Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Control of Emission of Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) From Cement Kilns

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

[Federal Register: March 26, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 59)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 15681-15687]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr26mr04-16]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[TX-164-1-7622; FRL-7638-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Control
of Emission of Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) From Cement Kilns

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving revisions to the Texas State
Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern Control of Air
Pollution from Nitrogen Compounds--Cement Kilns. The affected sources
are major cement kilns that were in service before December 31, 1999.
The EPA is approving these SIP revisions for cement kilns as they will
contribute to attainment of the 1-hour ozone National Ambient Air
quality Standards (NAAQS). Today's action does not intend to address
any aspect(s) of the implementation of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The EPA
is approving control of emissions of NO_X from cement kilns
in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act (the
Act).

DATES: This rule is effective on April 26, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents relevant to this action are
available for public inspection during normal business hours at the
following locations. Anyone wanting to examine these documents should
make an appointment with the appropriate office at least two working
days in advance.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Air Planning Section
(6PD-L), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), Office of Air
Quality, 12124 Park 35 Circle, Austin, Texas 78753.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Alan Shar, Air Planning Section
(6PD-L), EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733,
telephone (214) 665-6691, and shar.alan@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

1. What actions are we taking in this document?
2. Who submitted comments to us?
3. How do we respond to the submitted written comments?
4. What do these rule revisions for cement kilns that we are
approving provide?
5. What areas in Texas will these rule revisions affect?

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

In this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to EPA.

1. What Actions Are We Taking in This Document?

On April 30, 2000, the Governor of Texas submitted to us rule
revisions to 30 TAC, Chapter 117, Control of Air Pollution From
Nitrogen Compounds concerning cement kilns operations (April 30, 2000
SIP submittal). The April 30, 2000 SIP submittal specifically addressed
revisions to the following sections of Chapter 117.

Table I.--Affected Sections of the Rule Under April 30, 2000 SIP
Submittal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section Title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
117.260............................ Cement Kiln Definitions.
117.261............................ Applicability.
117.265............................ Emissions Specifications.
117.273............................ Continuous Demonstration of
Compliance.
117.279............................ Notification, Recordkeeping, and
Reporting Requirements.
117.283............................ Source Cap.
117.524............................ Compliance Schedule for Cement
Kilns.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

In CEMEX USA (CEMEX) and TXI Operations, LP (TXI) v. TCEQ, Case No.
GN001480 (Travis Co. Dist. Ct. April 30, 2003), CEMEX and TXI
challenged the State for adopting the above revision to Chapter 117. As
a part of a negotiated settlement of the case, TCEQ issued a re-
proposal to revise 30 TAC, Chapter 117, on October 24, 2002.
On December 9, 2002, EPA submitted comments to TCEQ concerning re-
proposed revisions to Chapter 117.
On April 2, 2003, TCEQ submitted a revised Chapter 117, Control of
Air Pollution from Nitrogen Compounds rule concerning cement kilns
operations as a revision to the SIP (April 2, 2003 SIP submittal). The
April 2, 2003 SIP submittal specifically addressed revisions to the
following sections of Chapter 117.

Table II.--Affected Sections of the Rule Under April 2, 2003 SIP
Submittal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section Title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
117.260............................ Cement Kiln Definitions.
117.265............................ Emissions Specifications.
117.279............................ Notification, Recordkeeping, and
Reporting Requirements.
117.283............................ Source Cap.
117.524............................ Compliance Schedule for Cement
Kilns.
117.570............................ Use of Credits for Compliance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

On July 30, 2003 (68 FR 44631), we published a direct final
rulemaking action on these two submittals. In 68 FR 44631 we stated
that if EPA receives relevant adverse comments, EPA would publish a
timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that
this Texas SIP revision would not take effect. The EPA received
relevant adverse comments on the July 30, 2003 (68 FR 44631),
rulemaking action during the public comment period.

[[Page 15682]]

On September 15, 2003 (68 FR 53891), we published a withdrawal in
the Federal Register stating that we will be summarizing and responding
to comments received on this Texas SIP revision. Today, we are
summarizing and responding to comments received on our July 30, 2003
(68 FR 44631), Texas SIP revision.

2. Who Submitted Comments to Us?

We received written comments on our July 30, 2003 (68 FR 44631),
Texas SIP revision from a private citizen, Blue Skies Alliance,
Downwinders At Risk, and Lone Star Chapter of Sierra Club (the
Commenters).

3. How Do We Respond to the Submitted Written Comments?

Our responses to the written comments concerning July 30, 2003 (68
FR 44631), Texas SIP revision are as follows:
Comment #1: The Commenters state the proposed NO_X rules
are insufficient to allow the Dallas/Fort Worth (D/FW) area to move
effectively toward attainment.
Response to Comment #1: The primary purpose of the proposed rule
was to reduce emissions of NO_X from this specific industrial
sector. The State's development of this rule for cement industry was
part of its air quality planning effort to not only achieve controls in
the nonattainment area, but also to reduce ozone precursor emissions on
a regional basis. Our proposed July 30, 2003 rulemaking (68 FR 44631),
in and by itself, was not intended to serve as an attainment
demonstration plan for the D/FW area. The controls for the cement kilns
was one part of the larger attainment demonstration SIP which was
adopted by the State of Texas and submitted to EPA in April 2000. Our
action today will make the existing Texas rule for each cement kiln
that was placed into service before December 31, 1999, in 5 Texas
Counties of Bexar, Comal, Ellis, Hays, and McLennan, federally
enforceable. We want to make it clear that our approval of this Texas
SIP revision is independent of any future NO_X reduction
measures that could be required of the cement industry, if such
reduction measures are determined necessary for attainment of the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS and are considered to be feasible and practicable.
Comment #2: The Commenters state that a local air committee
recommended reductions of fifty percent as opposed to the proposed
thirty percent for NO_X from cement kilns in Ellis County.
Response to Comment #2: The proposed rule was submitted to EPA in
accordance with section 110(a)(2) of the Act. The proposed emissions
reduction level of at least thirty percent from the 1996 baseline level
is in agreement with those found in our reference document
``Alternative Control Techniques Document--NO_X Emissions
from Cement Manufacturing'' EPA-453/R-94-004 (ACT Document). The TCEQ's
emissions level of NO_X control (at minimum thirty percent
reduction) is in agreement with the ``Federal Implementation Plans to
Reduce Regional Transport of Ozone'' of October 21, 1998 (63 FR 56394).
Also see our response to Comment #1 in this document.
Comment #3: The Commenters state that Selective Catalytic Reduction
(SCR) and Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) have been found to
make reductions up to eighty percent depending on the fuel source and
type of kiln.
Response to Comment #3: The analysis for the approvability of this
Texas SIP revision was evaluated against our ACT Document, and against
the limitations and requirements of other federally approved SIPs for
existing cement kilns. Our Technical Support Document (TSD) did not
identify any EPA-approved SIP rules in other parts of the country that
have mandated SCR or SNCR as a required control strategy for
controlling NO_X from existing cement kilns. We provided a
copy of our TSD to the Commenters at their request during the public
comment period. Our rulemaking action today will make existing Texas
rule federally enforceable, and is consistent with EPA's past
approvals. Our approval today is not intended to preclude additional
control requirements being applied to the cement industry, if such
control requirements are determined necessary for attainment of the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS and the application of such control requirements is
determined feasible and practicable.
Comment #4: The Commenters state that SCR/SNCR should be included
as acceptable means of control technology for NO_X reductions.
Response to Comment #4: The proposed rule offers several means of
control to a source in order to comply with the emission limitations.
Also see our response to Comment #3 in this document. Absent
information on or examples of SCR or SNCR cases used as a required
technique for controlling NO_X from existing cement kilns in
any other federally approved-SIPs from the Commenters, we disagree with
the Commenters at this time. However, should these or other similar
technologies demonstrate success for cement manufacturing sector, EPA
will then re-examine its RACT or ACT determinations.
Comment #5: The Commenters state that low-NO_X burner is
an ambiguous term unless associated with a manufacturer of this type
device or with accompanying specifications. Any facility proposing the
use of this type device shall first provide the manufacturers statement
describing the product, its capabilities and limitations. In cases
where the facility proposes to build their own, that facility shall
submit to the proper authority, their design along with evidence they
are experienced in this field, sufficient to design and build a product
that will achieve the required results, prior to its being approved as
part of an emissions reduction plan.
Response to Comment #5: Section 5.1.3 of our ACT Document states
that low-NO_X burners are designed to reduce flame
turbulence, delay fuel/air mixing, and establish fuel-rich zones for
initial combustion. The longer, less intense flames resulting from the
staged combustion lower flame temperatures and consequently reduce
thermal NO_X formation. Figure 5-1 on Page 5-7 of that
document also illustrates the schematic of a typical low-NO_X
burner. For information concerning low-NO_X burners we refer
the Commenters to section 5.1.3 of our ACT Document. The proposed
rulemaking departs from a command and control approach and offers a
menu of options to an affected source to comply with the emission
limitations. The EPA does not subscribe to advocating a prescribed
design, make, model or manufacturer as the only means of controlling
emissions. If a source has a different or innovative method of
controlling emissions and can successfully demonstrate that its method
is effective in both pilot plant and large scale operations, then EPA
sees no reason to disapprove the implementation of the source's method
of control. Furthermore, the effectiveness of the control technology
will be determined by continuous monitoring and through compliance
testing.
Comment #6: The Commenters propose to delete any reference to
rolling average of NO_X emissions. They further state that
rolling averages allow facilities to exceed emissions during periods of
increased production, increasing the air pollution for those days. The
Commenters contend that by shutting down one or two days within the
month, the facility could avoid exceeding their allowable.

[[Page 15683]]

Response to Comment #6: We disagree. Rolling average is a commonly
accepted averaging method in regulations governing emissions from
cement manufacturing. The TSD for our proposal (68 FR 44631) refers to
rules from various parts of the country that have adopted a similar
averaging window (30-day) or language (rolling average) in their rules.
While EPA is endorsing a 30-day rolling average as the basis for
NO_X emission specifications in section 117.265 of the rule,
we do not approve of a 365-day rolling average or an annual average for
NO_X emission specifications in section 117.265. We consider
annual averaging of emission specifications to be problematic for
permitting and compliance determination purposes. Furthermore, the
inherent continuous operational nature of a cement kiln could limit an
operator's ability from shutting down one or two days within the month
as suggested by the Commenters. The affected sources are required to
emit at or below their permitted levels of emissions. Appropriate test
methods, recordkeeping, reporting, compliance certification, and
Continuous Emissions Monitor System (CEMS) data along with SIP rules
constitute proper mechanisms to assure compliance with the terms and
conditions of this regulation and air permits issued to an affected
source. Contrary to the Commenters' contention, the rule of law does
not allow EPA to arbitrarily shut down a business one or two days
within the month.
Comment #7: The Commenters state that the rule should provide that
allowable emissions shall be based upon the actual pounds/hour, pounds/
day, tons/year and exceedances in any one-hour or day shall generate
enforcement action.
Response to Comment #7: We believe that the actual production level
in conjunction with the length of operation at an affected source is
the proper method to set an emissions limitation for cement
manufacturing. We believe that an emission limitation of ``pound
NO_X per ton of clincker produced'' in conjunction with
appropriate test methods, recordkeeping, reporting, compliance
certification, and CEMS data built into air permits constitute a proper
enforceable mechanism to assure compliance with the terms and
conditions of this regulation and air permits issued to an affected
source.
Comment #8: The Commenters propose to remove reference to
percentages of reduction when establishing compliance. Existing permits
include a Maximum Allowable Emission Rate (MAER) table. In complying
with this new rule for cement kilns, each facility shall be required to
amend or modify their existing permit to reflect the actual
NO_X in pounds/day, tons/year revision in the MAER table
which corresponds to the percent reduction required by this rule.
Response to Comment #8: Each affected source is required to operate
at or below its permitted levels of emissions. The proposed rule
requires at least thirty percent reduction in NO_X emissions
when compared with the 1996 baseline inventory data. Section 117.205
lists emission limitations for each type of kiln in a designated
County. These requirements combined with appropriate test methods,
recordkeeping, reporting, compliance certification, and CEMS data which
are built into air permits constitute a proper enforceable mechanism to
assure compliance with the terms and conditions of air permits issued
to an affected source. The rule is intended to complement, supplement,
and strengthen the air contaminants data in the MAER table of air
permits, not to replace those limits. Air permit modifications or
amendments of affected facilities are handled according to the
applicable State's title V or New Source Review program. For above
reasons we disagree with the Commenters.
Comment #9: The Commenters state that all Ellis County cement kilns
including both wet and dry process kilns should reduce their emissions
by fifty percent, as recommended by a local committee, instead of the
proposed thirty percent using the 1996 emissions as the baseline year.
The Commenters state that the reduction in this rule, will not achieve
the necessary ozone reduction required to meet the D/FW SIP deadline.
Response to Comment #9: The proposed rule was submitted to EPA in
accordance to section 110(a)(2) of the Act. The emissions reduction
level of at least thirty percent from the 1996 baseline levels is in
agreement with those found in our ACT Document. The reductions are in
agreement with EPA's October 21, 1998, Federal Implementation Plans to
Reduce Regional Transport of Ozone. See 63 FR 56394. As an example, the
NO_X emissions specifications of 4.0 lb NO_X/ton of
clinker produced for a long wet kiln operating in Ellis County is
comparable to or more stringent than the NO_X emissions
specifications from similar cement kilns in many other parts of
country. The proposed July 30, 2003 rulemaking (68 FR 44631), in and by
itself, was not intended to serve as an attainment demonstration plan
for the D/FW area. However, as noted previously, we want to make it
clear that our approval of this Texas SIP revision is independent of
any future NO_X reduction measures that could be required of
the cement industry, if such reduction measures are determined
necessary for attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and are considered
to be feasible and practicable.
Comment #10: The Commenters state that in applying mid-kiln firing/
secondary combustion as a method of NO_X reduction, no new
types of chemical or chemical compounds, not previously emitted, should
be resulted in the emission inventory.
Response to Comment #10: 40 CFR 63, Subpart LLL--National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) from the Portland
Cement Manufacturing Industry (64 FR 31925, June 14, 1999) applies to
each new and existing portland cement plant which is a major source or
an area source. Subpart LLL regulates emissions of Dioxin, Furan,
Particulate Matter, Opacity, and Total Hydrocarbon Carbon. The
NO_X emissions are not regulated under Subpart LLL. Elsewhere
the Commenters suggest imposition of post combustion control devices
such as SCR on the affected sources. Use of SCR as a control device has
the potential to cause emission of chemical reagents such as ammonia or
urea in the form of particulate matter which were not previously
emitted. All affected facilities are required to emit at or below their
permitted levels. For these reasons we disagree with the Commenters.
Comment #11: The Commenters state that subsection 117.265(c) should
be removed in its entirety. No cement facility shall be exempt from
complying with required emission reductions as stipulated in this section.
Response to Comment #11: Subsection 117.265 (c) will allow a source
to choose from a menu of options to achieve at least a thirty percent
reduction in NO_X emissions. These options range from
complying with the specified emissions limitations, installing and
operating a low NO_X burner, mid-kiln firing, a secondary
combustion control, or other changes to the kiln that would achieve at
least thirty percent reduction in NO_X emissions. These
options are consistent with the type of controls in NO_X
rules for cement manufacturing in other parts of country. Our TSD for
the 68 FR 44631 rulemaking detailed a number of federally-approved
NO_X rules for cement manufacturing. We provided the Blue
Skies Alliance with a copy of our TSD. The EPA considers subsection

[[Page 15684]]

117.265(c) as an appropriate means of extending operational flexibility
to a source to achieve compliance. For these reasons we disagree with
the Commenters.
Comment #12: The Commenters state that the rule shall remove any
and all authority from the executive director and/or commissioners to
exempt any kiln or facility from those required reductions regardless
of the reason.
Response to Comment #12: A source will need to comply with all
applicable provisions of the SIP. The notification, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements in section 117.279, and the compliance schedule
for cement kilns in section 117.524 serve as mechanisms for achieving
and maintaining compliance with the rule. Therefore, we do not
interpret this SIP revision as authorizing the executive director and/
or commissioners to exempt cement manufacturing sector from emissions
reductions required under Chapter 117.
Comment #13: The Commenters state that subsection 117.265(e) (Use
of Emissions Credits for Compliance) should be removed in its entirety.
Using emission credits to achieve compliance with the control of
NO_X requirements does not satisfy the overall purpose of
this rule, that being to reduce the total NO_X emissions that
prevent conformance with the SIP. This provision only serves to allow a
facility to manipulate their operation to avoid the cost of proper
control technology.
Response to Comment # 13: We disagree with the Commenters. Title
IV--Acidic Deposition Control (Acid Rain Program) of the Act is a prime
example of the regulatory use of emissions banking and trading for
compliance purposes. Other federally-approved SIP revisions of Texas'
Chapter 117 rule, affecting many other types of facilities, contain
provisions allowing use of emissions credits for compliance. Singling
out the cement manufacturing sector from use of emissions credits for
compliance by deleting any provisions that would allow use of emissions
credits for compliance would increase the bar of compliance and extend
unfair advantage to other sectors.
Comment #14: The Commenters state that the rule should provide
access by citizens to the actual CEMS data for review.
Response to Comment #14: The Act requires that emission data and
information be open and available to the public. The State is also
required to comply with the sections 110(a)(2)(F)(i) through (iii) of
the Act. As applicable, the air permits issued to the affected sources
contain special conditions for recording, reporting, and recordkeeping
information concerning CEMS. Reports of inspection of these affected
sources are also open and available to the public. For these reasons no
further change to the text of proposed rule is warranted.
Comment #15: The Commenters state that any provisions for the use
or application of Predictive Emissions Monitoring System (PEMS) should
be deleted.
Response to Comment #15: A PEMS is the total equipment necessary
for the determination of a gas concentration or emission rate using
processor control device operating parameter measurements and a
conversion equation, a graph, or computer program to produce results in
units of the applicable emission limitation or standard. Historically,
other federally-approved SIP revisions of Texas' Chapter 117 rule,
affecting many other types of facilities, contain provisions allowing
use of PEMS. Singling out the cement manufacturing sector from use of
PEMS by deleting any provisions that would allow use of PEMS would
increase the bar of compliance and extend unfair advantage to other
sectors. Therefore, no further change to the text of proposed rule is
warranted.
Comment #16: The Commenters state that subsection 117.273(b)(1)(C)
should be deleted. Performance under 40 CFR 60, Appendix F, Sections
5.1 and 5.1.1 shall apply and deviations or exceptions shall not be
allowed under this rule.
Response to Comment # 16: Section 117.273 requires installation,
calibration, maintenance, and operation of CEMS. Subsection 117.273(b)
requires use of 40 CFR 60.13 and Appendix B, Performance Specification
2 for NO_X. Subsection 117.273(b)(1)(C) requires use of 40
CFR 60 Appendix F Section 5.1 for quality assurance purposes. As
applicable, the air permits issued to the affected sources contain
special conditions for recording, reporting, and recordkeeping
information concerning CEMS. Affected monitors will need to comply with
all applicable monitoring requirements. Such provisions have been
already incorporated in the proposed rule.
Comment #17: The Commenters state that section 117.283 in its
entirety should be deleted. The purpose of this proposed rule is the
reduction of NO_X. Manipulating numbers to achieve emission
reductions does not satisfy such a requirement. Reductions can and
should be achieved through adequate control technology.
Response to Comment #17: Section 117.283 concerns the source cap.
The proposed rule will result in an annual overall reduction of 5,913.3
tons of NO_X from affected sources. The EPA considers this
amount to be a significant reduction in NO_X emissions. We do
not agree with the Commenters' characterization that requiring at least
thirty percent reduction in NO_X emissions as manipulating
numbers to achieve emission reductions. With regard to adequate control
technology we refer the Commenters to our response to Comment
#2 of this document.
Comment #18: The Commenters state that the rule should include an
operation requirement that all cement kilns that exceed permitted
NO_X emission rates in excess of 2.8 lbs NO_X/ton
clinker shall cease operation between March 1st and September 30th, the
ozone season, to ease the burden of harmful ozone levels on the D/FW area.
Response to Comment #18: Absent significant information
substantiating the Commenters' position, EPA is unable to adopt a
provision in its regulation which requires all cement kilns in Ellis
County cease operations between March 1st and September 30th, if the
2.8 lbs NO_X/ton clinker emissions limitation has been
exceeded. However, the State is in the process of developing a future
revision to the D/FW ozone SIP. Consideration of impact of the cement
plants and the potential for additional control measures will be a part
of this regulatory process. Also see our response to Comment #1
in this document.
Comment #19: The Commenters state that this rule demonstrates a
greater effort toward relieving facilities from emissions reduction
than it does to actually reduce emissions required to satisfy
compliance with the SIP and protect the health of citizens.
Response to Comment #19: As stated in section 5 of our proposal (68
FR 44631), ``currently Texas SIP contains no federally-approved
requirements for controlling NO_X emissions from cement
kilns.'' The proposed rule will result in an annual overall reduction
of 5,913.3 tons of NO_X from affected sources in these
Counties. The EPA considers this amount to be a significant reduction
in NO_X emissions. We do not agree with the Commenters'
characterization that requiring at least thirty percent reduction in
NO_X emissions as an effort toward relieving facilities from
emissions reduction.
Comment #20: The Commenters state that the economics and financial
condition of an industry is not the concern of the EPA or the TCEQ,
that responsibility belongs to the Commerce Department.

[[Page 15685]]

Response to Comment #20: All EPA and TCEQ's revisions to the SIP
will need to comply with and adhere to applicable provisions of the
Act. We believe that our July 30, 2003 (68 FR 44631), rulemaking action
is in accord with the requirements of the Act and EPA's policies.
Comment #21: A private citizen stated that in his opinion this rule
ranks among the worst proposals offered by EPA since the exodus of
Administrator Browner.
Response to Comment #21: The proposed rule was submitted to EPA in
accordance to section 110(a)(2) of the Act. The proposed emissions
reduction level of at least thirty percent from the 1996 baseline
levels is in agreement with those found in our ACT Document. The
proposed reductions are in agreement with the 63 FR 56394, October 21,
1998, the Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Regional Transport of
Ozone. For example, the NO_X emissions specifications of 4.0
lb NO_X/ton of clinker produced for a long wet kiln operating
in Ellis County (designated as attainment for 1-hour ozone NAAQS), is
comparable to or more stringent than the NO_X emissions
specifications from similar cement kilns in many other parts of
country. The proposed rule will result in an annual overall reduction
of 5,913.3 tons of NO_X from affected sources in these
Counties. For these reasons we disagree with the commenter's
characterization of the proposed rule.
This concludes our responses to the written comments we received
concerning the July 30, 2003 (68 FR 44631), Texas SIP revision.

4. What do these Rule Revisions for Cement Kilns that we are Approving
Provide?

These rule revisions require at least thirty percent reductions of
NO_X compared with the 1996 baseline emission inventory from
each cement kiln that is major source in Bexar, Comal, Ellis, Hays, and
McLennan Counties, and was placed into service before December 31,
1999. The following 2 tables contain a summary of these SIP revisions
for cement kilns in these 5 Texas Counties.

Table III.--Affected Sources, Locations, and NOX Emissions
Specifications for Cement Kilns
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX emission
Source County specification
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Long wet kiln............... Bexar, Comal, Hays, 6.0 lb NOX/ton of
McLennan. clinker produced.
Long wet kiln............... Ellis............... 4.0 lb NOX/ton of
clinker produced.
Long dry kiln............... Bexar, Comal, Hays, 5.1 lb NOX/ton of
McLennan, Ellis. clinker produced.
Preheater kiln.............. Bexar, Comal, Hays, 3.8 lb NOX/ton of
McLennan, Ellis. clinker produced.
Precalciner or preheater- Bexar, Comal, Hays, 2.8 lb NOX/ton of
precalciner kiln. McLennan, Ellis. clinker produced.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table IV.--Affected Sources and Their Compliance Schedules
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Compliance schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cement kilns in Ellis County............ May 1, 2003.
Cement kilns in Bexar, Comal, Hays, and May 1, 2005.
McLennan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

These emissions specifications meet and are in agreement with those
found in our ACT Document, and are comparable to or more stringent than
emission specifications for cement kilns in a number of other federally
approved State rules.

5. What Areas in Texas Will These Rule Revisions Affect?

The following table contains a list of Counties affected by today's
rulemaking action.

Table V.--Affected Texas Counties by the Cement Kiln Provisions of
Chapter 117
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule/source Affected counties
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 117/Cement Kilns.................. Bexar, Comal, Ellis, Hays,
and McLennan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you are in one of these Texas counties, you should refer to the
Chapter 117 rules to determine if and how today's action will affect you.

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does 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
(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically
significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the

[[Page 15686]]

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States
prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
section 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 25, 2004. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Cement kiln,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: March 12, 2004.
Richard E. Greene,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart SS--Texas

? 2. In Sec. 52.2270 the table in paragraph (c) is amended under Chapter
117, Subchapter B, by adding a new entry heading as ``Division 4--
Cement Kilns'', adding new individual entries for sections ``117.260,
117.261, 117.265, 117.273, 117.279, and 117.283''; Subchapter E, by
adding a new individual entry for section 117.524 and revising the
entry for section 117.570.

Sec. 52.2270 Identification of plan.

* * * * *
(c) * * *

EPA Approved Regulations in the Texas SIP
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State approval/
State citation Title/subject submittal date EPA approval date Explanation
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
--------------------
Chapter 117 (Reg 7)--Control of Air Pollution From Nitrogen Compounds
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
-------------------
Subchapter B--Division 4--Cement Kilns
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 117.260.... Cement Kiln 04/19/00, 03/05/03... 03/26/04 and [FR page number]
Definitions.
Section 117.261.... Applicability........ 04/19/00............. 03/26/04 and [FR page number] Also finalizes 65 FR 64914
Section 117.265.... Emission 04/19/00, 03/05/03... 03/26/04 and [FR page number]
Specifications.
Section 117.273.... Continuous 04/19/00............. 03/26/04 and [FR page number] Also finalizes 65 FR 64914
Demonstration of
Compliance.
Section 117.279.... Notification, 04/19/00, 03/05/03... 03/26/04 and [FR page number]
Recordkeeping, and
Reporting
Requirements.
Section 117.283.... Source Cap........... 04/19/00, 03/05/03... 03/26/04 and [FR page number]

* * * * * * *
-------------------
Subchapter E--Administrative Provisions
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
--------------------
Section 117.524.... Compliance Schedule 04/19/00, 03/05/03... 03/26/04 and [FR page number]
for Cement Kilns.
117.570............ Use of Emissions 3/05/03.............. 03/26/04 and [FR page number]
Credits for
Compliance.

* * * * * * *
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 15687]]

[FR Doc. 04-6309 Filed 3-25-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Control of Emission of Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) From Cement Kilns

Local Navigation