```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 8 (Tuesday, January 13, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1608-1615]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00328]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0861, FRL-9921-49-Region 9]

Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; 
Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan; Reconsideration

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
revise provisions of the Arizona Regional Haze (RH) Federal 
Implementation Plan (FIP) applicable to the Nelson Lime Plant. In 
response to a request for reconsideration from the plant's owner, 
Lhoist North America of Arizona, Inc. (LNA), we propose to replace the 
control technology demonstration requirements for nitrogen oxides 
(NOX) applicable to Kilns 1 and 2 at the Nelson Lime Plant 
with a series of revised recordkeeping and reporting requirements. 
Lastly, we are proposing a correction in the regulatory language of the 
final rule where a table listing the pollution emission limits for 
NOX and sulfur dioxide (SO2) at each kiln was 
misprinted. We are seeking comment on each of these proposed actions.

DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before February 27, 
2015. Requests for a public hearing must be received on or before 
January 28, 2015.

ADDRESSES: See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further 
instructions on where and how to learn more about this proposal, 
request a public hearing, or submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Webb, U.S. EPA, Region 9, 
Planning Office, Air Division, Air-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 
Francisco, CA 94105. Thomas Webb can be reached at telephone number 
(415) 947-4139 and via electronic mail at webb.thomas@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,'' 
and ``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. General Information
II. Background
III. FIP Revision for Nelson Lime Plant
IV. EPA's Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

[[Page 1609]]

I. General Information

A. Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain 
words or initials as follows:
     The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the 
Clean Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
     The initials ADEQ mean or refer to the Arizona Department 
of Environmental Quality.
     The words Arizona and State mean the State of Arizona.
     The initials BART mean or refer to Best Available Retrofit 
Technology.
     The initials CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air Act.
     The term Class I area refers to a mandatory Class I 
Federal area.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The initials CBI mean or refer to Confidential Business 
Information.
     The initials CEMS mean or refer to continuous emission 
monitoring system or systems.
     The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United 
States Environmental Protection Agency.
     The initials FIP mean or refer to Federal Implementation 
Plan.
     The initials LNA mean or refer to LNA North America of 
Arizona, Inc.
     The initials MMBtu mean or refer to million British 
thermal units.
     The initials NOX mean or refer to nitrogen oxides.
     The initials RH mean or refer to regional haze.
     The initials RHR mean or refer to EPA's Regional Haze 
Rule.
     The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation 
Plan.
     The initials SNCR mean or refer to selective non-catalytic 
reduction.
     The initials SO2 mean or refer to sulfur dioxide.

B. Docket

    The proposed action relies on documents, information, and data that 
are listed in the index on http://www.regulations.gov under docket 
number EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0861. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available (e.g., Confidential Business 
Information (CBI)). Certain other material, such as copyrighted 
material, is publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly 
available docket materials are available either electronically at 
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Planning Office of 
the Air Division, AIR-2, EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 
Francisco, CA 94105. EPA requests that 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, 9-5:00 PDT, excluding Federal holidays.

C. Instructions for Submitting Comments to EPA

    Written comments must be submitted on or before February 27, 2015. 
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2014-
0861, by one of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Email: webb.thomas@epa.gov.
     Fax: 415-947-3579 (Attention: Thomas Webb).
     Mail, Hand Delivery or Courier: Thomas Webb, EPA Region 9, 
Air Division (AIR-2), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 
94105. Hand and courier deliveries are only accepted Monday through 
Friday, 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. Special 
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    EPA's policy is to include all comments received in the public 
docket without change. We may make comments available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes information claimed to be CBI or other 
information for which disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not 
submit information that you consider to be CBI or that is otherwise 
protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which 
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you 
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment 
directly to EPA, without going through http://www.regulations.gov, we 
will include your email address as part of the comment that is placed 
in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit 
an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and 
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk 
or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical 
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be 
able to consider your comment. Electronic files should not include 
special characters or any form of encryption, and be free of any 
defects or viruses.

D. Submitting Confidential Business Information

    Do not submit CBI to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or by 
email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim 
as CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, 
mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and 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, you must submit a copy of the 
comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI for 
inclusion in the public docket. We will not disclose information so 
marked except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

E. Tips for Preparing Your Comments

    When submitting comments, remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other 
identifying information (e.g., subject heading, Federal Register date, 
and page number).
     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.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period 
deadline.

F. Public Hearings

    If anyone contacts EPA by January 28, 2015 requesting to speak at a 
public hearing, EPA will schedule a public hearing and announce the 
hearing in the Federal Register. Contact Thomas Webb at (415) 947-4139 
or at webb.thomas@epa.gov to request a hearing or to determine if a 
hearing will be held.

II. Background

A. Summary of Statutory and Regulatory Requirements

    Congress created a program for protecting visibility in the 
nation's national parks and wilderness areas in section 169A of the 
1977 Amendments to the CAA. This section of the CAA

[[Page 1610]]

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 man-made air pollution.'' 
\2\ It also directs states 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 to revise their State 
Implementation Plans (SIPs) to contain such measures as may be 
necessary to make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility 
goal, including a requirement that certain categories of existing major 
stationary sources built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and 
operate best available retrofit technology (BART) controls. These 
sources are referred to as ``BART-eligible'' sources.\3\ In the 1990 
CAA Amendments, Congress amended the visibility provisions in the CAA 
to focus attention on the problem of regional haze, which is visibility 
impairment produced by a multitude of sources and activities located 
across a broad geographic area.\4\ We promulgated the Regional Haze 
Rule (RHR) in 1999, which requires states to develop and implement SIPs 
to ensure reasonable progress toward improving visibility in mandatory 
Class I Federal areas \5\ by reducing emissions that cause or 
contribute to regional haze.\6\ Under the Regional Haze Rule (RHR), 
states are directed to conduct BART determinations for BART-eligible 
sources that may be anticipated to cause or contribute to any 
visibility impairment in a Class I area.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 42 U.S.C. 7491(a)(1).
    \3\ 40 CFR 51.301.
    \4\ See CAA section 169B, 42 U.S.C. 7492.
    \5\ 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). 
When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this action, we mean a 
``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
    \6\ See generally 40 CFR 51.308.
    \7\ 40 CFR 51.308(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. History of FIP BART Determination

    The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) submitted a 
Regional Haze SIP to EPA on February 28, 2011. EPA promulgated two 
final rules approving in part and disapproving in part the Arizona RH 
SIP. The first final rule addressed the State's BART determinations for 
three power plants (Apache, Cholla, and Coronado).\8\ The second final 
rule, which addressed the remaining elements of the Arizona RH SIP, 
included our disapproval of the State's determination that the Nelson 
Lime Plant was not subject to BART.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 77 FR 72512 (December 5, 2012).
    \9\ 78 FR 46142 (July 30, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a third final rule, EPA found that the Nelson Lime Plant was 
subject to BART and made a BART determination for the plant, as part of 
the Arizona RH FIP.\10\ EPA set BART emission limits for NOX 
at the Nelson Lime Plant of 3.80 lb/ton of limestone product for Kiln 1 
and 2.61 lb/ton of limestone product for Kiln 2 based on a 12-month 
rolling average; and a combined limit for Kilns 1 and 2 of 3.27 tons of 
NOX/day on a 30-day rolling average. These limits are 
consistent with the use of SNCR control technology and represent a 50 
percent reduction from baseline emission rates. The FIP also included 
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements, and established 
a compliance deadline for the final NOX emission limits of 
September 3, 2017, which is three years from the publication date of 
the final rule. Finally, we received certain comments alleging that an 
SNCR control efficiency of 50 percent was unsupported, and that SNCR 
was capable of achieving control efficiency as high as 80 percent. In 
responses to these comments in our final rule, we noted that the 
commenters were unable to provide information indicating that an SNCR 
control efficiency better than 50 percent was achievable at a lime 
kiln. As a result, our final rule established NOX emission 
limits consistent with an SNCR control efficiency of 50 percent. 
However, in response to these comments, as well as the lack of data 
regarding the performance of SNCR on lime kilns, the final rule 
included a series of control technology demonstration requirements for 
Kiln 1 and Kiln 2 to ensure the optimization of the SNCR systems 
installed at the Nelson Lime Plant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 79 FR 52420 (September 3, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Petition for Reconsideration and Stay

    LNA submitted a petition to EPA on October 31, 2014, seeking 
administrative reconsideration and a partial stay of the final rule 
under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B).\11\ Specifically, LNA requested that 
EPA eliminate the control technology demonstration requirements for the 
Nelson Lime Plant. In an attachment to the petition, LNA provided 
additional data regarding SNCR performance at lime kilns located at 
another LNA facility, the O'Neal Lime Plant in Calera, Alabama. In the 
petition, LNA also requested a stay if EPA did not take action prior to 
December 31, 2014. LNA requested a stay on the grounds that the control 
technology demonstration requirements would not provide sufficient time 
to meet the SO2 and NOX BART emission limits. LNA 
asserted that the time needed to implement the demonstration 
requirements, in particular the requirement to collect six months of 
uncontrolled NOX emission data, would delay the critical 
path schedule for SNCR installation beyond the compliance date. EPA 
sent a letter to LNA on November 20, 2014, granting reconsideration of 
the optimization protocol requirements pursuant to CAA section 
307(d)(7)(B).\12\ Today's notice of proposed rulemaking constitutes 
EPA's proposed action on the reconsideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Letter from Eric Hiser, Jorden Bischoff & Hiser, to Regina 
McCarthy, EPA (October 31, 2014).
    \12\ Letter from Jared Blumenfeld, EPA to Eric Hiser, Jorden 
Bischoff & Hiser (November 20, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. FIP Revision for Nelson Lime Plant

A. Summary of FIP Revision

    This proposed rule consists of several components: removal of the 
control technology demonstration requirements, revised recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements, and an error correction to a table in our 
September 3, 2014, final rule. This proposed rule does not change any 
of the emission limits, compliance deadlines, or the compliance 
determination methods established in the final rule.

B. EPA's Evaluation of Eliminating Control Technology Demonstration 
Requirements

    EPA is proposing to remove the control technology demonstration 
requirements from the final rule based on information provided in LNA's 
petition for reconsideration. In particular, in a letter dated October 
2, 2014, and enclosed with the petition, LNA provided new data 
concerning operation of SNCR at another of its facilities, the O'Neal 
Lime Plant. The O'Neal Lime Plant originally consisted of Kiln 1, but 
was later expanded through the construction of Kiln 2. In order for the 
construction of Kiln 2 not to trigger major new source review for 
NOX emissions, LNA elected to install SNCR on both Kilns 1 
and 2 to maintain NOX emissions below thresholds for major 
new source review. LNA provided information comparing the physical 
design of the two kilns at the O'Neal Lime Plant with the two kilns at 
the Nelson Lime Plant. LNA indicated that although the two O'Neal kilns 
are not identical to the Nelson kilns, O'Neal Kiln 1 is more similar in 
design to the Nelson kilns than O'Neal Kiln 2. We consider this 
comparison reasonable. Of

[[Page 1611]]

the two O'Neal kilns, Kiln 1 is closer in age, physical dimensions, 
lime production rate, and fuel efficiency to the Nelson kilns than Kiln 
2.
    The remainder of the October 2, 2014, letter summarizes 
NOX emission data from specific days of operation at O'Neal 
Kiln 1 to evaluate the SNCR control efficiency of the kiln. Evaluating 
the control efficiency involves comparing uncontrolled emission rates 
with controlled emission rates from Kiln 1. However, uncontrolled 
NOX emission data for the O'Neal plant are limited, because 
the facility did not operate with a continuous emission monitoring 
system (CEMS) for NOX prior to installing SNCR.\13\ As a 
result, uncontrolled NOX emission data are limited to those 
periods of time following SNCR installation during which the SNCR 
system did not operate. LNA provided emission data from six days during 
which the SNCR did not operate to represent uncontrolled NOX 
emission rates. NOX emission data from those periods 
corresponding to hours of SNCR operation were also included as a 
representation of controlled NOX emission rates. Based on 
this analysis, the SNCR control efficiency of O'Neal Kiln 1 varied from 
42 to 61 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ This is common with older lime and cement plants, and is 
similar to the situation at the Nelson plant, which does not 
currently operate NOX CEMS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This range of control efficiency represents SNCR performance over 
relatively short-term periods of less than 24 hours. For example, the 
highest observed control efficiency (61 percent) corresponds to a 
period ending on December 1, 2011, and consists of a comparison of six 
hours of uncontrolled emissions with eight hours of controlled 
emissions. As noted in the final rule in regard to control efficiencies 
for dry sorbent injection, we do not consider the upper range of short-
term control efficiencies necessarily to be sustainable over longer 
periods, such as on an annual average basis.\14\ Therefore, while the 
emission data provided by LNA indicate that a 61 percent SNCR control 
efficiency was achievable over short term periods (lasting several 
hours), we do not necessarily consider 61 percent control efficiency to 
be achievable over longer averaging periods, such as an annual average 
or 30-day average. For cement kilns, a source category similar to lime 
kilns, the highest short-term emission rates can be as much as 25-50 
percent greater than the highest annual average or 30-day average 
emission rates.\15\ As a result, given the short-term nature of the 
emission data indicating a maximum 61 percent SNCR control efficiency, 
we consider the use of a 50 percent control efficiency on a longer 
annual average basis to be reasonable for the Nelson kilns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 79 FR 52439.
    \15\ For comparison, we have examined the maximum 24-hr average, 
30-day average, and annual average emissions for Kiln 4 at the 
Phoenix Cement Plant (see spreadsheet ``Phoenix Cement Kiln 4 
NOX Emissions 2005-10 (public).xlsx.'' The Phoenix Cement 
Kiln 4 data illustrate the substantial variability in emission rates 
from a cement kiln when examining emissions on short-term versus 
longer-term averaging periods. Given the similarity between lime 
kilns and cement kilns, we expect similar variability in the short-
term versus longer-term emission rates from lime kilns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, we propose to find that the data from the O'Neal kilns 
are sufficient to establish that an SNCR control efficiency of 50 
percent is appropriate for the Nelson kilns for purposes of BART. While 
we still consider it necessary to ensure that the SNCR system be 
optimized, we do not consider it necessary for LNA to adhere to the 
relatively detailed and prescribed procedures contained in the control 
technology demonstration requirements. Therefore, we are proposing to 
remove the control technology demonstration requirements included in 
the final rule, and, as described below, are proposing requirements 
that will require LNA to report similar information in a less 
prescribed manner.

C. Revised Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

    We are proposing several additional reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, including a summary of SNCR design and a summary of SNCR 
debugging and process improvement activities, to replace the control 
technology demonstration requirements in the FIP for Nelson Lime Plant. 
As described in III.B above, we consider it necessary to include 
provisions for SNCR optimization. Given the NOX emission 
data provided by LNA from the O'Neal Plant indicating that 50 percent 
SNCR control efficiency has been achieved at a lime kiln, we do not 
consider it necessary for optimization measures to be as prescriptive 
and detailed as established in our September 4, 2014, final rule. 
Specifically, we propose to require LNA to submit a summary of the SNCR 
design prior to commencing construction of the ammonia injection system 
at Kilns 1 and 2, including information regarding reagent type, 
locations selected for reagent injection, reagent injection rate, 
equipment arrangement, and kiln characteristics. We also propose to 
require LNA to submit a summary of SNCR debugging and process 
improvement activities, including a description of each process 
adjustment performed on the SNCR system, a discussion of whether the 
adjustment affected the NOX emission rate, a description of 
the range over which the adjustment was examined, and a discussion of 
how the adjustment will be reflected or accounted for in kiln operating 
practices.

D. Error Correction

    We are proposing a minor correction to a table printed in our 
September 3, 2014, final rule at 79 FR 52480. The table, which is 
codified at 40 CFR 52.145(i)(3)(i) and lists NOX and 
SO2 limits for the Nelson Plant Kilns, appears with 
incorrect column labels due to a misprint in the Federal Register. The 
table appears with the correct labels in the proposed regulatory text 
that follows this proposed rule.

E. Non-interference With Applicable Requirements

    The CAA requires that any revision to an implementation plan shall 
not be approved by the Administrator if the revision would interfere 
with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable 
further progress or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.\16\ 
Today's proposed revisions would not affect any applicable requirements 
of the CAA because they would not alter the amount or timing of 
emission reductions from the Nelson Lime Plant. In particular, the 
proposed replacement of the control technology demonstration 
requirements with a series of recordkeeping and reporting requirements 
would not alter any of the applicable emission limitations, compliance 
determination methodologies, or compliance deadlines. Therefore, we 
propose to find that these revisions would comply with CAA section 
110(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ CAA Section 110(l), 42 U.S.C. 7410(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. EPA's Proposed Action

    For the reasons described above, EPA proposes to revise the Arizona 
Regional Haze FIP to eliminate the control technology demonstration 
requirements at the Nelson Lime Plant and replace them with additional 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements. This revision would 
constitute our action on LNA's Petition for Reconsideration of the FIP.

[[Page 1612]]

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    This proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' 
under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) 
and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 
13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). This proposed rule applies to 
only one facility and is therefore not a rule of general applicability.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

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 today's 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. Pursuant to 13 CFR 121.201, footnote 
1, a firm is small if it is in NAICS 327410 (lime manufacturing) and 
the concern and its affiliates have no more than 500 employees. LNA is 
affiliated with the LNA Group, which has more than 5,500 employees.\17\ 
Therefore, LNA is not a small business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ http://www.LNA.com/facts-and-figures-LNA-group-2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 
U.S.C. 1531-1538, requires Federal agencies, unless otherwise 
prohibited by law, to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on 
State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Federal 
agencies must also develop a plan to provide notice to small 
governments that might be significantly or uniquely affected by any 
regulatory requirements. The plan must enable officials of affected 
small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the 
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal 
intergovernmental mandates and must inform, educate, and advise small 
governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    This proposed rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may 
result in expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local, and 
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one 
year. Thus, this 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. This proposed 
rule does not impose regulatory requirements on any government entity.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between 
the national government and the states, or in the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as 
specified in Executive Order 13132.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA 
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local 
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed action 
from State and local officials.

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

    Under Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), EPA 
may not issue a regulation that has tribal 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 tribal governments, or EPA 
consults with tribal officials early in the process of developing the 
proposed regulation and develops a tribal summary impact statement.
    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. EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this 
proposed rule from tribal officials.

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

    EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying 
only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, 
such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO has the 
potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO 
13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended 
to mitigate health or safety risks. This proposed action addresses 
regional haze and visibility protection.

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 exempt under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, 12 (10) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards 
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and 
business practices) that are developed or adopted by the VCS bodies. 
The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through annual reports to 
OMB, with explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and 
applicable VCS.
    EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's 
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to 
the use of VCS.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), establishes 
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs

[[Page 1613]]

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen oxides, 
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 
dioxide, Visibility. Incorporation by Reference.

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

    Dated: December 29, 2014.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations 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 D--Arizona

0
2. Amend Sec.  52.145 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (i); and
0
b. Removing Appendix B to Sec.  52.145--Lime Kiln Control Technology 
Demonstration Requirements.
    The revision reads as follows:

Sec.  52.145  Visibility protection.

* * * * *
    (i) Source-specific federal implementation plan for regional haze 
at Nelson Lime Plant--
    (1) Applicability. This paragraph (i) applies to the owner/operator 
of the lime kilns designated as Kiln 1 and Kiln 2 at the Nelson Lime 
Plant located in Yavapai County, Arizona.
    (2) Definitions. Terms not defined in this paragraph (i)(2) shall 
have the meaning given them in the Clean Air Act or EPA's regulations 
implementing the Clean Air Act. For purposes of this paragraph (i):
    Ammonia injection shall include any of the following: Anhydrous 
ammonia, aqueous ammonia, or urea injection.
    Continuous emission monitoring system or CEMS means the equipment 
required by this section to sample, analyze, measure, and provide, by 
means of readings recorded at least once every 15 minutes (using an 
automated data acquisition and handling system (DAHS)), a permanent 
record of NOX emissions, SO2 emissions, diluent, 
and stack gas volumetric flow rate.
    Kiln means either of the kilns identified in paragraph (i)(1) of 
this section.
    Kiln 1 means lime kiln 1, as identified in paragraph (i)(1) of this 
section.
    Kiln 2 means lime kiln 2, as identified in paragraph (i)(1) of this 
section.
    Kiln operating day means a 24-hour period between 12 midnight and 
the following midnight during which there is operation of Kiln 1, Kiln 
2, or both kilns at any time.
    Kiln operation means any period when any raw materials are fed into 
the Kiln or any period when any combustion is occurring or fuel is 
being fired in the Kiln.
    Lime product means the product of the lime-kiln calcination 
process, including calcitic lime, dolomitic lime, and dead-burned 
dolomite.
    NOX means oxides of nitrogen.
    Owner/operator means any person who owns or who operates, controls, 
or supervises a kiln identified in paragraph (i)(1) of this section.
    SO2 means sulfur dioxide.
    (3) Emission limitations. (i) The owner/operator of the kilns 
identified in paragraph (i)(1) of this section shall not emit or cause 
to be emitted pollutants in excess of the following limitations in 
pounds of pollutant per ton of lime product (lb/ton), from any kiln. 
Each emission limit shall be based on a 12-month rolling basis.

                        Pollutant Emission Limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Kiln ID                          NOX     SO[ihel2]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kiln 1............................................       3.80       9.32
Kiln 2............................................       2.61       9.73
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) The owner/operator of the kilns identified in paragraph (i)(1) 
of this section shall not emit or cause to be emitted pollutants in 
excess of 3.27 tons of NOX per day and 10.10 tons of 
SO2 per day, combined from both kilns, based on a rolling 
30-kiln-operating-day basis.
    (4) Compliance dates. (i) The owner/operator of each kiln shall 
comply with the NOX emission limitations and other 
NOX-related requirements of this paragraph (i) no later than 
September 4, 2017.
    (ii) The owner/operator of each kiln shall comply with the 
SO2 emission limitations and other SO2-related 
requirements of this paragraph (i) no later than March 3, 2016.
    (5) [Reserved]
    (6) Compliance determination--(i) Continuous emission monitoring 
system. At all times after the compliance dates specified in paragraph 
(i)(4) of this section, the owner/operator of kilns 1 and 2 shall 
maintain, calibrate, and operate a CEMS, in full compliance with the 
requirements found at 40 CFR 60.13 and 40 CFR part 60, appendices B and 
F, to accurately measure diluent, stack gas volumetric flow rate, and 
concentration by volume of NOX and SO2 emissions 
into the atmosphere from kilns 1 and 2. The CEMS shall be used by the 
owner/operator to determine compliance with the emission limitations in 
paragraph (i)(3) of this section, in combination with data on actual 
lime production. The owner/operator must operate the monitoring system 
and collect data at all required intervals at all times that an 
affected kiln is operating, except for periods of monitoring system 
malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions, 
and required monitoring system quality assurance or quality control 
activities (including, as applicable, calibration checks and required 
zero and span adjustments).
    (ii) Ammonia consumption monitoring. Upon and after the completion 
of installation of ammonia injection on a kiln, the owner or operator 
shall install, and thereafter maintain and operate, instrumentation to 
continuously monitor and record levels of ammonia consumption for that 
kiln.
    (iii) Compliance determination for lb per ton NOX limit. Compliance 
with the NOX emission limits described in paragraph 
(i)(3)(i) of this section shall be determined based on a rolling 12-
month basis. The 12-month rolling NOX emission rate for each 
kiln shall be calculated within 30 days following the end of each 
calendar month in accordance with the following procedure: Step one, 
sum the hourly pounds of NOX emitted for the month just 
completed and the eleven (11) months preceding the month just completed 
to calculate the total pounds of NOX emitted over the most 
recent twelve (12) month period for that kiln; Step two, sum the total 
lime product, in tons, produced during the month just completed and the 
eleven (11) months preceding the month just completed to calculate the 
total lime product

[[Page 1614]]

produced over the most recent twelve (12) month period for that kiln; 
Step three, divide the total amount of NOX calculated from 
Step one by the total lime product calculated from Step two to 
calculate the 12-month rolling NOX emission rate for that 
kiln. Each 12-month rolling NOX emission rate shall include 
all emissions and all lime product that occur during all periods within 
the 12-month period, including emissions from startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction.
    (iv) Compliance determination for lb per ton SO2 limit. Compliance 
with the SO2 emission limits described in paragraph 
(i)(3)(i) of this section shall be determined based on a rolling 12- 
month basis. The 12-month rolling SO2 emission rate for each 
kiln shall be calculated within 30 days following the end of each 
calendar month in accordance with the following procedure: Step one, 
sum the hourly pounds of SO2 emitted for the month just 
completed and the eleven (11) months preceding the month just completed 
to calculate the total pounds of SO2 emitted over the most 
recent twelve (12) month period for that kiln; Step two, sum the total 
lime product, in tons, produced during the month just completed and the 
eleven (11) months preceding the month just completed to calculate the 
total lime product produced over the most recent twelve (12) month 
period for that kiln; Step three, divide the total amount of 
SO2 calculated from Step one by the total lime product 
calculated from Step two to calculate the 12-month rolling 
SO2 emission rate for that kiln. Each 12-month rolling 
SO2 emission rate shall include all emissions and all lime 
product that occur during all periods within the 12-month period, 
including emissions from startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
    (v) Compliance determination for ton per day NOX limit. Compliance 
with the NOX emission limit described in paragraph 
(i)(3)(ii) of this section shall be determined based on a rolling 30-
kiln-operating-day basis. The rolling 30-kiln operating day 
NOX emission rate for the kilns shall be calculated for each 
kiln operating day in accordance with the following procedure: Step 
one, sum the hourly pounds of NOX emitted from both kilns 
for the current kiln operating day and the preceding twenty-nine (29) 
kiln-operating-day period for both kilns; Step two, divide the total 
pounds of NOX calculated from Step one by two thousand 
(2,000) to calculate the total tons of NOX; Step three, 
divide the total tons of NOX calculated from Step two by 
thirty (30) to calculate the rolling 30-kiln operating day 
NOX emission rate for both kilns. Each rolling 30-kiln 
operating day NOX emission rate shall include all emissions 
that occur from both kilns during all periods within any kiln operating 
day, including emissions from startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
    (vi) Compliance determination for ton per day SO2 limit. Compliance 
with the SO2 emission limit described in paragraph 
(i)(3)(ii) of this section shall be determined based on a rolling 30- 
kiln-operating-day basis. The rolling 30-kiln operating day 
SO2 emission rate for the kilns shall be calculated for each 
kiln operating day in accordance with the following procedure: Step 
one, sum the hourly pounds of SO2 emitted from both kilns 
for the current kiln operating day and the preceding twenty-nine (29) 
kiln operating days, to calculate the total pounds of SO2 
emitted over the most recent thirty (30) kiln operating day period for 
both kilns; Step two, divide the total pounds of SO2 
calculated from Step one by two thousand (2,000) to calculate the total 
tons of SO2; Step three, divide the total tons of 
SO2 calculated from Step two by thirty (30) to calculate the 
rolling 30-kiln operating day SO2 emission rate for both 
kilns. Each rolling 30-kiln operating day SO2 emission rate 
shall include all emissions that occur from both kilns during all 
periods within any kiln operating day, including emissions from 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
    (7) Recordkeeping. The owner/operator shall maintain the following 
records for at least five years:
    (i) All CEMS data, including the date, place, and time of sampling 
or measurement; parameters sampled or measured; and results.
    (ii) All records of lime production.
    (iii) Monthly rolling 12-month emission rates of NOX and 
SO2, calculated in accordance with paragraphs (i)(6)(iii) 
and (iv) of this section.
    (iv) Daily rolling 30-kiln operating day emission rates of 
NOX and SO2 calculated in accordance with 
paragraphs (i)(6)(v) and (vi) of this section.
    (v) Records of quality assurance and quality control activities for 
emissions measuring systems including, but not limited to, any records 
specified by 40 CFR part 60, appendix F, Procedure 1, as well as the 
following:
    (A) The occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction, performance testing, evaluations, calibrations, checks, 
adjustments maintenance, duration of any periods during which a CEMS or 
COMS is inoperative, and corresponding emission measurements.
    (B) Date, place, and time of measurement or monitoring equipment 
maintenance activity;
    (C) Operating conditions at the time of measurement or monitoring 
equipment maintenance activity;
    (D) Date, place, name of company or entity that performed the 
measurement or monitoring equipment maintenance activity and the 
methods used; and
    (E) Results of the measurement or monitoring equipment maintenance.
    (vi) Records of ammonia consumption, as recorded by the 
instrumentation required in paragraph (i)(6)(ii) of this section.
    (vii) Records of all major maintenance activities conducted on 
emission units, air pollution control equipment, CEMS, and lime 
production measurement devices.
    (viii) All other records specified by 40 CFR part 60, appendix F, 
Procedure 1.
    (8) Reporting. All reports required under this section shall be 
submitted by the owner/operator to the Director, Enforcement Division, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, electronically via 
email to aeo_r9@epa.gov. Any data that are required under this section 
shall be submitted in Excel format. Reports required under paragraphs 
(i)(8)(iii) through (i)(8)(v) of this section shall be submitted within 
30 days after the applicable compliance date(s) in paragraph (i)(4) of 
this section and at least semiannually thereafter, within 30 days after 
the end of a semiannual period. The owner/operator may submit reports 
more frequently than semiannually for the purposes of synchronizing 
reports required under this section with other reporting requirements, 
such as the title V monitoring report required by 40 CFR 
70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), but at no point shall the duration of a semiannual 
period exceed six months.
    (i) Prior to commencing construction of the ammonia injection 
system, the owner/operator shall submit to EPA a summary report of the 
design of the SNCR system. Elements of this summary report shall 
include: Reagent type, description of the locations selected for 
reagent injection, reagent injection rate (expressed as a molar ratio 
of reagent to NOX), equipment list, equipment arrangement, 
and a summary of kiln characteristics that were relied upon as the 
design basis for the SNCR system.
    (ii) By October 3, 2017, the owner/operator shall submit to EPA a 
summary of any process improvement or debugging activities that were 
performed on the SNCR system.

[[Page 1615]]

Elements of this summary report shall include: A description of each 
process adjustment performed on the SNCR system, a discussion of 
whether the adjustment affected NOX emission rate (including 
CEMS data that may have been recorded while the adjustment was in 
progress), a description of the range (if applicable) over which the 
adjustment was examined, and a discussion of how the adjustment will be 
reflected or accounted for in kiln operating practices. In addition, to 
the extent that the owner/operator evaluates the impact of varying 
reagent injection rate on NOX emissions, the owner/operator 
shall include the following information: The range of reagent injection 
rates evaluated (expressed as a molar ratio of reagent to average 
NOX concentration), reagent injection rate, average 
NOX concentration, lime production rate, kiln flue gas 
temperature, and the presence of any detached plumes from the kiln 
exhaust.
    (iii) The owner/operator shall submit a report that lists the daily 
rolling 30-kiln operating day emission rates for NOX and 
SO2, calculated in accordance with paragraphs (i)(6)(iii) 
and (iv) of this section.
    (iv) The owner/operator shall submit a report that lists the 
monthly rolling 12-month emission rates for NOX and 
SO2, calculated in accordance with paragraphs (i)(6)(v) and 
(vi) of this section.
    (v) The owner/operator shall submit excess emissions reports for 
NOX and SO2 limits. Excess emissions means 
emissions that exceed any of the emissions limits specified in 
paragraph (i)(3) of this section. The reports shall include the 
magnitude, date(s), and duration of each period of excessemissions; 
specific identification of each period of excess emissions that occurs 
during startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions of the kiln; the nature 
and cause of any malfunction (if known); and the corrective action 
taken or preventative measures adopted.
    (vi) The owner/operator shall submit a summary of CEMS operation, 
to include dates and duration of each period during which the CEMS was 
inoperative (except for zero and span adjustments and calibration 
checks), reason(s) why the CEMS was inoperative and steps taken to 
prevent recurrence, and any CEMS repairs or adjustments.
    (vii) The owner/operator shall submit results of all CEMS 
performance tests required by 40 CFR part 60, Appendix F, Procedure 1 
(Relative Accuracy Test Audits, Relative Accuracy Audits, and Cylinder 
Gas Audits).
    (viiii) When no excess emissions have occurred or the CEMS has not 
been inoperative, repaired, or adjusted during the reporting period, 
the owner/operator shall state such information in the semiannual 
report.
    (9) Notifications. All notifications required under this section 
shall be submitted by the owner/operator to the Director, Enforcement 
Division (Mail Code ENF-2-1), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901.
    (i) The owner/operator shall submit notification of commencement of 
construction of any equipment which is being constructed to comply with 
the NOX emission limits in paragraph (i)(3) of this section.
    (ii) The owner/operator shall submit semiannual progress reports on 
construction of any such equipment.
    (iii) The owner/operator shall submit notification of initial 
startup of any such equipment.
    (10) Equipment operations. (i) At all times, including periods of 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction, the owner/operator shall, to the 
extent practicable, maintain and operate the kilns, including 
associated air pollution control equipment, in a manner consistent with 
good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. 
Pollution control equipment shall be designed and capable of operating 
properly to minimize emissions during all expected operating 
conditions. Determination of whether acceptable operating and 
maintenance procedures are being used will be based on information 
available to the Regional Administrator, which may include, but is not 
limited to, monitoring results, review of operating and maintenance 
procedures, and inspection of the kilns.
    (ii) After completion of installation of ammonia injection on a 
kiln, the owner/operator shall inject sufficient ammonia to achieve 
compliance with the NOX emission limits from paragraph 
(i)(3) of this section for that kiln while preventing excessive ammonia 
emissions.
    (11) Enforcement. Notwithstanding any other provision in this 
implementation plan, any credible evidence or information relevant as 
to whether the kiln would have been in compliance with applicable 
requirements if the appropriate performance or compliance test had been 
performed can be used to establish whether or not the owner/operator 
has violated or is in violation of any standard or applicable emission 
limit in the plan.

[FR Doc. 2015-00328 Filed 1-12-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```