1608 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Permittee, each Customer, any part 440 

customer, and each of their respective 

Contractors and Subcontractors, and to agree 

to be responsible, for any Property Damage 

they sustain and for any Bodily Injury or 

Property Damage sustained by their own 

employees, resulting from Permitted 

Activities, regardless of fault, to the extent 

that claims they would otherwise have for 

such damage or injury exceed the amount of 

insurance or demonstration of financial 

responsibility required under sections 

440.9(c) and (e), respectively, of the 

Regulations. 

5. Indemnification 

(a) Permittee shall hold harmless and 

indemnify each Customer and its directors, 

officers, servants, agents, subsidiaries, 

employees and assignees, or any of them; the 

United States and its agencies, servants, 

agents, subsidiaries, employees and 

assignees, or any of them; and any part 440 

customer and its directors, officers, servants, 

agents, subsidiaries, employees and 

assignees, or any of them, from and against 

liability, loss or damage arising out of claims 

that Permittee’s Contractors and 

Subcontractors may have for Property 

Damage sustained by them and for Bodily 

Injury or Property Damage sustained by their 

employees, resulting from Permitted 

Activities. 

(b) Each Customer shall hold harmless and 

indemnify Permittee and its directors, 

officers, servants, agents, subsidiaries, 

employees and assignees, or any of them; the 

United States and its agencies, servants, 

agents, subsidiaries, employees and 

assignees, or any of them; and any part 440 

customer and its directors, officers, servants, 

agents, subsidiaries, employees and 

assignees, or any of them, from and against 

liability, loss or damage arising out of claims 

that each Customer’s Contractors, 

Subcontractors, or customers, may have for 

Property Damage sustained by them and for 

Bodily Injury or Property Damage sustained 

by their employees, resulting from Permitted 

Activities. 

6. Assurances Under 51 U.S.C. 50914(e) 

Notwithstanding any provision of this 

Agreement to the contrary, Permittee shall 

hold harmless and indemnify the United 

States and its agencies, servants, agents, 

employees and assignees, or any of them, 

from and against liability, loss or damage 

arising out of claims for Bodily Injury or 

Property Damage, resulting from Permitted 

Activities, regardless of fault, except to the 

extent that: (i) As provided in section 7(b) of 

this Agreement, claims result from willful 

misconduct of the United States or its agents; 

(ii) claims for Property Damage sustained by 

the United States or its Contractors and 

Subcontractors exceed the amount of 

insurance or demonstration of financial 

responsibility required under section 440.9(e) 

of the Regulations; (iii) claims by a Third 

Party for Bodily Injury or Property Damage 

exceed the amount of insurance or 

demonstration of financial responsibility 

required under § 440.9(c) of the Regulations, 

and do not exceed $1,500,000,000 (as 

adjusted for inflation after January 1, 1989) 

above such amount, and are payable 

pursuant to the provisions of 51 U.S.C. 50915 

and § 440.19 of the Regulations; or (iv) 

Licensee has no liability for claims exceeding 

$1,500,000,000 (as adjusted for inflation after 

January 1, 1989) above the amount of 

insurance or demonstration of financial 

responsibility required under § 440.9(c) of 

the Regulations. 

7. Miscellaneous 

(a) Nothing contained herein shall be 

construed as a waiver or release by Permittee, 

any Customer or the United States of any 

claim by an employee of the Permittee, any 

Customer or the United States, respectively, 

including a member of the Armed Forces of 

the United States, for Bodily Injury or 

Property Damage, resulting from Permitted 

Activities. 

(b) Notwithstanding any provision of this 

Agreement to the contrary, any waiver, 

release, assumption of responsibility or 

agreement to hold harmless and indemnify 

herein shall not apply to claims for Bodily 

Injury or Property Damage resulting from 

willful misconduct of any of the Parties, the 

Contractors and Subcontractors of any of the 

Parties, any part 440 customer, the 

Contractors and Subcontractors of any part 

440 customer, and in the case of Permittee, 

each Customer, any part 440 customer, and 

the Contractors and Subcontractors of each of 

them, the directors, officers, agents and 

employees of any of the foregoing, and in the 

case of the United States, its agents. 

(c) References herein to Customer shall 

apply to, and be deemed to include, each 

such customer severally and not jointly. 

(d) This Agreement shall be governed by 

and construed in accordance with United 

States Federal law. 

In witness whereof, the Parties to this 

Agreement have caused the Agreement to be 

duly executed by their respective duly 

authorized representatives as of the date 

written above. 

Permittee 

By: lllllllllllllllllll

Its: lllllllllllllllllll

Customer 1 

By: lllllllllllllllllll

Its: lllllllllllllllllll

[Signature lines for each additional customer] 

Federal Aviation Administration of the 

Department of Transportation on Behalf of 

the United States Government 

By: lllllllllllllllllll

Its: lllllllllllllllllll

Issued under authority provided by 49. 

U.S.C. 106(f) and 44701(a) in Washington, 

DC, on January 2, 2015. 

Shana Dale, 

Deputy Associate Administrator, Commercial 

Space Transportation. 

[FR Doc. 2015–00252 Filed 1–12–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 1609 

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.’’ 

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

• 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
1610 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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). 

8 77 FR 72512 (December 5, 2012). 

9 78 FR 46142 (July 30, 2013). 

10 79 FR 52420 (September 3, 2014). 

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). 

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

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

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. 

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. 

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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 1611 

13This 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. 

14 79 FR 52439. 

15For 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 shortterm 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. 16CAA Section 110(l), 42 U.S.C. 7410(l). 

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. 

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. 

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). 

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. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
1612 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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

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-forprofit 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. 

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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 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 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart D—Arizona 

■ 2. Amend § 52.145 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (i); and 

■ b. Removing Appendix B to 

§ 52.145—Lime Kiln Control 

Technology Demonstration 

Requirements. 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 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 SO2

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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
1614 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 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 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[MB Docket No. 14–257; RM–11743; DA 14– 

1868] 

Radio Broadcasting Services; Wright 

City, Oklahoma 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This document requests 

comments on a Petition for Rule Making 

filed by Charles Crawford, proposing to 

amend the FM Table of Allotments, 

Section 73.202(b) of the Commission’s 

Rules, by allotting Channel 295A at 

Wright City, Oklahoma, as the 

community’s first local service. A staff 

engineering analysis indicates that 

Channel 295A can be allotted to Wright 

City consistent with the minimum 

distance separation requirements of the 

Commission’s Rules with a site 

restriction located 14 kilometers (8.6 

miles) east of the community. The 

reference coordinates are 34–04–44 NL 

and 94–51–15 WL. 

DATES: Comments must be filed on or 

before February 9, 2015, and reply 

comments on or before February 24, 

2015. 

ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal 

Communications Commission, 445 12th 

Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. In 

addition to filing comments with the 

FCC, interested parties should serve the 

petitioner as follows: Charles Crawford, 

2215 Cedar Springs Rd., #1605, Dallas, 

Texas 75201. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau, (202) 

418–2700. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 

14–257, adopted December 18, 2014, 

and released December 19, 2014. The 

full text of this Commission decision is 

available for inspection and copying 

during normal business hours in the 

FCC’s Reference Information Center at 

Portals II, CY–A257, 445 12th Street 

SW., Washington, DC 20554. This 

document may also be purchased from 

the Commission’s duplicating 

contractors, Best Copy and Printing, 

Inc., 445 12th Street SW., Room CY– 

B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS