
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 71 (Friday, April 14, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17948-17959]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[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 dobrahner.jaslyn@epa.gov 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, dobrahner.jaslyn@epa.gov.

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


