAAQS) for NOX are in terms of NO2.                    existing criteria and standards as may be              regional haze State Implementation Plan
                                                    The NO2 PA presents considerations                      appropriate . . .’’ Since the early 1980s,             (SIP); we are proposing revisions to that
                                                    and conclusions relevant for the EPA’s                  this independent review function has                   FIP. The EPA is proposing revisions to
                                                    review of the primary NO2 NAAQS. The                    been performed by the Clean Air                        the FIP’s requirement for best available
                                                    primary NO2 NAAQS are set to protect                    Scientific Advisory Committee                          retrofit technology (BART) for the
                                                    the public health from exposures to NO2                 (CASAC).                                               Trident cement kiln owned and
                                                    in ambient air.                                            Presently, the EPA is reviewing the                 operated by Oldcastle Materials Cement
                                                    DATES: The NO2 PA will be available on                  criteria and the primary NAAQS for                     Holdings, Inc., (Oldcastle), located in
                                                    or about April 12, 2017.                                NOX. The EPA released the final                        Three Forks, Montana. In response to a
                                                    ADDRESSES: The NO2 PA will be                           Integrated Science Assessment for                      request from Oldcastle, and in light of
                                                    available primarily via the Internet at:                Oxides of Nitrogen—Health Criteria (the                new information that was not available
                                                    https://www.epa.gov/naaqs/nitrogen-                     ISA) in January 2016. Drawing from the                 at the time we originally promulgated
                                                    dioxide-no2-primary-standards-policy-                   ISA, a draft NO2 PA was prepared by the                the FIP, we are proposing to revise the
                                                    assessments-current-review.                             EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning                   nitrogen oxides (NOX) emission limit for
                                                    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.                    and Standards, within the Office of Air                the Trident cement kiln. We are also
                                                    Breanna Alman, Office of Air Quality                    and Radiation. The draft NO2 PA                        proposing to correct errors we made in
                                                    Planning and Standards (Mail Code                       presented preliminary staff conclusions                our FIP regarding the reasonable
                                                    C504–06), U.S. Environmental                            on the adequacy of the current                         progress determination for the Blaine
                                                    Protection Agency, Research Triangle                    standards and addressed key policy-                    County #1 Compressor Station and the
                                                    Park, NC 27711; telephone number:                       relevant science issues that guided the                instructions for compliance
                                                    919–541–2351; email: alman.breanna@                     review. The draft NO2 PA was reviewed                  determinations for particulate matter
                                                    epa.gov.                                                by the CASAC at a public meeting on                    (PM) BART emission limits at electrical
                                                                                                            November 9–10, 2016, and a                             generating units (EGUs) and cement
                                                    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Two
                                                                                                            teleconference on January 24, 2017. The                kilns. This action does not address the
                                                    sections of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
                                                    govern the establishment and revision of                CASAC’s advice on the draft NO2 PA                     U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
                                                    the NAAQS. Section 108 (42 U.S.C.                       was conveyed in a letter to the                        Circuit’s June 9, 2015 vacatur and
                                                    7408) directs the Administrator to                      Administrator dated March 7, 2017.1                    remand of portions of the FIP regarding
                                                    identify and list certain air pollutants                The final NO2 PA being released at this                the Colstrip and Corette power plants;
                                                    and then to issue air quality criteria for              time reflects consideration of the                     we will address the court’s remand in a
                                                    those pollutants. The Administrator is                  CASAC’s advice and public comments                     separate action.
                                                    to list those air pollutants that in his                received on the draft NO2 PA.                          DATES: Comments: Written comments
                                                    ‘‘judgment, cause or contribute to air                    Dated: April 10, 2017.                               must be received on or before May 30,
                                                    pollution which may reasonably be                       Stephen Page,                                          2017.
                                                    anticipated to endanger public health or                Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and
                                                                                                                                                                      Public Hearing: If anyone contacts us
                                                    welfare;’’ ‘‘the presence of which in the               Standards.                                             requesting a public hearing on or before
                                                    ambient air results from numerous or                    [FR Doc. 2017–07558 Filed 4–13–17; 8:45 am]
                                                                                                                                                                   May 1, 2017, we will hold a hearing.
                                                    diverse mobile or stationary sources;’’                                                                        Additional information about the
                                                                                                            BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
                                                    and ‘‘for which . . . [the Administrator]                                                                      hearing, if requested, will be published
                                                    plans to issue air quality criteria . . .’’                                                                    in a subsequent Federal Register
                                                    Air quality criteria are intended to                    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION                               document. Contact Jaslyn Dobrahner at
                                                    ‘‘accurately reflect the latest scientific              AGENCY                                                 (303) 312–6252 or at dobrahner.jaslyn@
                                                    knowledge useful in indicating the kind                                                                        epa.gov to request a hearing or to
                                                    and extent of all identifiable effects on               40 CFR Part 52                                         determine if a hearing will be held.
                                                    public health or welfare which may be                                                                          ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
                                                                                                            [EPA–R08–OAR–2017–0062; FRL–9960–20–
                                                    expected from the presence of [a]                       Region 8]                                              identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08–
                                                    pollutant in the ambient air . . .’’ 42                                                                        OAR–2017–0062, to the Federal
                                                    U.S.C. 7408(b). Under section 109 (42                   Approval and Promulgation of Air                       Rulemaking Portal: https://
                                                    U.S.C. 7409), the EPA establishes                       Quality Implementation Plans;                          www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
                                                    primary (health-based) and secondary                    Montana; Regional Haze Federal                         instructions for submitting comments.
                                                    (welfare-based) NAAQS for pollutants                    Implementation Plan                                    Once submitted, comments cannot be
                                                    for which air quality criteria are issued.                                                                     edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
                                                    Section 109(d) requires periodic review                 AGENCY:  Environmental Protection                      The EPA may publish any comment
                                                    and, if appropriate, revision of existing               Agency (EPA).                                          received to its public docket. Do not
                                                    air quality criteria. Revised air quality               ACTION: Proposed rule.                                 submit electronically any information
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                    criteria reflect advances in scientific                                                                        you consider to be Confidential
                                                    knowledge on the effects of the                         SUMMARY:  The Environmental Protection                 Business Information (CBI) or other
                                                    pollutant on public health or welfare.                  Agency (EPA) is proposing revisions                    information whose disclosure is
                                                    The EPA is also required to periodically                pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air               restricted by statute. Multimedia
                                                    review and, if appropriate, revise the                    1 Available at: https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/
                                                                                                                                                                   submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
                                                    NAAQS based on the revised criteria.                    sabproduct.nsf/LookupWebProjectsCurrentCASAC/
                                                                                                                                                                   accompanied by a written comment.
                                                    Section 109(d)(2) requires that an                      7C2807D0D9BB4CC8852580DD004EBC32/$File/                The written comment is considered the
                                                    independent scientific review                           EPA-CASAC-17-001.pdf.                                  official comment and should include


                                               VerDate Sep<11>2014   16:31 Apr 13, 2017   Jkt 241001   PO 00000   Frm 00006   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\14APP1.SGM   14APP1


                                                                              Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 71 / Friday, April 14, 2017 / Proposed Rules                                                     17949

                                                    discussion of all points you wish to                    I. General Information                                 7.6 lb/ton clinker (both as 30-day rolling
                                                    make. The EPA will generally not                                                                               averages). The EPA is also proposing to
                                                                                                            What should I consider as I prepare my
                                                    consider comments or comment                                                                                   correct errors we made in our FIP
                                                                                                            comments for EPA?
                                                    contents located outside of the primary                                                                        regarding the reasonable progress
                                                    submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or                    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI                determination for the Blaine County #1
                                                    other file sharing system). For                         to the EPA through https://                            Compressor Station and in the
                                                    additional submission methods, the full                 www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly                  instructions for compliance
                                                    EPA public comment policy,                              mark the part or all of the information                determinations for particulate matter
                                                    information about CBI or multimedia                     that you claim to be CBI. For CBI                      (PM) BART emission limits at EGUs and
                                                    submissions, and general guidance on                    information on a disk or CD–ROM that                   cement kilns. Our proposed correction
                                                    making effective comments, please visit                 you mail to the EPA, mark the outside                  to our erroneous reasonable progress
                                                    http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/                            of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then                  determination for the Blaine County #1
                                                    commenting-epa-dockets.                                 identify electronically within the disk or             Compressor Station will result in the
                                                       Docket: All documents in the docket                  CD–ROM the specific information that                   source no longer being subject to a NOX
                                                    are listed in the www.regulations.gov                   is claimed as CBI. In addition to one                  emission limit of 21.8 lbs NOX/hr
                                                    index. Although listed in the index,                    complete version of the comment that                   (average of three stack test runs). The
                                                    some information is not publicly                        includes information claimed as CBI, a                 EPA is proposing to revise the specific
                                                    available, e.g., CBI or other information               copy of the comment that does not                      portions of Montana’s regional haze FIP
                                                    whose disclosure is restricted by statute.              contain the information claimed as CBI                 described in this Notice of Proposed
                                                    Certain other material, such as                         must be submitted for inclusion in the                 Rulemaking under our general
                                                    copyrighted material, will be publicly                  public docket. Information so marked                   rulemaking and CAA-specific authority.
                                                    available only in hard copy. Publicly                   will not be disclosed except in                        See 5 U.S.C. 551(5); 42 U.S.C.
                                                    available docket materials are available                accordance with procedures set forth in                7601(a)(1), 7410(c)(1), 7410(k)(6). We
                                                    either electronically in                                40 CFR part 2.                                         are not addressing the Ninth Circuit’s
                                                    www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at                     2. Tips for preparing your comments.                June 9, 2015 vacatur and remand of
                                                    the Air Program, Environmental                          When submitting comments, remember                     unrelated portions of the FIP in this
                                                    Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8,                      to:                                                    action and will address the court’s
                                                    1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado                      • Identify the rulemaking by docket                 remand in a separate action.
                                                    80202–1129. The EPA requests that if at                 number and other identifying
                                                                                                            information (subject heading, Federal                  III. Background
                                                    all possible, you contact the individual
                                                    listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION                   Register, date, and page number);                      A. Requirements of the Clean Air Act
                                                    CONTACT section to view the hard copy                      • Follow directions and organize your               and the EPA’s Regional Haze Rule
                                                    of the docket. You may view the hard                    comments;
                                                                                                                                                                      In section 169A of the 1977
                                                    copy of the docket Monday through                          • Explain why you agree or disagree;
                                                                                                                                                                   Amendments to the CAA, Congress
                                                    Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding                  • Suggest alternatives and substitute
                                                                                                                                                                   created a program for protecting
                                                    federal holidays.                                       language for your requested changes;
                                                                                                                                                                   visibility in the nation’s national parks
                                                    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:                           • Describe any assumptions and
                                                                                                                                                                   and wilderness areas. This section of the
                                                    Jaslyn Dobrahner, Air Program, EPA,                     provide any technical information and/
                                                                                                                                                                   CAA establishes ‘‘as a national goal the
                                                    Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595                          or data that you used;
                                                                                                                                                                   prevention of any future, and the
                                                    Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado                           • If you estimate potential costs or
                                                                                                                                                                   remedying of any existing, impairment
                                                    80202–1129, (303) 312–6252,                             burdens, explain how you arrived at
                                                                                                                                                                   of visibility in mandatory Class I
                                                    dobrahner.jaslyn@epa.gov.                               your estimate in sufficient detail to
                                                                                                                                                                   Federal areas which impairment results
                                                                                                            allow for it to be reproduced;
                                                    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:                                                                                     from manmade air pollution.’’ 3 On
                                                                                                               • Provide specific examples to
                                                    Throughout this document whenever                                                                              December 2, 1980, the EPA promulgated
                                                                                                            illustrate your concerns, and suggest
                                                    ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean                                                                    regulations to address visibility
                                                                                                            alternatives;
                                                    the EPA.                                                                                                       impairment in Class I areas that is
                                                                                                               • Explain your views as clearly as
                                                                                                                                                                   ‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to a single
                                                    Table of Contents                                       possible, avoiding the use of profanity
                                                                                                                                                                   source or small group of sources, i.e.,
                                                    I. General Information
                                                                                                            or personal threats; and
                                                                                                                                                                   reasonably attributable visibility
                                                    II. What action is the EPA taking?                         • Make sure to submit your
                                                    III. Background                                         comments by the comment period                            3 42 U.S.C. 7491(a). Areas designated as
                                                       A. Requirements of the Clean Air Act and             deadline identified.                                   mandatory Class I Federal areas consist of national
                                                          the EPA’s Regional Haze Rule                                                                             parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and
                                                       B. Best Available Retrofit Technology
                                                                                                            II. What action is the EPA taking?                     national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and
                                                          (BART)                                              On September 18, 2012, the EPA                       all international parks that were in existence on
                                                       C. Reasonable Progress Requirements                                                                         August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). In accordance
                                                                                                            promulgated a FIP that included a NOX                  with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation
                                                       D. Consultation With Federal Land                    BART emission limit for the Holcim                     with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list
                                                          Managers (FLMs)                                   (US), Inc., Trident cement kiln located                of 156 areas where visibility is identified as an
                                                       E. Regulatory and Legal History of the 2012                                                                 important value. 44 FR 69122 (November 30, 1979).
                                                          Montana FIP
                                                                                                            in Three Forks, Montana.1 2 The EPA is
                                                                                                                                                                   The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes
                                                    IV. Trident Cement Kiln                                 proposing to revise the 2012 FIP with                  subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                    V. Blaine County #1 Compressor Station                  respect to the BART emission limit for                 expansions. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). Although states and
                                                          Reasonable Progress Error Correction              the Trident cement kiln. Specifically,                 tribes may designate as Class I additional areas
                                                    VI. Regulatory Text Error Corrections for               the EPA is proposing to revise the NOX                 which they consider to have visibility as an
                                                          Compliance Determinations for                                                                            important value, the requirements of the visibility
                                                                                                            emission limit from 6.5 lb/ton clinker to              program set forth in section 169A of the CAA apply
                                                          Particulate Matter                                                                                       only to ‘‘mandatory Class I Federal areas.’’ Each
                                                    VII. Coordination With FLMs                               1 Oldcastle Materials Cement Holdings, Inc.,
                                                                                                                                                                   mandatory Class I Federal area is the responsibility
                                                    VIII. Clean Air Act Section 110(l)                      (Oldcastle) is the current owner and operator of the   of a ‘‘Federal Land Manager.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7602(i).
                                                    IX. EPA’s Proposed Revisions to the 2012 FIP            Trident cement kiln.                                   When we use the term ‘‘Class I area’’ in this section,
                                                    X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews                  2 77 FR 57864.                                       we mean a ‘‘mandatory Class I Federal area.’’



                                               VerDate Sep<11>2014   13:41 Apr 13, 2017   Jkt 241001   PO 00000   Frm 00007   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\14APP1.SGM   14APP1


                                                    17950                      Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 71 / Friday, April 14, 2017 / Proposed Rules

                                                    impairment.4 These regulations                          stationary sources built between 1962                     as expeditiously as practicable, but no
                                                    represented the first phase in addressing               and 1977 procure, install, and operate                    later than 5 years after the date of the
                                                    visibility impairment. The EPA deferred                 the ‘‘Best Available Retrofit                             EPA’s approval of the final SIP or the
                                                    action on regional haze that emanates                   Technology’’ as determined by the                         date of the EPA’s promulgation of the
                                                    from a variety of sources until                         states, or in the case of a FIP, the EPA.                 FIP.11 In addition to what is required by
                                                    monitoring, modeling and scientific                     Under the RHR, states or the EPA are                      the RHR, general SIP requirements
                                                    knowledge about the relationships                       directed to conduct BART                                  mandate that the SIP or FIP include all
                                                    between pollutants and visibility                       determinations for such ‘‘BART-                           regulatory requirements related to
                                                    impairment were improved.                               eligible’’ sources that may reasonably be                 monitoring, recordkeeping, and
                                                       Congress added section 169B to the                   anticipated to cause or contribute to any                 reporting for the BART emission
                                                    CAA in 1990 to address regional haze                    visibility impairment in a Class I area.                  limitations. See CAA section 110(a); 40
                                                    issues. The EPA promulgated a rule to                      On July 6, 2005, the EPA published                     CFR part 51, subpart K.
                                                    address regional haze on July 1, 1999.5                 the Guidelines for BART Determinations
                                                    The Regional Haze Rule (RHR) revised                    under the RHR at appendix Y to 40 CFR                     C. Reasonable Progress Requirements
                                                    the existing visibility regulations to                  part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the                      In addition to BART requirements, as
                                                    integrate provisions addressing regional                ‘‘BART Guidelines’’) to assist states and                 mentioned previously each regional
                                                    haze and established a comprehensive                    the EPA in determining which sources                      haze SIP or FIP must contain measures
                                                    visibility protection program for Class I               should be subject to the BART                             as necessary to make reasonable
                                                    areas. The requirements for regional                    requirements and the appropriate                          progress towards the national visibility
                                                    haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and                        emission limits for each applicable                       goals. As part of determining what
                                                    51.309, are included in the EPA’s                       source.9 The process of establishing                      measures are necessary to make
                                                    visibility protection regulations at 40                 BART emission limitations follows                         reasonable progress, the SIP or FIP must
                                                    CFR 51.300–309. The EPA revised the                     three steps: First, identify the sources                  first identify anthropogenic sources of
                                                    RHR on January 10, 2017.6                               that meet the definition of ‘‘BART-                       visibility impairment that are to be
                                                       The CAA requires each state to                       eligible source’’ set forth in 40 CFR                     considered in developing the long-term
                                                    develop a SIP to meet various air quality               51.301; 10 second, determine which of                     strategy for addressing visibility
                                                    requirements, including protection of                   these sources ‘‘emits any air pollutant                   impairment.12 States or the EPA must
                                                    visibility.7 Regional haze SIPs must                    which may reasonably be anticipated to                    then consider the four statutory
                                                    assure reasonable progress toward the                   cause or contribute to any impairment                     reasonable progress factors in selecting
                                                    national goal of achieving natural                      of visibility in any such area’’ (a source                control measures for inclusion in the
                                                    visibility conditions in Class I areas. A               which fits this description is ‘‘subject to               long-term strategy—the costs of
                                                    state must submit its SIP and SIP                       BART’’); and third, for each source                       compliance, the time necessary for
                                                    revisions to the EPA for approval. Once                 subject to BART, identify the best                        compliance, the energy and non-air
                                                    approved, a SIP is enforceable by the                   available type and level of control for                   quality environmental impacts of
                                                    EPA and citizens under the CAA; that                    reducing emissions. Section 169A(g)(7)                    compliance, and the remaining useful
                                                    is, the SIP is federally enforceable. If a              of the CAA requires that states, or the                   life of potentially affected sources. See
                                                    state elects not to make a required SIP                 EPA if developing a FIP, must consider                    CAA section 169A(g)(1) (defining the
                                                    submittal, fails to make a required SIP                 the following 5 factors in making BART                    reasonable progress factors); 40 CFR
                                                    submittal or if we find that a state’s                  determinations: (1) The costs of                          51.308(d)(1)(i)(A). Finally, the SIP or
                                                    required submittal is incomplete or not                 compliance; (2) the energy and non-air                    FIP must establish reasonable progress
                                                    approvable, then we must promulgate a                   quality environmental impacts of                          goals (RPGs) for each Class I area within
                                                    FIP to fill this regulatory gap.8 Montana               compliance; (3) any existing pollution                    the State for the plan implementation
                                                    is on the path towards a SIP and                        control technology in use at the source;                  period (or ‘‘planning period’’), based on
                                                    working closely with the Region to                      (4) the remaining useful life of the                      the measures included in the long-term
                                                    make that happen as soon as                             source; and (5) the degree of                             strategy.13 If an RPG provides for a
                                                    practicable.                                            improvement in visibility which may                       slower rate of improvement in visibility
                                                                                                            reasonably be anticipated to result from                  than the rate needed to attain the
                                                    B. Best Available Retrofit Technology
                                                                                                            the use of such technology. States or the                 national goal by 2064, the SIP or FIP
                                                    (BART)
                                                                                                            EPA must address all visibility-                          must demonstrate, based on the four
                                                      Section 169A of the CAA directs                       impairing pollutants emitted by a source                  reasonable progress factors, why the rate
                                                    states, or the EPA if developing a FIP,                 in the BART determination process. The                    to attain the national goal by 2064 is not
                                                    to evaluate the use of retrofit controls at             most significant visibility impairing                     reasonable and the RPG is reasonable.14
                                                    certain larger, often uncontrolled, older
                                                                                                            pollutants are sulfur dioxide (SO2),                      D. Consultation With Federal Land
                                                    stationary sources in order to address
                                                                                                            NOX, and PM.                                              Managers (FLMs)
                                                    visibility impacts from these sources.                     A SIP or FIP addressing regional haze
                                                    Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of                  must include source-specific BART                           The RHR requires that a state, or the
                                                    the CAA requires states’ implementation                 emission limits and compliance                            EPA if promulgating a FIP that fills a
                                                    plans to contain such measures as may                                                                             gap in the SIP with respect to this
                                                                                                            schedules for each source subject to
                                                    be necessary to make reasonable                                                                                   requirement, consult with FLMs before
                                                                                                            BART. Once a state or the EPA has
                                                    progress toward the natural visibility                                                                            adopting and submitting a required SIP
                                                                                                            made a BART determination, the BART
                                                    goal, including a requirement that                                                                                or SIP revision, or a required FIP or FIP
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                                                                            controls must be installed and operated
                                                    certain categories of existing major                                                                              revision.15 Further, the EPA must
                                                                                                              9 70
                                                                                                                                                                      include in its proposed FIP a
                                                      4 45
                                                                                                                     FR 39104.
                                                           FR 80084, 80084 (December 2, 1980).                10 BART-eligible
                                                      5 64
                                                                                                                                sources are those sources that          11 CAA section 169A(g)(4); 40 CFR
                                                           FR 35714, 35714 (July 1, 1999) (codified at      have the potential to emit 250 tons or more of a
                                                    40 CFR part 51, subpart P).                             visibility-impairing air pollutant, were not in           51.308(e)(1)(iv).
                                                      6 82 FR 3078 (January 10, 2017).                                                                                  12 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iv).
                                                                                                            operation prior to August 7, 1962, but were in
                                                      7 42 U.S.C. 7410(a), 7491, and 7492(a), CAA                                                                       13 40 CFR 51.308(d), (f).
                                                                                                            existence on August 7, 1977, and whose operations
                                                    sections 110(a), 169A, and 169B.                        fall within one or more of 26 specifically listed           14 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(ii).
                                                      8 42 U.S.C. 7410(c)(1).                               source categories. 40 CFR 51.301.                           15 40 CFR 51.308(i).




                                               VerDate Sep<11>2014   13:41 Apr 13, 2017   Jkt 241001   PO 00000   Frm 00008      Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\14APP1.SGM   14APP1


                                                                              Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 71 / Friday, April 14, 2017 / Proposed Rules                                                     17951

                                                    description of how it addressed any                     non-catalytic reduction (SNCR). Based                  SNCR performance data for long kilns
                                                    comments provided by the FLMs.                          on information available at the time, the              does not reflect a contemporaneous
                                                    Finally, a FIP must provide procedures                  emission limit was derived using a 50%                 measurement of uncontrolled and
                                                    for continuing consultation between the                 reduction in the baseline NOX                          controlled NOX emission rates because
                                                    EPA and FLMs regarding the EPA’s FIP,                   emissions.19                                           it is not possible to measure the
                                                    visibility protection program, including                   In May 2016, Oldcastle                              uncontrolled NOX emission rate inside
                                                    development and review of FIP                           representatives contacted the EPA and                  the kiln. Instead, the uncontrolled NOX
                                                    revisions, 5-year progress reports, and                 updated us of the change in ownership                  emission rate (measured at the kiln
                                                    the implementation of other programs                    of the Trident facility, and requested a               exhaust), is taken from a baseline period
                                                    having the potential to contribute to                   meeting with the EPA to discuss                        prior to the installation of SNCR. Thus,
                                                    impairment of visibility in Class I areas.              challenges with meeting the BART                       it is difficult to prospectively estimate
                                                                                                            emission limit, which Oldcastle became                 the control effectiveness of one long kiln
                                                    E. Regulatory and Legal History of the
                                                                                                            aware of from its contractors assisting                from the operation of another long kiln
                                                    2012 Montana FIP
                                                                                                            with the design and installation of the                already equipped with SNCR.
                                                      On September 18, 2012, the EPA                        SNCR control system to meet the BART                   Collectively, these factors introduce
                                                    promulgated a FIP that included BART                    requirement.20 The EPA and Oldcastle                   uncertainty when predicting the control
                                                    emission limits for two power plants                    met on July 25, 2016, to discuss these                 effectiveness of SNCR when applied to
                                                    and two cement kilns, and an emission                   issues.21 In September 2016, Oldcastle                 long kilns, which is a necessary step in
                                                    limit for a natural gas compressor                      requested that the EPA revise the                      setting the NOX emission limit. This
                                                    station based on reasonable progress                    emission limit due to its concerns that                uncertainty has been the impetus for the
                                                    requirements.16 The EPA took this                       it cannot achieve the 50% emission                     use of post-installation control
                                                    action because Montana decided not to                   reduction the EPA assumed was                          technology demonstrations to set NOX
                                                    submit a regional haze SIP, knowing                     possible with SNCR on a continuous                     emission limits in association with
                                                    that as a result the EPA would be                       basis without unacceptable levels of                   consent decree enforcement actions for
                                                    required to promulgate a FIP.17 The                     ammonia slip, which may in turn                        long kilns (as discussed later in this
                                                    BART emission limits for the two                        negatively impact operations, unduly                   preamble).
                                                    cement kilns and the reasonable                         increase reagent costs, and create a                      As stated in its submittals to the EPA,
                                                    progress requirements for the                           localized visible detached plume.22                    Oldcastle is committed to installing and
                                                    compressor station were not at issue in                 Accordingly, we have reevaluated the                   operating the SNCR system on its
                                                    the petitions filed with the Ninth Circuit              NOX control effectiveness (percent                     Trident kiln.24 The construction of the
                                                    Court of Appeals.18 The EPA plans to                    reduction), and thereby the emission                   SNCR system is underway and will
                                                    address the court’s remand in a separate                limit, that can be achieved with SNCR                  likely be integrated into plant
                                                    action.                                                 when applied to long kilns. In                         operations beginning during a shutdown
                                                    IV. Trident Cement Kiln                                 particular, we have considered new                     scheduled for April 2017.25 As such, the
                                                      Among other things, the 2012 FIP for                  information concerning SNCR                            EPA’s consideration of Oldcastle’s
                                                    Montana established a BART NOX                          performance that was not available at                  concerns and the resulting proposed FIP
                                                    emission limit for the kiln at the Trident              the time the 2012 FIP was promulgated.                 revision for the Trident kiln address
                                                    cement plant (owned by Holcim, Inc., at                    As an initial matter, the EPA                       only the appropriate emission limit
                                                    the time of our 2012 final action). The                 recognizes that it is challenging to                   associated with the operation of SNCR.
                                                    Trident kiln is a ‘‘long kiln,’’ meaning                predict the control effectiveness of                   Because the EPA is not revisiting the
                                                    that all of the pyroprocessing is                       SNCR for long cement kilns for a few                   question of what control technology
                                                    accomplished in the rotary kiln. By                     reasons. First, whereas SNCR has been                  represents BART, this proposed rule
                                                    contrast, with more recent designs, such                applied to many industrial sources, and                does not include an updated 5-factor
                                                    as preheater and precalciner (PH/PC)                    in particular to coal-fired utility and                BART analysis.
                                                    kilns, much of the pyroprocessing                       industrial boilers, the number of long                    To assess whether the new
                                                    occurs in stationary vessels placed                     cement kilns that have been retrofitted                information supports revising the
                                                    upstream of the rotary kiln. The PH/PC                  with SNCR is relatively small. In fact,                emission limits for the Trident kiln, we
                                                    kilns are also generally shorter in                     until recently SNCR was not considered                 first reviewed the EPA’s evaluation of
                                                    length, more thermally efficient, and                   technically feasible for long kilns                    SNCR control effectiveness for long
                                                    generate less NOX. The EPA                              because the appropriate temperature                    kilns in the 2012 FIP. There, the EPA
                                                    promulgated a BART emission limit for                   window is in the middle of the kiln,                   determined that a 50% control
                                                    the Trident kiln of 6.5 lb NOX/ton                      requiring that the reagent be injected                 effectiveness was an appropriate
                                                    clinker (as a 30-day rolling average),                  into the rotating kiln.23 Second, there is             estimate for SNCR at long kilns, such as
                                                    which reflected installation of selective               inherent variability in the operation of               the Trident kiln. This was largely based
                                                                                                            long kilns, particularly in comparison to              on the SNCR performance observed on
                                                      16 77 FR 57864.                                       PH/PC kilns, that makes injection of                   the three Ash Grove Cement long wet
                                                      17 Letterfrom Richard H. Opper, Director              reagent at the optimal temperature                     kilns located in Midlothian, Texas.
                                                    Montana Department of Environmental Quality to          window difficult. Third, the available                 Emissions data submitted by Ash Grove
                                                    Laurel Dygowski, EPA Region 8 Air Program, June
                                                    19, 2006.                                                                                                      to the Texas Commission on
                                                                                                              19 77 FR 24003–24004, 24014.
                                                      18 Several parties petitioned the Ninth Circuit                                                              Environmental Quality (TCEQ) showed
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                                                                              20 Oldcastle acquired the facility on August 1,
                                                    Court of Appeals to review EPA’s NOX and SO2                                                                   that the Midlothian kilns achieved
                                                    BART determinations at the power plants, Colstrip       2015. Oldcastle July 25, 2016, PowerPoint
                                                                                                            Presentation at 3.                                     emission rates in the range of 1.6 to 2.9
                                                    and Corette (PPL Montana, LLC, the National Parks
                                                    Conservation Association, Montana Environmental
                                                                                                              21 Oldcastle presentation to EPA, July 25, 2016.     lb NOX/ton of clinker from June through
                                                                                                              22 See submittals from Bison Engineering, Inc., to
                                                    Information Center, and the Sierra Club). The court
                                                    vacated the NOX and SO2 BART emission limits at         EPA on behalf of Oldcastle dated September 30,            24 Oldcastle submittal to the EPA, p. 23, January

                                                    Colstrip Units 1 and 2 and Corette and remanded         2016, January 27, 2017, and February 13, 2017.         27, 2017.
                                                    those portions of the FIP back to EPA for further         23 NO Control Technologies for the Cement
                                                                                                                    X
                                                                                                                                                                      25 See photographs of SNCR construction

                                                    proceedings. National Parks Conservation                Industry: Final Report, p. 70, EPA–457/R–00–002,       attached to email from Bison Engineering, Inc.,
                                                    Association v. EPA, 788 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2015).      September 2000.                                        dated November 11, 2016.



                                               VerDate Sep<11>2014   13:41 Apr 13, 2017   Jkt 241001   PO 00000   Frm 00009   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\14APP1.SGM   14APP1


                                                    17952                     Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 71 / Friday, April 14, 2017 / Proposed Rules

                                                    August 2008 when using SNCR. The                        period in 2006. Table 1 summarizes the                  associated percent reductions, that the
                                                    EPA compared this to baseline                           2006 and 2008 emissions rates, and                      EPA used in support of the 2012 FIP.26
                                                    emissions data for the same 3-month

                                                                 TABLE 1—ASH GROVE MIDLOTHIAN MONTHLY NOX EMISSIONS, JUNE THROUGH AUGUST, 2006–2008
                                                             June through August 2006 emission rate (lb/ton clinker)              June through August 2008 emission rate (lb/ton clinker)             Percentage
                                                                                                                                                                                                       reduction
                                                                 June             July            August           Average           June              July          August         Average               (%)

                                                    Kiln 1              5.2               5.0             4.5             4.9               1.7               1.6           2.2              1.8                  62.5
                                                    Kiln 2              5.0               4.1             3.9             4.4               2.7               2.6           2.8              2.7                  37.7
                                                    Kiln 3              5.0               4.4             4.2             4.5               2.9               2.6           2.5              2.7                  40.5



                                                       When the control effectiveness values                131, 1,051, and 142 hours, respectively                 demonstrations were designed to
                                                    for all three kilns were averaged                       on kilns 1, 2, and 3.29 Subsequently,                   establish the optimal performance of
                                                    together, the EPA found that SNCR                       starting in March 2011, in accordance                   SNCR, and were carried out through a
                                                    achieved a 47.5% reduction in NOX.                      with a settlement agreement, the                        number of steps, including design
                                                       During the public comment period for                 Midlothian kilns were individually                      report, baseline period, optimization
                                                    the 2012 FIP, commenters questioned                     required to comply with a 30-day rolling                period, and demonstration period.32
                                                    the usefulness of the Midlothian data in                average emission limit of 3.6 lb/ton                    The control effectiveness data for these
                                                    setting emission limits for other long                  clinker at all times throughout the                     kilns, along with the data from the 2012
                                                    kilns. Oldcastle has repeated some of                   year.30 Consequently, and despite                       FIP for the three Midlothian kilns, is
                                                    those concerns in its recent submittals                 higher demand for cement, NOX                           summarized in the associated Technical
                                                    to the EPA that request a less stringent                emissions (in lb/ton clinker) dropped                   Support Document (TSD) prepared by
                                                    emission limit. In particular, the                      significantly when compared to 2009                     the EPA.33 The control effectiveness
                                                    previous commenters, and now                            and 2010. Therefore, the SNCR                           shown for the kilns subject to consent
                                                    Oldcastle, pointed to the fact the                      performance data for Midlothian                         decrees is highly variable and ranges
                                                    Midlothian NOX emission rates (in lb/                   considered by the EPA during the 2012                   from 29% to 47%, with a mean of 40%.
                                                    ton clinker) in subsequent years (2009                  FIP development (2006–2008 data) was                    This control effectiveness reflects the
                                                    and 2010) were much higher than in                      reliable and remains informative in                     percent reduction in the NOX emissions
                                                    2008. In response to comments on the                    setting a BART emission limit for the                   between the baseline and demonstration
                                                    2012 FIP, we suggested that these higher                Trident kiln. Regardless, as noted                      periods. As noted earlier, it does not
                                                    NOX emission rates indicated that SNCR                  further in this preamble, the EPA is now                reflect contemporaneous NOX
                                                    was not utilized to the fullest extent in               in possession of additional SNCR                        measurements. These values compare
                                                    2009 and 2010 and thus were not                         performance data for long kilns obtained                favorably to the range of reductions (3-
                                                    representative of the potential control                 through consent decree control                          month average) observed for three
                                                    efficiency of SNCR. Based on                            technology demonstrations. This more                    Midlothian kilns of 37.7% to 62.5%,
                                                    information recently obtained from Ash                  recent SNCR performance data, along                     although the latter are somewhat higher.
                                                    Grove Cement, we have been able to                      with earlier data from the Midlothian                      The kiln that is most comparable to
                                                    confirm that SNCR was underutilized in                  kilns, has been used to inform the SNCR                 the Oldcastle Trident kiln is the Ash
                                                    those two years.27 In 2008, while the                   performance expectations for the                        Grove Montana City kiln because both
                                                    Midlothian kilns were not yet subject to                Trident kiln.                                           are long wet kilns and operate in similar
                                                    a NOX emission limit associated with                       Since promulgation of our 2012 FIP,                  environments in Montana. As such, it is
                                                    the operation of SNCR, Ash Grove                        SNCR has been installed on a number of                  reasonable to conclude that the Montana
                                                    operated SNCR on the three kilns in                     wet or dry long kilns in association with               City kiln and the Oldcastle Trident kiln
                                                    order to understand how the control                     consent decree enforcement actions.                     should be able to achieve comparable
                                                    technology would work in preparation                    SNCR has been installed on 6 long kilns                 levels of NOX reduction per mole of
                                                    for upcoming emission requirements.                     (2 wet, 4 dry) owned by LaFarge North                   uncontrolled NOX to injected reagent,
                                                    Then, beginning in 2009, the Midlothian                 America Inc., and on an additional long                 i.e., at a given molar ratio (NOX:NH3).
                                                    facility was required to comply with a                  wet kiln owned by the Ash Grove                         During the baseline period of the control
                                                    facility-wide SIP emission limit of 4.41                Cement Company.31 The Ash Grove kiln                    technology demonstration for Ash Grove
                                                    tons NOX/day during the ozone                           is the Montana City kiln for which the                  Montana City, lasting approximately six
                                                    season.28 Also, demand for cement was                   EPA had earlier established a BART                      months between March and August
                                                    low during 2009 and 2010. As a result,                  emission limit of 8.0 lb NOX/ton clinker                2014, the kiln emitted NOX at a rate of
                                                    Ash Grove was often able to meet the                    (30-day rolling average) in our 2012 FIP.               11.6 lb/ton clinker.34 Following
                                                    facility-wide emission limit with                          Each of the kilns subject to a consent               optimization of the SNCR system, the
                                                    limited use of SNCR because one or                      decree was required to establish an                     kiln emitted NOX at a rate of 7.0 lb/ton
                                                    more of the kilns was idle. For example,                SNCR-based emission limit through a                     clinker over a period of approximately
                                                    in 2009, SNCR was only operated for                     control technology demonstration. The                   10 months between July 2015 and April
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                      26 Ash Grove Midlothian Plant Actual Emissions           29 Kiln operating hours taken from spreadsheet         33 Technical Support Document—Oldcastle

                                                    Data, 2005–2010, obtained from TCEQ.                    attached to Ash Grove email to EPA of December          Trident Federal Implementation Plan Revision,
                                                      27 Email (with attachments) from Ash Grove            6, 2016.                                                March 8, 2017. In particular, See Attachment 1 to
                                                                                                               30 March 2011 settlement agreement between Ash
                                                    Cement Company to EPA of December 6, 2016.                                                                      the TSD, Summary of SNCR Performance Data for
                                                      28 NO Emissions Control Plan for Ash Grove
                                                                                                            Grove Texas, L. P, City of Dallas, Texas, and City      Long Cement Kilns.
                                                            X                                               of Arlington, Texas.                                      34 See spreadsheet ‘‘Summary of Ash Grove
                                                    Texas, L. P., Midlothian Texas—Ellis County.               31 Ash Grove consent decree, August 14, 2013.
                                                    Submitted to TCEQ and dated March 3, 2009.              LaFarge consent decree, July 21, 2014.                  Montana City Control Technology Demonstration
                                                                                                               32 Refer to respective consent decree for details.   Data.xlsx’’, March 8, 2017, prepared by the EPA.




                                               VerDate Sep<11>2014   13:41 Apr 13, 2017   Jkt 241001   PO 00000   Frm 00010   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\14APP1.SGM   14APP1


                                                                              Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 71 / Friday, April 14, 2017 / Proposed Rules                                                   17953

                                                    2016.35 Again, this reflects an emission                that a control effectiveness of 40% can                the high NOX emissions in late 2012
                                                    reduction between the two periods of                    be reached while addressing the same                   should be included when calculating
                                                    roughly 40% based on the use of SNCR.                   concerns about excess ammonia that                     the 99th percentile 30-day rolling
                                                    Subsequently, as required by the                        Oldcastle raised in relation to the                    average baseline emission rate used to
                                                    consent decree, Ash Grove proposed,                     Trident kiln.                                          calculate the BART emission limit
                                                    and the EPA approved, a 30-day rolling                     In consideration of the entirety of the             because, though the emissions are
                                                    average emission limit of 7.5 lb NOX/ton                SNCR performance results for long kilns                atypical, they nonetheless represent
                                                    clinker, which is lower than the BART                   now available to the EPA, and in                       operating conditions that may be
                                                    emission limit of 8.0 lb NOX/ton                        particular that for the similar Ash Grove              anticipated to occur in the future.
                                                    clinker.36 The 7.5 lb NOX/ton clinker                   Montana City kiln, it is appropriate that              However, when compared to the
                                                    emission limit was approved by the EPA                  the emission limit for the Trident kiln                emissions for the 9-year period as a
                                                    on December 29, 2016.37                                 reflect a control effectiveness of 40%.                whole, the emissions during late 2012
                                                       It is of particular importance that the                 In order to propose a revised BART                  appear to reflect exceptional
                                                    SNCR installed at the Montana City kiln                 emission limit based on the updated                    circumstances.44 Indeed, in the 4-year
                                                    was ultimately optimized around                         control effectiveness of SNCR, we next                 period that followed, 2013 through
                                                    ammonia slip. The ammonia slip is the                   considered the baseline emission rate                  2016, the 99th percentile 30-day rolling
                                                    concentration of unreacted ammonia as                   for the Trident kiln. In the 2012 FIP,                 average was identical to that used in the
                                                    measured at the kiln exhaust that is                    EPA used the 99th percentile 30-day                    2012 FIP (i.e., 12.6 lb NOX/ton
                                                    above the background concentration                      rolling average NOX emission rate of                   clinker).45 In essence, the emissions in
                                                    established during the baseline period.                 12.6 lb/ton clinker for the period 2008–               late 2012 represent an upset condition
                                                    Initially, the optimization of the kiln                 2011 as the baseline rate for calculating              that should not be considered when
                                                    proceeded ‘‘by injecting [increasing] set               the BART emission limit. Applying a                    calculating the BART emission limit.
                                                    amounts of ammonia based on the                         50% reduction to the 99th percentile                   Moreover, the original emissions from
                                                    estimated molar ratio of ammonia to the                 figure yielded 6.3 lb NOX/ton clinker.                 2008–2011, together with the emissions
                                                    NOX emission rate identified during the                 To allow for a sufficient margin of                    for 2013 through 2016, yield 8 years of
                                                    baseline period.’’ 38 However, this                     compliance for a 30-day rolling average                data; this is more than sufficient for
                                                    approach at times resulted in high levels               emission limit that would apply at all                 establishing the amount of NOX entering
                                                    of ammonia slip and an objectionable                    times, including startup, shutdown and                 the SNCR treatment zone when the kiln
                                                    detached plume that was visible in the                  malfunction, we set the BART emission                  is properly operated and maintained.
                                                    immediate vicinity of the facility.39 In                limit at 6.5 lb/ton clinker.41                         Thus, the EPA concludes that an
                                                    response, the optimization was then                        At the EPA’s request, Oldcastle                     emission rate of 13.9 lb NOX/ton clinker
                                                    conducted based on an ammonia slip of                   submitted updated 30-day rolling                       is not an appropriate emissions baseline
                                                    10 ppm. This too, at times, resulted in                 average emissions data for the period of               for purposes of setting the BART
                                                    a detached plume. Therefore, Ash Grove                  2008 through 2016.42 The EPA                           emission limit.
                                                    ultimately optimized the operation of                   evaluated this data in order to                           Moreover, immediately after the ash
                                                    SNCR around an ammonia slip of 5                        determine whether the baseline value of                ring buildup, the daily emissions data
                                                    ppm. Ash Grove observed that                            12.6 lb NOX/ton clinker used in the                    shows that Oldcastle did not operate the
                                                    ‘‘[r]educing ammonia slip from 10 ppm                   2012 FIP remains a reasonable baseline                 kiln between November 27 and
                                                    to 5 ppm did not significantly reduce                   for the purpose of setting the BART                    December 1, 2012. Presumably, during
                                                    the effectiveness of the SNCR system, as                emission limit. The 99th percentile 30-                this 5-day shutdown period, Oldcastle
                                                    the average daily NOX emission rate                     day rolling average from the 9-year                    took corrective measures to remove the
                                                    during the 14-day period of 5 ppm                       period is 13.9 lb NOX/ton clinker. In its              ash rings from the kiln and perform any
                                                    ammonia slip was 6.4 lb/ton clinker and                 February 13, 2017 submittal to the EPA,                other necessary repairs, thereby
                                                    the maximum daily NOX emission rate                     Oldcastle (through Bison Engineering,                  returning the kiln to normal operation.
                                                    was 7.3 lb/ton clinker.’’ 40 The ammonia                Inc.,) proposed that the updated                       Emissions levels returned to typical
                                                    slip during the demonstration period                    baseline value be used to calculate the                levels immediately following the
                                                    that followed was then set to a target of               BART emission limit. However, this                     shutdown. Also, background
                                                    5 ppm, and Ash Grove demonstrated the                   baseline value is the result of a short                information shared by Oldcastle
                                                    ability to meet an emission limit of 7.5                period of unusually high daily NOX                     indicates that proper kiln design,
                                                    lb/ton clinker (30-day rolling average)                 emissions that occurred on various days                operation and maintenance can help to
                                                    with this amount of ammonia slip. This                  between September and November                         prevent ash ring formation.46 Thus, it is
                                                    approach to optimization established                    2012. Oldcastle stated that one likely                 within Oldcastle’s control to prevent
                                                       35 Department of Justice (DOJ) No. 90–5–2–1–
                                                                                                            cause of the high NOX emissions during                 ash ring formation, or at the very least,
                                                    08221, Ash Grove Cement Co., Montana City MT            this time period was the result of ash                 to promptly take corrective action when
                                                    NOX Demonstration Report, and Data, August 25,          ring buildup inside the kiln. Oldcastle                it does occur. The BART emission limit
                                                    2016. Also, see spreadsheet titled ‘‘Summary of Ash     also noted that ‘‘ash ring build-up is a               should be set such that an unreasonable
                                                    Grove Montana City Control Technology                   well-known problem that can develop                    delay in correcting an ash ring
                                                    Demonstration Data.xlsx’’, March 8, 2017, prepared
                                                    by the EPA.                                             in cement and lime kilns,’’ and it can                 constitutes a violation of the limit.
                                                       36 Paragraph 28, Ash Grove consent decree.           ‘‘disrupt normal kiln mixing and heat                  Given that compliance with the BART
                                                       37 EPA letter to Ash Grove Cement Co., December      transfer and can degrade fuel efficiency,
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                    29, 2016.                                               effects that would tend to increase NOX                  44 This is depicted graphically in the chart
                                                       38 Department of Justice (DOJ) No. 90–5–2–1–                                                                included in Attachment 2 to the TSD, showing that
                                                                                                            emissions on a per-ton of production
                                                    08221, Ash Grove Cement Co., Montana City MT                                                                   the emissions in late 2012 were far higher than any
                                                    NOX Optimization Report, and associated data, June      basis.’’ 43 Oldcastle also advocated that              other period.
                                                    16, 2015, p. 5. Also, see spreadsheet titled                                                                     45 See spreadsheet titled ‘‘Oldcastle Trident NO
                                                                                                                                                                                                                      X
                                                    ‘‘Summary of Ash Grove Montana City Control               41 77 FR 57881.                                      emissions 2008 through 2016 with additions by
                                                    Technology Demonstration Data.xlsx’’, March 8,            42 Email from Bison Engineering, Inc. to the EPA     EPA.xlsx,’’ March 8, 2017, prepared by the EPA.
                                                    2017, prepared by the EPA.                              of February 7, 2017, with attached spreadsheet.          46 Ring and Snowball Formation in the Kiln,
                                                       39 Ibid, see photographs in Appendix A and B.          43 Bison Engineering, Inc., letter to the EPA        presentation by Pradeep Kumar, undated. Available
                                                       40 Ibid, 4.                                          (February 13, 2017) at 2.                              in the docket.



                                               VerDate Sep<11>2014   13:41 Apr 13, 2017   Jkt 241001   PO 00000   Frm 00011   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\14APP1.SGM   14APP1


                                                    17954                     Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 71 / Friday, April 14, 2017 / Proposed Rules

                                                    emission limit is assessed over a 30-day                Montana City kiln, particularly given                  comments received on this approach
                                                    rolling period, Oldcastle would be able                 that the two kilns have very similar                   may lead the Agency to adopt final FIP
                                                    to anticipate whether high short-term                   baseline emissions (as 99th percentile                 regulations that reflect a different
                                                    NOX emissions that occur due to ash                     30-day rolling averages). Accordingly,                 option, or impact other proposed
                                                    ring deposits may lead to non-                          we propose to revise the emission limit                regulatory provisions, which differ from
                                                    compliance with the BART emission                       for the Trident kiln from the current                  the proposal.
                                                    limit. In such case, Oldcastle would be                 value of 6.5 lb NOX/ton clinker to 7.6 lb                In the 2012 FIP, we promulgated a
                                                    able to take timely and appropriate                     NOX/ton clinker (30-day rolling                        compliance deadline for the Trident
                                                    operation and maintenance measures,                     average).48 We believe this is consistent              kiln of five years from the date the final
                                                    and if necessary, shut down the kiln to                 with the new information available to                  FIP became effective. The effective date
                                                    remove the ash deposits—an action that                  the EPA, and will also address the                     for the FIP was October 18, 2012;
                                                    they presumably would eventually take                   concerns expressed by Oldcastle                        therefore, the compliance date is
                                                    in any case to return the kiln to efficient             regarding unacceptable levels of                       October 18, 2017. We are not proposing
                                                    operation.                                              ammonia slip, reagent costs, and                       to change that date here; that is, we are
                                                      Finally, we note that the Oldcastle                   creation of a localized detached plume.                retaining the compliance date for the
                                                    Trident and Ash Grove Montana City                         Although we find that the recent test               Trident kiln of October 18, 2017. We
                                                    kilns have very similar NOX baseline                    data from multiple kilns, and                          also do not propose to alter the
                                                    emissions (pre-SNCR) when viewed as                     particularly that for the Ash Grove                    monitoring, record keeping, and
                                                    the 99th percentile 30-day rolling                      Montana City kiln, is a very strong                    reporting requirements established in
                                                    average. Baseline data collected for the                indicator of what can be expected for                  the 2012 FIP that relate to compliance
                                                    Montana City kiln between March and                     the Trident kiln, we again acknowledge                 with the BART emission limit for NOX.
                                                    August 2014 in association with the                     that it is challenging to predict the
                                                                                                            performance of SNCR when applied to                    V. Blaine County #1 Compressor
                                                    control technology demonstration
                                                                                                            long kilns. Accordingly, we invite                     Station Reasonable Progress Error
                                                    shows that the 99th percentile 30-day
                                                                                                            comment on whether, in place of the                    Correction
                                                    rolling average emission rate was 12.8 lb
                                                    NOX/ton clinker.47 Though this baseline                 BART emission limit of 7.6 lb NOX/ton                     The Blaine County #1 Compressor
                                                    data was collected over a much shorter                  clinker proposed here, the emission                    Station, located near Havre, Montana,
                                                    time than that for the Trident kiln, it is              limit for the Trident kiln should be                   serves as a natural gas gathering,
                                                    nearly equal to the value for Trident of                established through a control                          transmission, and compressor station
                                                    12.6 lb NOX/ton clinker. This is another                technology demonstration in a manner                   with two 5,500-hp Ingersoll-Rand KVR
                                                    indication that the two kilns should be                 similar to that in the consent decrees for             616 natural gas compressor engines
                                                    able to achieve similar levels of                       the Ash Grove and LaFarge kilns                        (Engine #1 and Engine #2). The PM and
                                                    controlled NOX emissions with SNCR.                     discussed earlier. If so, we would most                SO2 emissions from these two engines
                                                      Again, in view of the SNCR                            likely establish an interim emission                   are relatively low (0.32 tons per year
                                                    performance results for long kilns now                  limit that would be in place until a final             (tpy) of PM and 0.02 tpy of SO2 per
                                                    available to the EPA, it is appropriate                 emission limit is demonstrated. If we                  engine), and NOX emissions are the only
                                                    that the emission limit for the Trident                 were to require a control technology                   potential contributor to regional haze.51
                                                    kiln reflect a control effectiveness of                 demonstration, those requirements                         As described in our April 20, 2012
                                                    40%. In addition, in consideration of                   would also likely be similar to those for              proposal, our reasonable progress
                                                    the 9 years of baseline data from 2008                  two cement kilns in Arizona subject to                 analysis identified point sources in
                                                    through 2016, it is appropriate to retain               controls under the reasonable progress                 Montana that potentially affect visibility
                                                    the original baseline used in the 2012                  provisions of the RHR (though the                      in Class I areas by starting with the list
                                                    FIP of 12.6 lb NOX/ton clinker (99th                    demonstration requirements were                        of sources included in the 2002 National
                                                    percentile 30-day rolling average).                     ultimately removed in a revised                        Emissions Inventory (NEI).52 We
                                                    Applying the 40% control effectiveness                  action).49 50 The Agency is also asking if             divided the sum of actual SO2 and NOX
                                                    to this baseline emission rate yields a                 interested parties have additional                     emissions (Q) in tons per year (tpy) from
                                                    value of 7.6 lb NOX/ton clinker. This                   information or comments on a control                   each source in the inventory by its
                                                    compares very favorably with the                        technology demonstration approach.                     distance (D) in kilometers to the nearest
                                                    emission limit of 7.5 lb NOX/ton clinker                The Agency will take the comments into                 Class I Federal Area. The Q/D analysis
                                                    set through a control technology                        consideration in a final promulgation.                 for the Blaine County #1 Compressor
                                                    demonstration for the Ash Grove                         Supplemental information and                           Station is shown in Table 2 below:

                                                                                  TABLE 2–Q/D ANALYSIS FOR THE BLAINE COUNTY #1 COMPRESSOR STATION
                                                                                                                                                                                     Distance to
                                                                                                                                                                  SO2 + NOX         nearest Class           Q/D
                                                                                                       Source                                                      emissions            I area           (tons/km)
                                                                                                                                                                    (tons)               (km)

                                                    Devon Energy Production Company, L.P., Blaine County #1 Compressor Station ...................                   1,155               107                 11
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                      47 See spreadsheet titled ‘‘Summary of Ash Grove        49 See for example 79 FR 52420 (September 3,            50 81 FR 83144 (November 21, 2016, final rule

                                                    Montana City Control Technology Demonstration           2014), 52486 (control technology demonstration         revising portions of the FIP applicable to the
                                                    Data.xlsx,’’ March 8, 2017, prepared by the EPA.        requirements for the Clarkdale Cement Plant and        Clarkdale and Rillito cement plants) (FR notice in
                                                      48 The performance level being achieved by Ash        Rillito Cement Plant at 40 CFR 52.145(k)(6)),          the docket for this action).
                                                                                                                                                                      51 77 FR 24068.
                                                    Grove is representative of the achievable level for     52494–52496 (Appendix A to 52.145, Cement Kiln
                                                                                                                                                                      52 An exception to the use of the 2002 NEI was
                                                    Oldcastle. 40 CFR part 51, Appendix Y, section          Control Technology Demonstration Requirements)
                                                                                                            (FR notice in the docket for this action).             that for Colstrip Units 3 and 4 we used NEI data
                                                    IV.D.3.
                                                                                                                                                                   from 2010.



                                               VerDate Sep<11>2014   17:54 Apr 13, 2017   Jkt 241001   PO 00000   Frm 00012   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\14APP1.SGM   14APP1


                                                                                   Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 71 / Friday, April 14, 2017 / Proposed Rules                                                            17955

                                                      We used a Q/D value of 10 as our                               hr (30-day rolling average).55 Our final                      2012 proposal. Adjusting for this alleged
                                                    threshold for further evaluation for                             rule included the emission limit of 21.8                      error, the new Q/D calculation becomes
                                                    reasonable progress controls based on                            lb NOX/hr (average of three stack test                        8.7, which falls below the threshold of
                                                    the Federal Land Manager’s (FLM) Air                             runs) with a compliance date as                               10 for further evaluation for reasonable
                                                    Quality Related Values Work Group                                expeditiously as possible, but not later                      progress controls. Based on this error,
                                                    guidance amendments 53 for initial                               than July 31, 2018.56                                         Devon concluded that Blaine County #1
                                                    screening criteria, as well as statements                          The EPA received a letter from Devon                        Compressor Station should be removed
                                                    in EPA’s BART Guidelines.54 Based on                             Energy Production Company, L.P.                               from any further consideration of
                                                    the Blaine County #1 Compressor                                  (Devon) 57 dated August 14, 2012, which                       emission reductions.
                                                    Station’s Q/D value of 11, this source                           was after the public comment period for                          The EPA agrees with Devon’s claim in
                                                    was evaluated for further controls using                         our proposal had closed on June 19,                           its August 14, 2012 letter that our Q/D
                                                    the four reasonable progress factors.                            2012, and was the day before our final                        calculation for the Blaine County #1
                                                      Our evaluation only considered NOX                             action was signed on August 15, 2012.                         Compressor Station is in error.
                                                    emissions as PM and SO2 emissions                                In this letter, Devon asserted, among                         Specifically, we find that the distance
                                                    were relatively small and thus not                               other things, that the Q/D calculation is                     (D) between the Blaine County #1
                                                    significant contributors to regional haze.                       in error. Specifically, Devon claimed                         Compressor Station and the nearest
                                                    Based on the 4 reasonable progress                               that the distance, or ‘‘D’’ in the Q/D                        Class I area, UL Bend Wilderness Area,
                                                    factors, we proposed to find non-                                calculation, for Blaine County #1                             to be 133 kilometers and not 107
                                                    selective catalytic reduction (NSCR) a                           Compressor Station should be 133                              kilometers as stated in our proposed
                                                    reasonable control to address reasonable                         kilometers to the closest Class I area, the                   rule.58 The corrected Q/D analysis for
                                                    progress for the initial planning period,                        UL Bend Wilderness Area, instead of                           the Blaine County #1 Compressor
                                                    with an emission limit of 21.8 lb NOX/                           107 kilometers as stated in our April                         Station is shown in Table 3 below:

                                                                             TABLE 3–CORRECTED Q/D ANALYSIS FOR THE BLAINE COUNTY #1 COMPRESSOR STATION
                                                                                                                                                                                                    Distance to
                                                                                                                                                                                   SO2 + NOX       nearest Class          Q/D
                                                                                                             Source                                                                 emissions          I area          (tons/km)
                                                                                                                                                                                     (tons)             (km)

                                                    Blaine County #1 Compressor Station ........................................................................................     1,155              133               8.7



                                                      Under CAA section 110(k)(6),                                   remove the reasonable progress NOX                            rule to finalize the compliance
                                                    whenever EPA determines that our                                 emission limit of 21.8 lb/hr (average of                      determinations for PM BART emission
                                                    action in promulgating a plan was in                             three stack test runs) for the Blaine                         limits at EGUs and cement kilns, found
                                                    error, we may in the same manner revise                          County #1 Compressor Station, Engine                          at 40 CFR 52.1396(f)(1) and (f)(2),
                                                    the action. The EPA promulgated the                              #1 and Engine #2 from the FIP. In                             differently than had been proposed, in
                                                    reasonable progress requirements for                             addition, we propose to remove the                            order to allow sources to retain the PM
                                                    Blaine County #1 Compressor Station                              corresponding compliance date, test                           stack testing schedule already
                                                    pursuant to notice-and-comment                                   method, and monitoring, recordkeeping,                        established under state permits. This
                                                    rulemaking under CAA section 307(d),                             and reporting requirements from the                           intended revision was to allow sources
                                                    and is now proposing to revise those                             FIP.                                                          to use the results from a stack test
                                                    requirements using the same rulemaking                           VI. Regulatory Text Error Corrections                         meeting the requirements of 40 CFR
                                                    procedures. In this case, it is                                  for Compliance Determinations for                             52.1396(f)(1) and (f)(2) that was
                                                    appropriate to exercise our discretion to                        Particulate Matter                                            completed within 12 months prior to
                                                    correct the error in order to maintain                                                                                         the compliance deadline in lieu of the
                                                    consistency in applying the same                                   Finally, we are proposing to also use                       first stack test required per 40 CFR
                                                    screening threshold Q/D value across all                         our authority under CAA section                               52.1396(f)(1) and (f)(2) within 60 days of
                                                    Montana sources identified in the 2002                           110(k)(6) to correct errors in the                            the compliance deadline. Our intention
                                                    NEI. We are proposing to correct the Q/                          regulatory text in our September 18,                          was that if this option were selected,
                                                    D analysis for the Blaine County #1                              2012 final action related to compliance                       then the next annual stack test would be
                                                    Compressor Station so that the revised                           determinations for particulate matter for                     due no more than 12 months after the
                                                    Q/D value would be 8.7, which is below                           EGUs and cement kilns. In response to                         stack test that was used. However, in the
                                                    the threshold value of 10. This would                            a verbal communication 59 received on                         regulatory text of our final action, we
                                                    remove the source from further                                   our proposed rule in June 2012, we                            inadvertently omitted a portion of this
                                                    evaluation for reasonable progress                               stated our intent 60 in section V.                            intended revision from 40 CFR
                                                    controls. Therefore, as part of the error                        Changes From Proposed Rule and                                52.1396(f)(1) and the entire intended
                                                    correction we are also proposing to                              Reasons for the Changes of our final                          revision from 40 CFR 52.1396(f)(2). In
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                       53 Federal Land Managers’ Air Quality Related                 than 50 kilometers from any Class I area; and                   57 Devon Energy Production Company, L.P. was

                                                    Values Work Group (FLAG); Phase I Report—                        sources that emit less than 1000 tpy of NOX or SO2            the owner of the Blaine County #1 Compressor
                                                    Revised 2010. Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/                  (or combined NOX and SO2) that are located more               Station.
                                                    NRR—2010/232.                                                    than 100 kilometers from any Class I area.’’ (See 40            58 Latitude-Longitude location for the Blaine
                                                       54 The relevant language in our BART Guidelines
                                                                                                                     CFR part 51, appendix Y, section III, How to                  County #1 Compressor Station is N48.422443,
                                                    reads, ‘‘Based on our analyses, we believe that a                Identify Sources ‘‘Subject to BART.’’) The values
                                                    State that has established 0.5 deciviews as a                                                                                  W109.420960.
                                                                                                                     described equate to a Q/D of 10.                                59 Meeting between Holcim and EPA Region 8.
                                                    contribution threshold could reasonably exempt
                                                                                                                       55 77 FR 24069 (April 20, 2012).
                                                    from the BART review process sources that emit                                                                                 June 5, 2012, memorandum.
                                                                                                                       56 77 FR 57916 (September 18, 2012) and 77 FR
                                                    less than 500 tpy of NOX or SO2 (or combined NOX                                                                                 60 77 FR 57912 (September 18, 2012).
                                                    and SO2), as long as these sources are located more              24069 (April 20, 2012).



                                               VerDate Sep<11>2014      17:54 Apr 13, 2017     Jkt 241001    PO 00000      Frm 00013     Fmt 4702     Sfmt 4702    E:\FR\FM\14APP1.SGM    14APP1


                                                    17956                     Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 71 / Friday, April 14, 2017 / Proposed Rules

                                                    addition, we inadvertently stated in the                Park Service on Thursday, March 2,                     CFR 52.1396(e)(5), testing requirements
                                                    regulatory text found at 40 CFR                         2017 and sent a draft of our proposed                  at 40 CFR 52.1396(j), and monitoring,
                                                    52.1396(f)(1) that ‘‘results from a stack               regional haze FIP revisions to the Forest              recordkeeping, and reporting
                                                    test meeting the requirements of 40 CFR                 Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service,                requirements found at 40 CFR
                                                    52.1396(f)(1) that were completed                       and the National Park Service on March                 52.1396(k) in order to correct the error
                                                    within 120 days prior to the compliance                 9, 2017.61 Based on these actions, we are              we made in applying the reasonable
                                                    date can be used by the owner/operator                  proposing that we have satisfied the                   progress screening metric, Q/D. In
                                                    in lieu of the first stack test required’’              applicable requirements for                            addition, we are proposing to correct
                                                    instead of ‘‘results from a stack test                  consultation.                                          errors in the regulatory text of the 2012
                                                    meeting the requirements of 40 CFR                                                                             FIP for PM determinations for EGUs and
                                                                                                            VIII. Clean Air Act Section 110(l)
                                                    52.1396(f)(1) that were completed                                                                              cement kilns found at 40 CFR
                                                    within 12 months prior to the                             Under CAA section 110(l), the EPA                    52.1396(f)(1) and (f)(2) and change
                                                    compliance date can be used by the                      cannot approve a plan revision that                    references to ‘‘Holcim’’ to ‘‘Oldcastle’’
                                                    owner/operator in lieu of the first stack               interferes with any applicable                         and ‘‘Trident’’ at 40 CFR 52.1396(a),
                                                    test required.’’                                        requirement concerning attainment and                  (c)(2), and (f)(2)(ii). Finally, we are
                                                       Thus, we are proposing to correct                    reasonable further progress, or any other              proposing to replace compliance date
                                                    these errors by amending the regulatory                 applicable CAA requirement. We                         timeframes in 40 CFR 52.1396(d) with
                                                    text found at 40 CFR 52.1396(f)(1) and                  propose to find that this revision
                                                                                                                                                                   the actual compliance dates based on
                                                    (f)(2) so that both of these sections                   satisfies section 110(l). The previous
                                                                                                                                                                   the effective date of the 2012 FIP. We
                                                    contain the following sentences after the               sections of the notice explain how the
                                                                                                                                                                   are not proposing to change any other
                                                    sentence in section 40 CFR 52.1396(f)(1)                FIP revision will comply with
                                                                                                                                                                   regulatory text in 40 CFR 52.1396.
                                                    and (f)(2) that requires the first annual               applicable regional haze requirements
                                                                                                                                                                   Montana is on the path towards a SIP
                                                    PM performance stack test for PM                        and general SIP requirements such as
                                                                                                                                                                   and working closely with the Region to
                                                    within 60 days after the PM compliance                  enforceability. With respect to
                                                                                                                                                                   make that happen as soon as
                                                    deadline:                                               requirements concerning attainment and
                                                                                                                                                                   practicable.
                                                      ‘‘The results from a stack test meeting the           reasonable further progress, the
                                                    requirements of this paragraph that was                 Montana Regional Haze FIP, as revised                  X. Statutory and Executive Order
                                                    completed within 12 months prior to the                 by this action, will result in a significant           Reviews
                                                    compliance deadline can be used in lieu of              reduction in emissions compared to
                                                    the first stack test required. If this option is        current levels. Although this revision                 A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
                                                    chosen, then the next annual stack test shall           will allow an increase in emissions after              Planning and Review and Executive
                                                    be due no more than 12 months after the                 October 2017 as compared to the prior                  Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
                                                    stack test that was used.’’                             FIP, the FIP as a whole will still result              Regulatory Review
                                                                                                            in overall NOX and SO2 reductions
                                                    VII. Coordination With FLMs                                                                                       This action is not a ‘‘significant
                                                                                                            compared to those currently allowed. In
                                                       The Forest Service manages                                                                                  regulatory action’’ under the terms of
                                                                                                            addition, the areas where the Trident
                                                    Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness Area, Bob                                                                          Executive Order 12866 63 and was
                                                                                                            cement kiln and the Blaine County #1
                                                    Marshall Wilderness Area, Cabinet                                                                              therefore not submitted to the Office of
                                                                                                            Compressor Station are located have not
                                                    Mountains Wilderness Area, Gates of                                                                            Management and Budget (OMB) for
                                                                                                            been designated nonattainment for any
                                                    the Mountains Wilderness Area,                          National Ambient Air Quality Standards                 review. This proposed rule applies to
                                                    Mission Mountains Wilderness Area,                      (NAAQS). Thus, the revised FIP will                    only 5 facilities in the State of Montana.
                                                    Scapegoat Wilderness Area, and                          ensure a significant reduction in NOX                  It is therefore not a rule of general
                                                    Selway-Bitteroot Wilderness Area. The                   and SO2 emissions compared to current                  applicability.
                                                    Fish and Wildlife Service manages the                   levels in an area that has not been                    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
                                                    Medicine Lake Wilderness Area, Red                      designated nonattainment for the
                                                    Rocks Lake Wilderness Area, and UL                      relevant NAAQS at those current levels.                  This proposed action does not impose
                                                    Bend Wilderness Area. The National                                                                             an information collection burden under
                                                    Park Service manages Glacier National                   IX. EPA’s Proposed Revisions to the                    the provisions of the Paperwork
                                                    Park and Yellowstone National Park.                     2012 FIP                                               Reduction Act (PRA).64 A ‘‘collection of
                                                    These are the Class I Federal areas                       In this action, the EPA is proposing to              information’’ under the PRA means ‘‘the
                                                    affected by sources in Montana. The                     revise the BART NOX emission limit in                  obtaining, causing to be obtained,
                                                    RHR grants the FLMs a special role in                   the second line of the table in 40 CFR                 soliciting, or requiring the disclosure to
                                                    the review of regional haze FIPs,                       52.1396(c)(2) for the Oldcastle Trident                an agency, third parties or the public of
                                                    summarized in section III.D in this                     kiln from 6.5 lb NOX/ton clinker to 7.6                information by or for an agency by
                                                    preamble.                                               lb NOX/ton clinker (30-day rolling                     means of identical questions posed to,
                                                       As this proposed action is not a                     averages).62 We are also proposing to                  or identical reporting, recordkeeping, or
                                                    required plan revision, the detailed                    delete the reasonable progress emission                disclosure requirements imposed on,
                                                    consultation provisions of 40 CFR                       limit at 40 CFR 52.1396(c)(3) in our                   ten or more persons, whether such
                                                    51.308(i)(2) do not apply. However,                     2012 FIP for the Blaine County #1                      collection of information is mandatory,
                                                    there are obligations to consult on other               Compressor Station as well as the                      voluntary, or required to obtain or retain
                                                    plan revisions under 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3)                associated compliance date found at 40                 a benefit.’’ 65 Because this proposed rule
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                    and (i)(4). Because this plan revision                  CFR 52.1396(d), the compliance                         revises the reporting requirements for 4
                                                    changes the substance of the FIP, we                    determination test method found at 40                  facilities and removes all requirements
                                                    have consulted with the Forest Service,                                                                        for an additional facility, the PRA does
                                                    Fish and Wildlife Service, and the                        61 We did not receive any formal comments from
                                                                                                                                                                   not apply.
                                                    National Park Service. We described the                 the FLM agencies.
                                                                                                              62 The table in 40 CFR 52.1396(c)(2) currently
                                                    proposed revisions to the regional haze                 refers to ‘‘Holcim (US) Inc. As described later on,
                                                                                                                                                                    63 58 FR 51735, 51738 (October 4, 1993).
                                                    FIP with the Forest Service, the Fish                   the EPA is also proposing to update this table to       64 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
                                                    and Wildlife Service, and the National                  reflect the Trident kiln’s new ownership.               65 5 CFR 1320.3(c) (emphasis added).




                                               VerDate Sep<11>2014   13:41 Apr 13, 2017   Jkt 241001   PO 00000   Frm 00014   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\14APP1.SGM    14APP1


                                                                              Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 71 / Friday, April 14, 2017 / Proposed Rules                                                   17957

                                                    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act                           the EPA to adopt an alternative other                  various levels of government.’’ 69 Under
                                                       The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)                 than the least costly, most cost-effective,            Executive Order 13132, the EPA may
                                                    generally requires an agency to prepare                 or least burdensome alternative if the                 not issue a regulation ‘‘that has
                                                    a regulatory flexibility analysis of any                Administrator publishes with the final                 federalism implications, that imposes
                                                    rule subject to notice and comment                      rule an explanation why that alternative               substantial direct compliance costs, . . .
                                                    rulemaking requirements under the                       was not adopted. Before the EPA                        and that is not required by statute,
                                                    Administrative Procedure Act or any                     establishes any regulatory requirements                unless [the federal government provides
                                                    other statute unless the agency certifies               that may significantly or uniquely affect              the] funds necessary to pay the direct
                                                    that the rule will not have a significant               small governments, including Tribal                    [compliance] costs incurred by the State
                                                    economic impact on a substantial                        governments, it must have developed                    and local governments,’’ or the EPA
                                                    number of small entities. Small entities                under section 203 of UMRA a small                      consults with state and local officials
                                                    include small businesses, small                         government agency plan. The plan must                  early in the process of developing the
                                                    organizations, and small governmental                   provide for notifying potentially                      final regulation.70 The EPA also may not
                                                    jurisdictions.                                          affected small governments, enabling                   issue a regulation that has federalism
                                                       For purposes of assessing the impacts                officials of affected small governments                implications and that preempts state
                                                    of this proposed rule on small entities,                to have meaningful and timely input in                 law unless the Agency consults with
                                                    small entity is defined as: (1) A small                 the development of EPA regulatory                      state and local officials early in the
                                                    business as defined by the Small                        actions with significant federal                       process of developing the final
                                                    Business Administration’s (SBA)                         intergovernmental mandates, and                        regulation.
                                                                                                            informing, educating, and advising                        This action does not have federalism
                                                    regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a
                                                                                                            small governments on compliance with                   implications. The proposed FIP
                                                    small governmental jurisdiction that is a
                                                                                                            the regulatory requirements.                           revisions will not have substantial
                                                    government of a city, county, town,
                                                                                                               Under Title II of UMRA, the EPA has                 direct effects on the states, on the
                                                    school district or special district with a
                                                                                                            determined that this proposed rule does                relationship between the national
                                                    population of less than 50,000; and (3)
                                                                                                            not contain a federal mandate that may                 government and the states, or on the
                                                    a small organization that is any not-for-
                                                                                                            result in expenditures that exceed the                 distribution of power and
                                                    profit enterprise which is independently
                                                                                                            inflation-adjusted UMRA threshold of                   responsibilities among the various
                                                    owned and operated and is not
                                                                                                            $100 million 66 by State, local, or Tribal             levels of government, as specified in
                                                    dominant in its field.
                                                                                                                                                                   Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive
                                                       After considering the economic                       governments or the private sector in any
                                                                                                                                                                   Order 13132 does not apply to this
                                                    impacts of this proposed rule on small                  one year. The proposed revisions to the
                                                                                                                                                                   action.
                                                    entities, I certify that this action will not           FIP would reduce private sector
                                                    have a significant economic impact on                   expenditures. Additionally, we do not                  F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
                                                    a substantial number of small entities                  foresee significant costs (if any) for state           and Coordination With Indian Tribal
                                                    under the RFA. This rule does not                       and local governments. Thus, because                   Governments
                                                    impose any requirements or create                       the proposed revisions to the FIP reduce                  Executive Order 13175, entitled
                                                    impacts on small entities as no small                   annual expenditures, this proposed rule                ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with
                                                    entities are subject to the requirements                is not subject to the requirements of                  Indian Tribal Governments’’, requires
                                                    of this rule.                                           sections 202 or 205 of UMRA. This                      the EPA to develop an accountable
                                                                                                            proposed rule is also not subject to the               process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and
                                                    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
                                                                                                            requirements of section 203 of UMRA                    timely input by tribal officials in the
                                                    (UMRA)
                                                                                                            because it contains no regulatory                      development of regulatory policies that
                                                       Title II of the Unfunded Mandates                    requirements that might significantly or               have tribal implications.’’ 71 This
                                                    Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public                       uniquely affect small governments.                     proposed rule does not have tribal
                                                    Law 104–4, establishes requirements for
                                                                                                            E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism                   implications, as specified in Executive
                                                    federal agencies to assess the effects of
                                                                                                                                                                   Order 13175. It will not have substantial
                                                    their regulatory actions on State, local,                  Executive Order 13132, Federalism,67                direct effects on tribal governments.
                                                    and Tribal governments and the private                  revokes and replaces Executive Orders                  Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
                                                    sector. Under section 202 of UMRA,                      12612 (Federalism) and 12875                           apply to this rule. However, the EPA did
                                                    EPA generally must prepare a written                    (Enhancing the Intergovernmental                       send letters to each of the Montana
                                                    statement, including a cost-benefit                     Partnership). Executive Order 13132                    tribes explaining our regional haze FIP
                                                    analysis, for final rules with ‘‘Federal                requires the EPA to develop an                         revision action and offering
                                                    mandates’’ that may result in                           accountable process to ensure                          consultation.
                                                    expenditures to State, local, and Tribal                ‘‘meaningful and timely input by State
                                                    governments, in the aggregate, or to the                and local officials in the development of              G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
                                                    private sector, of $100 million or more                 regulatory policies that have federalism               Children From Environmental Health
                                                    (adjusted for inflation) in any one year.               implications.’’ 68 ‘‘Policies that have                Risks and Safety Risks
                                                    Before promulgating an EPA rule for                     federalism implications’’ is defined in                  This action is not subject to Executive
                                                    which a written statement is needed,                    the Executive Order to include                         Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
                                                    section 205 of UMRA generally requires                  regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct             1997). The EPA interprets Executive
                                                    the EPA to identify and consider a
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                                                                            effects on the States, on the relationship             Order 13045 as applying only to those
                                                    reasonable number of regulatory                         between the national government and                    regulatory actions that concern
                                                    alternatives and adopt the least costly,                the States, or on the distribution of                  environmental health or safety risks that
                                                    most cost-effective, or least burdensome                power and responsibilities among the                   the EPA has reason to believe may
                                                    alternative that achieves the objectives                                                                       disproportionately affect children, per
                                                    of the rule. The provisions of section                    66 Adjusted to 2014 dollars, the UMRA threshold
                                                    205 of UMRA do not apply when they                      becomes $152 million.                                   69 Id.

                                                    are inconsistent with applicable law.                     67 64 FR 43255, 43255–43257 (August 10, 1999).        70 Id.

                                                    Moreover, section 205 of UMRA allows                      68 64 FR 43255, 43257.                                71 65    FR 67249, 67250 (November 9, 2000).



                                               VerDate Sep<11>2014   13:41 Apr 13, 2017   Jkt 241001   PO 00000   Frm 00015   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\14APP1.SGM     14APP1


                                                    17958                       Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 71 / Friday, April 14, 2017 / Proposed Rules

                                                    the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory                     permitted by law, to make                              PART 52—APPROVAL AND
                                                    action’’ in section 2–202 of the                           environmental justice part of their                    PROMULGATION OF
                                                    Executive Order. This action is not                        mission by identifying and addressing,                 IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
                                                    subject to Executive Order 13045                           as appropriate, disproportionately high
                                                    because it does not concern an                             and adverse human health or                            ■ 1. The authority citation for part 52
                                                    environmental health risk or safety risk.                  environmental effects of their programs,               continues to read as follows:
                                                    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions                          policies, and activities on minority                       Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
                                                    Concerning Regulations That                                populations and low-income
                                                    Significantly Affect Energy Supply,                        populations in the United States.                      Subpart BB—Montana
                                                    Distribution, or Use                                          I certify that the approaches under                 ■  2. Section 52.1396 is amended by:
                                                      This action is not subject to Executive                  this proposed rule will not have                       ■  a. Revising paragraph (a);
                                                    Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22,                          potential disproportionately high and                  ■  b. Adding a note to paragraph (a);
                                                    2001)), because it is not a significant                    adverse human health or environmental                  ■  c. Revising paragraph (c)(2);
                                                    regulatory action under Executive Order                    effects on minority, low-income or                     ■  d. Removing and reserving paragraph
                                                    12866.                                                     indigenous/tribal populations. As                      (c)(3);
                                                                                                               explained previously, the Montana                      ■ e. Revising paragraph (d);
                                                    I. National Technology Transfer and                                                                               ■ f. Adding a note to paragraph (d);
                                                                                                               Regional Haze FIP, as revised by this
                                                    Advancement Act
                                                                                                               action, will result in a significant                   ■ g. Removing paragraph (e)(5);
                                                       Section 12 of the National Technology                   reduction in emissions compared to                     ■ h. Revising paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2)
                                                    Transfer and Advancement Act                               current levels. Although this revision                 introductory text, and (f)(2)(ii); and
                                                    (NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal                           will allow an increase in emissions after              ■ i. Removing and reserving paragraphs
                                                    agencies to evaluate existing technical                    October 2017 as compared to the prior                  (j) and (k).
                                                    standards when developing a new                            FIP, the FIP as a whole will still result                 The revisions and additions read as
                                                    regulation. Section 12(d) of NTTAA,                        in overall NOX and SO2 reductions                      follows:
                                                    Public Law 104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C.                       compared to those currently allowed. In
                                                    272 note) directs the EPA to consider                                                                             § 52.1396 Federal implementation plan for
                                                                                                               addition, the areas where the Trident                  regional haze.
                                                    and use ‘‘voluntary consensus                              cement kiln and the Blaine County #1
                                                    standards’’ in its regulatory activities                                                                            (a) Applicability. This section applies
                                                                                                               Compressor Station are located have not
                                                    unless to do so would be inconsistent                                                                             to each owner and operator of the
                                                                                                               been designated nonattainment for any                  following coal-fired electric generating
                                                    with applicable law or otherwise
                                                                                                               NAAQS. Thus, the revised FIP will                      units (EGUs) in the State of Montana:
                                                    impractical. Voluntary consensus
                                                    standards are technical standards (e.g.,                   ensure a significant reduction in NOX                  PPL Montana, LLC, Colstrip Power
                                                    materials specifications, test methods,                    and SO2 emissions compared to current                  Plant, Units 1, 2; and PPL Montana,
                                                    sampling procedures, and business                          levels and will not create a                           LLC, JE Corette Steam Electric Station.
                                                    practices) that are developed or adopted                   disproportionately high and adverse                    This section also applies to each owner
                                                    by voluntary consensus standards                           human health or environmental effect                   and operator of cement kilns at the
                                                    bodies. NTTAA directs the EPA to                           on minority, low-income, or                            following cement production plants:
                                                    provide Congress, through OMB,                             indigenous/tribal populations. The EPA,                Ash Grove Cement, Montana City Plant;
                                                    explanations when the Agency decides                       however, will consider any input                       and Oldcastle Materials Cement
                                                    not to use available and applicable                        received during the public comment                     Holdings, Inc., Trident Plant. This
                                                    voluntary consensus standards.                             period regarding environmental justice                 section also applies to each owner and
                                                       This proposed rulemaking does not                       considerations.                                        operator of CFAC and M2 Green
                                                    involve technical standards. Therefore,                    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52                     Redevelopment LLC, Missoula site.
                                                    the EPA is not considering the use of                                                                               Note to Paragraph (a): On June 9, 2015, the
                                                    any voluntary consensus standards.                           Environmental protection, Air                        NOX and SO2 emission limits for Colstrip
                                                    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal                          pollution control, Incorporation by                    Units 1 and 2 and Corette were vacated by
                                                    Actions To Address Environmental                           reference, Intergovernmental relations,                court order.
                                                    Justice in Minority Populations and                        Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter,
                                                                                                                                                                      *     *    *      *     *
                                                    Low-Income Populations                                     Sulfur oxides.
                                                                                                                                                                        (c) * * *
                                                       Executive Order 12898, establishes                        Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.                      (2) The owners/operators of cement
                                                    federal executive policy on                                  Dated: March 31, 2017.                               kilns subject to this section shall not
                                                    environmental justice.72 Its main                          Debra H. Thomas,
                                                                                                                                                                      emit or cause to be emitted PM, SO2 or
                                                    provision directs federal agencies, to the                                                                        NOX in excess of the following
                                                                                                               Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.               limitations, in pounds per ton of clinker
                                                    greatest extent practicable and
                                                                                                                 40 CFR part 52 is proposed to be                     produced, averaged over a rolling 30-
                                                      72 59   FR 7629 (February 16, 1994).                     amended as follows:                                    day period for SO2 and NOX:
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                               VerDate Sep<11>2014     13:41 Apr 13, 2017    Jkt 241001   PO 00000   Frm 00016   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\14APP1.SGM   14APP1


                                                                                   Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 71 / Friday, April 14, 2017 / Proposed Rules                                                                                 17959

                                                                                                                                                                                                                       SO2 emission       NOX emission
                                                                      Source name                                                                 PM emission limit                                                          limit              limit
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       (lb/ton clinker)   (lb/ton clinker)

                                                    Ash Grove, Montana City .........................          If the process weight rate of the kiln is less than or equal to 30                                                 11.5                8.0
                                                                                                                  tons per hour, then the emission limit shall be calculated using
                                                                                                                  E = 4.10p0.67 where E = rate of emission in pounds per hour
                                                                                                                  and p = process weight rate in tons per hour; however, if the
                                                                                                                  process weight rate of the kiln is greater than 30 tons per hour,
                                                                                                                  then the emission limit shall be calculated using E = 55.0p0.11
                                                                                                                  ¥ 40, where E = rate of emission in pounds per hour and P =
                                                                                                                  process weight rate in tons per hour.
                                                    Oldcastle, Trident .....................................   0.77 lb/ton clinker .............................................................................                   1.3                7.6



                                                    *     *     *     *    *                                          particulate emissions for compliance                                    lb/ton clinker, using the following
                                                      (d) Compliance date. The owners and                             with the BART emission limits in                                        equation:
                                                    operators of the BART sources subject to                          accordance with the applicable                                            E = (CsQs)/PK
                                                    this section shall comply with the                                Compliance Assurance Monitoring
                                                                                                                                                                                              Where:
                                                    emission limitations and other                                    (CAM) plan developed and approved in                                    E = emission rate of PM, lb/ton of clinker
                                                    requirements of this section as follows,                          accordance with 40 CFR part 64.                                              produced;
                                                    unless otherwise indicated in specific                               (2) Cement kiln particulate matter                                   Cs = concentration of PM in grains per
                                                    paragraphs: Compliance with PM                                    BART emission limits. Compliance with                                        standard cubic foot (gr/scf);
                                                    emission limits is required by November                           the particulate matter BART emission                                    Qs = volumetric flow rate of effluent gas,
                                                    17, 2012. Compliance with SO2 and                                 limits for each cement kiln shall be                                         where Cs and Qs are on the same basis
                                                    NOX emission limits is required by                                                                                                             (either wet or dry), scf/hr;
                                                                                                                      determined by the owner/operator from                                   P = total kiln clinker production, tons/hr; and
                                                    April 16, 2013, unless installation of                            annual performance stack tests. Within
                                                    additional emission controls is                                                                                                           K = conversion factor, 7000 gr/lb,
                                                                                                                      60 days of the compliance deadline
                                                    necessary to comply with emission                                 specified in paragraph (d) of this                                      *        *           *       *      *
                                                    limitations under this rule, in which                             section, and on at least an annual basis                                [FR Doc. 2017–07597 Filed 4–13–17; 8:45 am]
                                                    case compliance is required by October                            thereafter, the owner/operator of each                                  BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
                                                    18, 2017.                                                         unit shall conduct a stack test on each
                                                      NOTE TO PARAGRAPH (d): On June 9,                               unit to measure particulate matter
                                                    2015, the NOX and SO2 emission limits, and                        emissions using EPA Method 5, 5B, 5D,                                   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
                                                    thereby compliance dates, for Colstrip Units                      or 17, as appropriate, in 40 CFR part 60,
                                                    1 and 2 and Corette were vacated by court
                                                                                                                                                                                              COMMISSION
                                                    order.
                                                                                                                      Appendix A. A test shall consist of three
                                                                                                                      runs, with each run at least 120 minutes                                47 CFR Part 22
                                                    *      *     *     *     *                                        in duration and each run collecting a
                                                                                                                                                                                              [WT Docket No. 12–40; FCC 17–27]
                                                       (f) * * *                                                      minimum sample of 60 dry standard
                                                       (1) EGU particulate matter BART                                cubic feet. The average of the results of                               FCC Seeks Comment on Reform of
                                                    emission limits. Compliance with the                              three test runs shall be used by the                                    Rules Governing the Cellular Service
                                                    particulate matter BART emission limits                           owner/operator for demonstrating                                        and Other Public Mobile Services
                                                    for each EGU BART unit shall be                                   compliance. The results from a stack
                                                    determined by the owner/operator from                             test meeting the requirements of this                                   AGENCY:  Federal Communications
                                                    annual performance stack tests. Within                            paragraph that was completed within 12                                  Commission.
                                                    60 days of the compliance deadline                                months prior to the compliance                                          ACTION: Proposed rule.
                                                    specified in this paragraph (d) of this                           deadline can be used in lieu of the first
                                                    section, and on at least an annual basis                          stack test required. If this option is                                  SUMMARY:    In this document, the Federal
                                                    thereafter, the owner/operator of each                            chosen, then the next annual stack test                                 Communications Commission
                                                    unit shall conduct a stack test on each                           shall be due no more than 12 months                                     (Commission) proposes and seeks
                                                    unit to measure the particulate                                   after the stack test that was used.                                     comment on reforms of its rules
                                                    emissions using EPA Method 5, 5B, 5D,                                                                                                     governing the 800 MHz Cellular
                                                                                                                         Clinker production shall be
                                                    or 17, as appropriate, in 40 CFR part 60,                                                                                                 (Cellular) Service and other Public
                                                                                                                      determined in accordance with the
                                                    Appendix A. A test shall consist of three                                                                                                 Mobile Services. Specifically, the
                                                                                                                      requirements found at 40 CFR 60.63(b).
                                                    runs, with each run at least 120 minutes                                                                                                  Commission proposes to eliminate four
                                                                                                                      Results of each test shall be reported by
                                                    in duration and each run collecting a                                                                                                     rules that impose requirements on
                                                                                                                      the owner/operator as the average of
                                                    minimum sample of 60 dry standard                                                                                                         licensees in these services concerning
                                                                                                                      three valid test runs. In addition to
                                                    cubic feet. Results shall be reported by                                                                                                  station inspections, records retention
                                                                                                                      annual stack tests, owner/operator shall
                                                    the owner/operator in lb/MMBtu. The                                                                                                       and production, operators at station
                                                                                                                      monitor particulate emissions for
                                                    results from a stack test meeting the                                                                                                     control points, and the filing of certain
                                                                                                                      compliance with the BART emission
                                                    requirements of this paragraph that was                                                                                                   employment reports. The Commission
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                                                                                      limits in accordance with the applicable
                                                    completed within 12 months prior to                                                                                                       believes that the existing requirements
                                                                                                                      Compliance Assurance Monitoring
                                                    the compliance deadline can be used in                                                                                                    may disadvantage the affected licensees,
                                                                                                                      (CAM) plan developed and approved in
                                                    lieu of the first stack test required. If this                                                                                            as compared to licensees of other
                                                                                                                      accordance with 40 CFR part 64.
                                                    option is chosen, then the next annual                                                                                                    wireless spectrum bands, or may no
                                                    stack test shall be due no more than 12                           *       *    *    *      *                                              longer be necessary in today’s digital
                                                    months after the stack test that was                                 (ii) For Trident, the emission rate (E)                              age, or for which the benefits may no
                                                    used. In addition to annual stack tests,                          of particulate matter shall be computed                                 longer outweigh the costs and burdens
                                                    owner/operator shall monitor                                      by the owner/operator for each run in                                   of compliance. The Commission also


                                               VerDate Sep<11>2014      17:54 Apr 13, 2017     Jkt 241001      PO 00000     Frm 00017       Fmt 4702      Sfmt 4702      E:\FR\FM\14APP1.SGM            14APP1



Document Created: 2017-04-14 00:56:36
Document Modified: 2017-04-14 00:56:36
CategoryRegulatory Information
CollectionFederal Register
sudoc ClassAE 2.7:
GS 4.107:
AE 2.106:
PublisherOffice of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
SectionProposed Rules
ActionProposed rule.
DatesComments: Written comments must be received on or before May 30, 2017.
ContactJaslyn Dobrahner, Air Program, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202- 1129, (303) 312-6252, [email protected]
FR Citation82 FR 17948 
CFR AssociatedEnvironmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Nitrogen Dioxide; Particulate Matter and Sulfur Oxides

2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR