Recent Postings to the Applicability Determination Index Database System of Agency Applicability Determinations, Alternative Monitoring Decisions, and Regulatory Interpretations Pertaining to Standards Under the Clean Air Act, 52319-52334 [2014-20895]

Download as PDF mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 2014 / Notices will use to implement the electronic reporting. Additionally, § 3.1000(b) through (e) of 40 CFR part 3, subpart D provides special procedures for program revisions and modifications to allow electronic reporting, to be used at the option of the state, tribe or local government in place of procedures available under existing programspecific authorization regulations. An application submitted under the subpart D procedures must show that the state, tribe or local government has sufficient legal authority to implement the electronic reporting components of the programs covered by the application and will use electronic document receiving systems that meet the applicable subpart D requirements. On January 14, 2010, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) submitted an application titled ‘‘AZ ADEQ SmartNOI/SDWIS Lab to State’’ for revisions/modifications of its EPA-authorized programs under title 40 CFR. EPA reviewed ADEQ’s request to revise/modify its EPA-authorized programs and, based on this review, EPA determined that the application met the standards for approval of authorized program revisions/ modifications set out in 40 CFR part 3, subpart D. In accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(d), this notice of EPA’s decision to approve Arizona’s request to revise/ modify its following EPA-authorized programs to allow electronic reporting under 40 CFR parts 122 and 141 is being published in the Federal Register: Part 123—EPA Administered Permit Programs: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System; and Part 142—National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation. ADEQ was notified of EPA’s determination to approve its application with respect to the authorized programs listed above. Also, in today’s notice, EPA is informing interested persons that they may request a public hearing on EPA’s action to approve the State of Arizona’s request to revise its authorized public water system program under 40 CFR part 142, in accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(f). Requests for a hearing must be submitted to EPA within 30 days of publication of today’s Federal Register notice. Such requests should include the following information: (1) The name, address and telephone number of the individual, organization or other entity requesting a hearing; (2) A brief statement of the requesting person’s interest in EPA’s determination, a brief explanation as to why EPA should hold a hearing, and any other information that the requesting person wants EPA to consider when determining whether to VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:40 Sep 02, 2014 Jkt 232001 grant the request; (3) The signature of the individual making the request, or, if the request is made on behalf of an organization or other entity, the signature of a responsible official of the organization or other entity. In the event a hearing is requested and granted, EPA will provide notice of the hearing in the Federal Register not less than 15 days prior to the scheduled hearing date. Frivolous or insubstantial requests for hearing may be denied by EPA. Following such a public hearing, EPA will review the record of the hearing and issue an order either affirming today’s determination or rescinding such determination. If no timely request for a hearing is received and granted, EPA’s approval of the State of Arizona’s request to revise its part 142—National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation program to allow electronic reporting will become effective 30 days after today’s notice is published, pursuant to CROMERR section 3.1000(f)(4). Dated: August 21, 2014. Matthew Leopard, Acting Director, Office of Information Collection. [FR Doc. 2014–20894 Filed 9–2–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER–FRL–9016–7] Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202) 564–7146 or https://www.epa.gov/ compliance/nepa/. Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements Filed 08/18/2014 Through 08/22/2014 Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. Notice Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA’s comment letters on EISs are available at: https:// www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/ eisdata.html. EIS No. 20140241, Draft Supplement, FHWA, CO, I–70 East, from I–25 to Tower Road, Comment Period Ends: 10/14/2014, Contact: Chris Horn 720– 963–3017. EIS No. 20140242, Draft EIS, USFS, CO, Pawnee National Grassland Oil and Gas Leasing Analysis, Comment Period Ends: 10/14/2014, Contact: Karen Roth 970–295–6621. PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 52319 EIS No. 20140243, Draft EIS, USFS, NV, Heavenly Mountain Resort Epic Discovery Project, Comment Period Ends: 10/28/2014, Contact: Matt Dickinson 530–543–2769. Dated: August 26, 2014. Cliff Rader, Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities. [FR Doc. 2014–20695 Filed 9–2–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL–9916–20–OECA] Recent Postings to the Applicability Determination Index Database System of Agency Applicability Determinations, Alternative Monitoring Decisions, and Regulatory Interpretations Pertaining to Standards Under the Clean Air Act Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notice of availability. AGENCY: This notice announces applicability determinations, alternative monitoring decisions, and regulatory interpretations that EPA has made under the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP); and/or the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Program. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: An electronic copy of each complete document posted on the Applicability Determination Index (ADI) database system is available on the Internet through the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) Web site at: https://www.epa.gov/compliance/ monitoring/programs/caa/adi.html. The letters and memoranda on the ADI may be located by control number, date, author, subpart, or subject search. For questions about the ADI or this notice, contact Maria Malave at EPA by phone at: (202) 564–7027, or by email at: malave.maria@epa.gov. For technical questions about individual applicability determinations or monitoring decisions, refer to the contact person identified in the individual documents, or in the absence of a contact person, refer to the author of the document. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SUMMARY: Background The General Provisions of the NSPS in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 60 and the General Provisions of the NESHAP in 40 CFR part 61 provide E:\FR\FM\03SEN1.SGM 03SEN1 52320 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 2014 / Notices that a source owner or operator may request a determination of whether certain intended actions constitute the commencement of construction, reconstruction, or modification. EPA’s written responses to these inquiries are commonly referred to as applicability determinations. See 40 CFR 60.5 and 61.06. Although the NESHAP part 63 regulations [which include Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards] and section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) contain no specific regulatory provision providing that sources may request applicability determinations, EPA also responds to written inquiries regarding applicability for the part 63 and section 111(d) programs. The NSPS and NESHAP also allow sources to seek permission to use monitoring or recordkeeping that is different from the promulgated requirements. See 40 CFR 60.13(i), 61.14(g), 63.8(b)(1), 63.8(f), and 63.10(f). EPA’s written responses to these inquiries are commonly referred to as alternative monitoring decisions. Furthermore, EPA responds to written inquiries about the broad range of NSPS and NESHAP regulatory requirements as they pertain to a whole source category. These inquiries may pertain, for example, to the type of sources to which the regulation applies, or to the testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting requirements contained in the regulation. EPA’s written responses to these inquiries are commonly referred to as regulatory interpretations. EPA currently compiles EPA-issued NSPS and NESHAP applicability determinations, alternative monitoring decisions, and regulatory interpretations, and posts them to the Applicability Determination Index (ADI). In addition, the ADI contains EPA-issued responses to requests pursuant to the stratospheric ozone regulations, contained in 40 CFR part 82. The ADI is an electronic index on the Internet with over three thousand EPA letters and memoranda pertaining to the applicability, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the NSPS, NESHAP, and stratospheric ozone regulations. Users can search for letters and memoranda by date, office of issuance, subpart, citation, control number, or by string word searches. Today’s notice comprises a summary of 64 such documents added to the ADI on August 6, 2014. This notice lists the subject and header of each letter and memorandum, as well as a brief abstract of the letter or memorandum. Complete copies of these documents may be obtained from the ADI through the OECA Web site at: www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/ programs/caa/adi.html. Summary of Headers and Abstracts The following table identifies the database control number for each document posted on the ADI database system on August 6, 2014; the applicable category; the section(s) and/ or subpart(s) of 40 CFR parts 60, 61, or 63 (as applicable) addressed in the document; and the title of the document, which provides a brief description of the subject matter. We have also included an abstract of each document identified with its control number after the table. These abstracts are provided solely to alert the public to possible items of interest and are not intended as substitutes for the full text of the documents. This notice does not change the status of any document with respect to whether it is ‘‘of nationwide scope or effect’’ for purposes of CAA section 307(b)(1). For example, this notice does not convert an applicability determination for a particular source into a nationwide rule. Neither does it purport to make a previously non-binding document binding. ADI DETERMINATIONS UPLOADED ON AUGUST 6, 2014 Categories Subparts Title 1200009 ........... NSPS ...................................... OOO, UUU ............................. 1200024 ........... NSPS ...................................... J .............................................. 1200033 ........... NSPS ...................................... JJJJ, KKK ............................... 1200043 ........... NSPS ...................................... J .............................................. 1200047 ........... NSPS ...................................... EEEE, FFFF ........................... 1200048 ........... NSPS ...................................... J .............................................. 1200049 ........... NSPS ...................................... D ............................................. 1200052 ........... NSPS ...................................... VVa ......................................... 1200053 ........... NSPS ...................................... J .............................................. 1200056 ........... NSPS ...................................... J .............................................. 1200058 ........... mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Control No. NSPS ...................................... J .............................................. 1200059 ........... NSPS ...................................... J .............................................. 1200064 ........... NSPS ...................................... J .............................................. 1200074 ........... NSPS ...................................... J .............................................. Request for Force Majeure Delay for an Initial Performance Test for a Crusher and Calciner Facility. Request for Exemption in Lieu of AMP for Combusting an Inherently Low Sulfur Gas Vent Stream from a Continuous Catalytic Reformer at a Refinery. Request for Clarification of Applicability to Fuel Gas Treatment Unit at Compressor Station. Request for Alternate Monitoring Plan for Monitoring H2S AMP in Lieu of CEMS at a Refinery. Request for Exemption of Contraband Incinerator Based on the Owner and Operator Definition. Request for Exemption in Lieu of AMP for Combusting an Inherently Low Sulfur Gas Vent Stream at a Refinery. Boiler Derate not Approved for Changes only on Fuel Feed System. Request for Clarification of Initial Monitoring Requirement for Pumps and Valves for New Process Units. Request for Alternate Monitoring Plan for Vented Gas Stream with an Inherently Low and Stable Amount of H2S. Request for Exemption in Lieu of AMP for Combusting an Inherently Low Sulfur Gas Vent Stream from a Cyclic Reformer Caustic Scrubber at a Refinery. Request for Exemption in Lieu of AMP for Combusting an Inherently Low Sulfur Gas Vent Stream at a Refinery. Exemption in Lieu of AMP-Merox Disulfide Separator Vent Stream—NSPS Subpart J—Chalmette Refining— Chalmette, Louisiana Refinery. Request for Exemption in Lieu of AMP for Combusting an Inherently Low Sulfur Gas Vent Stream from a Continuous Catalytic Reformer at a Refinery. Request for Exemption in Lieu of AMP for Combusting an Inherently Low Sulfur Gas Vent Stream at a Refinery. VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:40 Sep 02, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03SEN1.SGM 03SEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 2014 / Notices 52321 ADI DETERMINATIONS UPLOADED ON AUGUST 6, 2014—Continued Categories Subparts Title 1200080 ........... NSPS ...................................... J .............................................. 1200086 ........... NSPS ...................................... OOO ....................................... 1200088 ........... NSPS ...................................... WWW ..................................... 1200093 ........... NSPS ...................................... LL ............................................ 1200094 ........... NSPS ...................................... WWW ..................................... 1400001 ........... NSPS ...................................... WWW ..................................... 1400002 ........... NSPS ...................................... KKKK, ZZZZ ........................... 1400004 ........... NSPS ...................................... Ce, WWW ............................... 1400006 ........... NSPS ...................................... J, Ja ........................................ 1400007 ........... MACT, NSPS ......................... J, UUU .................................... 1400008 ........... NSPS ...................................... WWW ..................................... 1400009 ........... NSPS ...................................... WWW ..................................... 1400010 ........... 1400011 ........... NSPS ...................................... NSPS ...................................... Db ........................................... J .............................................. 1400012 ........... NSPS ...................................... J, Ja ........................................ 1400013 ........... NSPS ...................................... WWW ..................................... 1400014 ........... MACT, NSPS ......................... EEEEE, UUU .......................... 1400015 ........... MACT, NSPS ......................... EEEEE, UUU .......................... 1400017 ........... NSPS ...................................... EEEE ...................................... 1400018 ........... MACT, NSPS ......................... 1400020 ........... NSPS ...................................... EEEE, HHHHH, JJJJ, KK, RR, SSSS, TT. WWW ..................................... A140001 ........... Asbestos ................................. M ............................................. A140002 ........... Asbestos ................................. M ............................................. M110009 .......... MACT ..................................... XXXXXX ................................. M110010 .......... MACT ..................................... ZZZZ ....................................... M110011 .......... MACT, NESHAP .................... TTTTTT .................................. M110012 .......... MACT ..................................... JJJJJ ....................................... M110013 .......... mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Control No. MACT ..................................... WWWWWW ........................... M110014 .......... MACT ..................................... WWWW .................................. M110016 .......... MACT, NESHAP .................... JJJJJJ ..................................... M110017 .......... MACT ..................................... EEE ........................................ M110018 .......... MACT ..................................... CCCCCCC, VVVVVV ............. Request for Alternate Monitoring Plan for Sour Water Tanks at a Refinery. Initial Performance Testing Waiver for an NSPS Facility that Operates Very Infrequently. Request for Approval to Continue Operating Wells at a Closed Landfill Despite Instances of Positive Pressure. Request for Applicability Determination for Dust Collector Emissions at Conveyor Belt Transfer Points in a Metallic Mineral Processing Facility. Alternative Monitoring Plan for Higher Operating Temperatures for Five Gas Wells. Request for Use of Alternative Span Value for Nitrogen Oxide CEMs at Landfill. Request to Determine if Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (RICE) Meet Institutional Emergency Definition. Request for Applicability Determination on Landfill Thresholds. Request for Alternative Monitoring Plan for Monitoring Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) in Tank Degassing Vapors Combusted in Portable Thermal Oxidizers at Petroleum Refineries. Alternative Monitoring Plan for Opacity for a Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit Regenerator. Request for Alternative Compliance Remedy/Schedule to Correct Surface Emissions Exceedances at Landfill. Request for Alternative Monitoring using a Higher Operating Value for Oxygen for a Landfill Gas Collector. Alternative Span Value for Nitrogen Oxide CEMs. Request for Exemption in Lieu of Alternative Monitoring Plan for Fuel Gas Streams Routed From Caustic Regeneration Unit to Furnaces. Alternative Monitoring Plan for Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) in Tank Degassing Vapors Combusted in Portable Thermal Oxidizers at Petroleum Refineries. Request for Alternative Compliance Timeline for Landfill Gas Extraction Well. Alternative Monitoring Request for a New Sand Cooler at an Iron Foundry. Alternative Monitoring Request for a New Sand Cooler at an Iron Foundry. Request for Alternative Monitoring Plan for a Continuous Emission Monitoring System for a Commercially Operated Contraband Incinerator. Request for Several MACT/NSPS Applicability Determinations for Different Process at a Print Station Facility. Request for Alternative Remedy and Compliance Timeline for a Landfill Gas Extraction Well. Applicability of Test Methods to Asbestos-Containing Bulk Samples. Request for Determination on whether maintenance of High Voltage Electric Transmission Towers is Renovation or Demolition. Request for Clarification of Applicability of Metals Processing Operations at an Orthopedic Components Manufacturer. Request for Exemption as Emergency Engines for Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines. Request for Clarification of Applicability of Rule to a Precious Metals Melting Operation. Request for Clarification of Wood-Fired Boiler Source Categorization. Alternative Monitoring Plan for Batch Electrolytic Process Tanks at a Media Replication Facility. Clarification on Monthly Compliance Demonstration for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Open Moulding Operations. Request for Clarification of Applicability to Electric Boilers when Burning Fuel Oil as a Backup Fuel. Request to Revise Alternative Monitoring Plan for Deactivation Furnace System of a Hazardous Waste Combustor. Request for Alternative Compliance Methods for Hazardous Air Pollutants for an Area Source. VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:40 Sep 02, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03SEN1.SGM 03SEN1 52322 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 2014 / Notices ADI DETERMINATIONS UPLOADED ON AUGUST 6, 2014—Continued Control No. Categories Subparts Title M120009 .......... MACT ..................................... LLL .......................................... M120013 .......... MACT ..................................... MMM, NNNNN ....................... M120026 .......... MACT ..................................... JJJJ ........................................ M120034 .......... MACT, NSPS ......................... IIII, JJJJ, ZZZZ ....................... M120035 .......... MACT ..................................... MMMM, XXXXXX ................... M130003 .......... MACT ..................................... ZZZZ ....................................... M140001 .......... MACT ..................................... EEE ........................................ M140002 .......... MACT, NESHAP, NSPS ........ EEEE, JJJJJJ ......................... M140003 .......... MACT, NESHAP .................... M140004 .......... MACT ..................................... DDDDD, JJJJJJ, PPPPP, T, ZZZZ. UUU ........................................ M140005 .......... MACT ..................................... UUU ........................................ M140007 .......... NESHAP, NSPS ..................... DDDDD, A, Db ....................... Z120003 ........... NESHAP ................................. FF ........................................... Z130002 ........... NESHAP ................................. JJJJJJ ..................................... Z130003 ........... NESHAP ................................. N ............................................. Z140001 ........... MACT, NESHAP, NSPS ........ BBBBBB, Kb, R, WW ............. Z140002 ........... MACT, NESHAP .................... EEEE, GGGG ......................... Z140003 ........... NESHAP, NSPS ..................... IIII ............................................ Request for Approval of Alternate Test Method for Demonstrating Compliance with Particulate Emissions Standards for a Portland Cement Facility. Request to Waive pH Monitoring Requirement for Control of Emissions from Tank Truck Loading and Storage Tanks. Use of Alternative Comparative Monitoring in lieu of Calibration Verification Requirements. Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engine Overhaul does not trigger Reconstruction and Modification because of Costs and Unaltered Emissions. Clarification on Applicability of Area Source Requirements for a Metal Fabrication and Finishing Source Facility. Request to Waive an Initial Performance Test for Identical RICEs at a HAP Area Source. Request Alternative Operating Parameter Limit for Liquid Waste Firing System. Energy Recovery and Syngas Exemption Request for a Gasification Unit. Exemption of Halogenated Solvent Cleaning, Stationary RICE, and Institutional Boilers for Vehicle Facility. Alternative Monitoring Method for Sulfur Dioxide Emissions During Emission Control Device Malfunctions or Down Time. Alternative Monitoring Plan for Calculation of Flue Gas Flow Rate in Lieu of Direct Measurement. Force Majeure Determination for a new biomass-fired cogeneration boiler. Request for Clarification on Applicability to Sour Water Streams Managed Upstream of a Refinery Sour Water Stripper. Request for Clarification of Steam Boiler Exemption for Mixed Residential and Commercial Use. Request for Approval of the Use of Closed/Covered Electroplating and Anodizing Tanks in order to Satisfy Physical Barrier Requirements. Alternative Monitoring Request for Use of Top-side in-service Inspection Methodology for Internal Floating Roof Storage Tanks. Regulatory Interpretation of Solvent Transfer Racks and Equipment for Vegetable Oil Production Plant. Petition for Additional Testing Hours for an Emergency Generator. Abstracts mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Abstract for [1200009] Q1: Does EPA consider, as force majeure, certain weather conditions that prevented initial stack tests from being conducted before the compliance deadline under 40 CFR part 60, subparts OOO and UUU, at a Cadre Material Products (Cadre) in Voca, Texas? A1: Yes. EPA finds that certain events, such as an ice storm, may be considered, dependent upon the circumstances specific to each event, as force majeure under 40 CFR part 60 subpart A. The ice storm, and the resultant amount of time necessary to complete repairs to equipment damaged solely as a result of the weather event, is beyond the control of the company. EPA will grant a one-week extension. Q2: Does EPA consider, as force majeure, certain contract disputes between the company and its contractor VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:40 Sep 02, 2014 Jkt 232001 over production testing and plant operation at the same facility. A2: No. EPA does not consider that this qualifies as a force majeure event since it was not beyond the control of the company. EPA will not grant an extension. Abstract for [1200024] Q: Does EPA approve an exemption in lieu of an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for combusting the off gas vent stream from a continuous catalytic reformer (PtR–3) as an inherently lowsulfur stream under 40 CFR part 60 subpart J, at the ExxonMobil Beaumont Refinery located in Beaumont, Texas? A: Yes. EPA determined that a monitoring exemption is appropriate for the vent stream combusted in the continuous catalytic reformer (PtR–3), and therefore, the AMP request is no longer needed, based on the process operating and monitoring data PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 submitted by the company and in light of changes made to Subpart J on June 24, 2008 (73 FR 35866). EPA agreed that the vent stream combusted in the fuel gas combustion device (FGCD) is inherently low in sulfur, and thus, meets the exemption criteria in 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(C). EPA agreed that the FGCD is exempt from monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 60.l05(a)(3) and (4). If the sulfur content or process operating parameters for the vent stream change from representations made for the exemption determination, the company must document the changes, re-evaluate the vent stream characteristics, and follow the appropriate steps outlined in 60.105(b)(3)(i) through (iii). The exemption determination should also be referenced and attached to the facility’s new source review and Title V permit for federal enforceability. E:\FR\FM\03SEN1.SGM 03SEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 2014 / Notices Abstract for [1200033] Q: The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (OK DEQ) has requested a determination on whether a fuel gas treatment unit at the Atlas Pipeline Mid-Continent Herron Compressor Station in Oklahoma is subject to NSPS Subpart KKK if it extracts heavy hydrocarbons from field gas prior to its use as a fuel for engines subject to 40 CFR part 60 subpart JJJJ, but does not sell the field gas? A: Based on the information provided by OK DEQ, EPA has determined that a facility does not have to sell liquids to be considered a natural gas processing plant under 40 CFR part 60 subpart KKK, and there is no specific operating temperature criteria for a facility to be considered as engaged in the extraction of natural gas liquids. The only temperature criteria mentioned in 40 CFR part 60 subpart KKK is in the definition of equipment in light liquid service. Abstract for [1200043] Q: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for monitoring hydrogen sulfide (H2S) in lieu of installing a continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) for a refinery truck loading rack off-gas vent stream combusted at a thermal oxidizer under 40 CFR part 60 subpart J at the Valero Refining Corpus Christi, Texas West refinery? A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves Valero AMP, based on the description of the process vent stream, the design of the vent gas controls, and the H2S monitoring data furnished. Valero AMP approval is conditioned on following the seven step process detailed in EPA’s guidance for Alternative Monitoring Plans for 40 CFR part 60 subpart J relative to monitoring the facility’s proposed operating parameter limits (OPLs). mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Abstract for [1200047] Q: Does Kippur Corporation’s El Paso, Texas Other Solid Waste Incinerator (OSWI), which is used to combust contraband, qualify for the exclusion from 40 CFR part 60 subpart EEEE or subpart FFFF under 40 CFR 60.2993(p), if the unit is owned and operated by a non-government (commercial) entity, but where a government agency representative maintains a supervisory and oversight role of handling of the contraband feed while the owner/ operator’s employees start and operate the incinerator? A: No. EPA further clarified the exclusion of 40 CFR 60.2993(p) in the preamble to the OSWI final rule, VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:40 Sep 02, 2014 Jkt 232001 published on December 16, 2005, to state that the exclusion applies only to goods confiscated by a government agency. In addition, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has defined the term supervisor in the context of the definition of owner or operator provided in the Clean Air Act. The court held that substantial control is the governing criterion when determining if one is a supervisor. The Court elaborated that significant and substantial control means having the ability to direct the manner in which work is performed and the authority to correct problems. Based on review of the information provided, EPA did not consider USCBP to be an operator of the incinerator. The training requirements of 40 CFR 60.3014 for OSWI unit operators also demonstrate that EPA intended the operator of an OSWI incinerator be physically in control of the system or the direct supervisor of someone who is physically operating the incinerator. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (USCBP) is only in control of feeding the contraband to the incinerator, presumably for custody control, but not for any operative purpose. Since USCBP is not in control of the incinerator itself, the Kippur OSWI unit is not exempt and must comply with either 40 CFR part 60 subpart EEEE or subpart FFFF. Abstract for [1200048] Q: Does EPA approve an exemption in lieu of an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for combusting a vent stream from a hydrogen plant’s steam methane reformer (SMR) degassifier knockout drum as an inherently low-content sulfur stream under 40 CFR part 60 subpart J, at the Valero Corpus Christi East Plant (Valero) in Corpus Christi, Texas? A: Yes. EPA determined that a monitoring exemption is appropriate for the vent stream, and EPA voided the AMP request based on the process and monitoring data provided, and in light of changes made to subpart J on June 24, 2008 (73 FR 35866). EPA agreed that the flare is exempt from monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 60.105(a)(3) and (4). The vent stream combusted in the flare is inherently low in sulfur because it is produced in a process unit intolerant to sulfur contamination, and thus, meets the exemption in 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(C). If refinery operations change from representations made for this exemption determination, then Valero must document the change(s) and follow the appropriate steps outlined in 40 CFR 60.105(b)(3)(i) through (iii). PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 52323 Abstract for [1200049] Q: Does EPA approve the request from Domtar Paper Company (Domtar), LLC, in Plymouth, North Carolina to derate the capacity of a boiler (HFBI) to less than 250 mmBtu/hr in order that it will no longer be subject to 40 CFR part 60 subpart D? A: No. EPA has determined that Domtar’s proposed derate for coal firing procedure is not acceptable, as it does not meet EPA’s criteria for derate of boilers based on the description in Domtar’s request, as indicated to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. The proposed derate procedure is based only on changes to the fuel feed system and does not reduce the capacity of the boiler. Domtar indicates that they must maintain the ability to use hog fuel at a heat input greater than 250 million Btu/ hr for HFB1 and cannot make changes to the induced draft fan to reduce the boiler capacity. Abstract for [1200052] Q1: The Alabama Department of Environmental Management (AL DEM) requests clarification of the initial monitoring requirements for pumps and valves for new process units subject to 40 CFR part 60 subpart VVa. Under 40 CFR part 60 subpart VVa, is a new facility required to initially monitor pumps and valves within 30 days of startup of a new process unit or within 180 days of startup of the process unit? A1: The NSPS Subpart VVa requires initial monitoring of pumps and valves for a new process unit to be conducted within 30 days after the startup of a new process unit. Section 60.482–2a(a)(1) requires monthly monitoring to detect leaks from pumps in light liquid service. Section 60.482–7a(a) requires monthly monitoring to detect leaks from valves in gas/vapor service and in light liquid service. Further, § 60.482–1a(a) requires an initial compliance demonstration within 180 days of initial startup of the valve or pump, and does not provide a grace period during which a facility is exempt from the work practice standards of Subpart VVa and the requirement to conduct monthly monitoring of pumps and valves. Q2: Under 40 CFR part 60 subpart VVa, what is the initiation of monthly monitoring for pumps and valves which do not begin service at the initial startup of a process unit but are placed in service over time? A2: For both pumps and valves, 40 CFR part subpart VVa requires that monthly monitoring of the pump or valve is to begin within 30 days after the end of its startup period to ensure E:\FR\FM\03SEN1.SGM 03SEN1 52324 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 2014 / Notices proper installation. This requirement is addressed in 40 CFR 60.482–2a(a)(1) for pumps in light liquid service and in 40 CFR 60.482–7a(a)(2) for valves in gas/ vapor service or light liquid service. Abstract for [1200053] Q: Does EPA approve an Alternate Monitoring Plan for an inherently lowsulfur gas stream from the Caustic Vent Degasser vented to a flare at the Marathon Petroleum Company LLC (MPC) in Robinson, Illinois? A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves MPC’s Alternate Monitoring Plan for the Caustic Tank Degasser vent to flare based on the process description and the data showing the low and stable H2S content of the stream. MPC will continue to monitor the NaOH (caustic strength) in the spent caustic wash streams in lieu of continuously monitoring this combined stream, and the proposed sampling schedule will be implemented quarterly until December 2013, and thereafter EPA requires sampling frequency on a biannual basis. The biannual sampling will be performed with a minimum of three months between the collections of the samples. If at any time the sample results from a single detector tube are equal to or greater than 81 ppm H2S, MPC must follow the procedures and notification requirements established in the EPA response letter. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Abstract for [1200056] Q: Does EPA approve an exemption in lieu of an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for combusting a vent stream from a cyclic reformer caustic scrubber in a process furnace as an inherently low-sulfur stream under 40 CFR part 60 subpart J, at the British Petroleum’s Texas City, Texas refinery? A: Yes. EPA determined the cyclic reformer caustic scrubber vent stream, and therefore the AMP request is no longer needed, based on the process operating parameters and monitoring data submitted by the company and in light of changes made to Subpart J on June 24, 2008 (73 FR 35866). EPA agreed that the process furnace is exempt from monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 60.105(a)(3) and (4). The vent stream combusted in the furnace is inherently low in sulfur because it is produced in a process unit intolerant to sulfur contamination, and thus, meets the exemption criteria in 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(C). If it is determined that the stream is no longer exempt, continuous monitoring must begin within 15 days of the change, in accordance with 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv). VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:40 Sep 02, 2014 Jkt 232001 Abstract for [1200058] Q: Does EPA approve an exemption in lieu of an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for combusting vent streams from two continuous catalytic reformer unit lock hoppers in a flare as an inherently low-sulfur stream under 40 CFR part 60 subpart J, at the Chalmette Refining, Chalmette), Louisiana refinery? A: Yes. EPA determined that a monitoring exemption is appropriate for the continuous catalytic reformer unit lock hopper vent streams, and EPA voided the AMP request based on the process operating parameters and monitoring data submitted by Chalmette and in light of changes made to subpart J on June 24, 2008 (73 FR 35866). EPA agreed that the flare is exempt from monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 60.105(a)(3) and (4). The vent streams combusted in the flare are inherently low in sulfur because they are produced in a process unit intolerant to sulfur contamination, and thus, meet the exemption criteria in 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(C). If Chalmette determines that the streams no longer meet the exempt criteria as a result of refinery operations change(s), then Chalmette must document the change(s) and must begin continuous monitoring within 15 days of the change, in accordance with 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv). Abstract for [1200059] Q: Does EPA approve an exemption in lieu of an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for combusting a vent stream from an alkylation unit Merox disulfide separator in a reboiler heater as an inherently low-sulfur stream under 40 CFR part 60 subpart J, at the Chalmette Refining, Chalmette, Louisiana refinery? A: Yes. EPA determined that a monitoring exemption is appropriate for the alkylation unit Merox separator vent stream, and therefore the AMP request is no longer needed, based on the process operating parameters and monitoring data submitted by Chalmette and in light of changes made to subpart J on June 24, 2008 (73 FR 35866). EPA agreed that the reboiler heater is exempt from monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 60.l05(a)(3) and (4). The vent stream combusted in the heater is inherently low in sulfur because it is produced in a process unit intolerant to sulfur contamination, and thus, meets the exemption criteria in 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(C). EPA also clarified that, if refinery operations change such that the sulfur content for the vent stream changes such that it no longer meets the exemption criteria, continuous monitoring must begin PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 within 15 days of the change, in accordance with 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv). Abstract for [1200064] Q: Does EPA approve an exemption in lieu of an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for combusting the vent stream from a continuous catalytic reformer unit lock hopper in two reformer heaters as an inherently low-sulfur stream under 40 CFR part 60 subpart J, at the ExxonMobil’s Beaumont, Texas refinery? A: Yes. EPA determined that a monitoring exemption is appropriate for the continuous catalytic reformer unit lock hopper vent stream, and EPA voided the AMP request based on the process operating parameters and monitoring data submitted by ExxonMobil and in light of changes made to subpart J on June 24, 2008 (73 FR 35866). Based on review of the information provided, EPA agreed that the reformer heaters are exempt from monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 60.105(a)(3) and (4). The vent stream combusted in the heaters is inherently low in sulfur because it is produced in a process unit intolerant to sulfur contamination, and thus, meets the exemption in 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(C). If it is determined that the stream is no longer exempt, continuous monitoring must begin within 15 days of the change, in accordance with 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv). Abstract for [1200074] Q: Does EPA approve an exemption in lieu of an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for combusting the off gas vent stream from a hydrogen plant pressure swing adsorption (PSA) unit in a flare as an inherently low-sulfur stream under 40 CFR part 60 subpart J, at the Valero Refining East Refinery in Corpus Christi, Texas? A: Yes. EPA determined that a monitoring exemption is appropriate for the hydrogen plant PSA vent stream, and EPA voided the AMP request based on the process operating parameters and monitoring data submitted by Valero and in light of changes made to subpart J on June 24, 2008 (73 FR 35866). Based on review of the information provided, EPA agreed that the flare is exempt from the monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 60.105(a)(3) and (4). The vent stream combusted in the flare is inherently low in sulfur because it is produced in a process unit intolerant to sulfur contamination, and thus, meets the exemption in 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(C). If it is determined that the vent stream is no longer exempt, continuous monitoring must begin within 15 days E:\FR\FM\03SEN1.SGM 03SEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 2014 / Notices of the change, in accordance with 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv). Abstract for [1200080] Q: Does EPA approve the Alternative Monitoring Plans (AMPs) for monitoring hydrogen sulfide (H2S) in lieu of installing a continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) for three sour water tank off-gas vent streams, subject to 40 CFR part 60 subpart J, that are combusted in two sulfur recovery unit tail gas incinerators at the Valero Refining facility in Houston, Texas? A: No. EPA does not approve Valero’s proposed AMPs for the off-gas vent streams from the three sour water tank off-gas vent streams because the necessary fuel gas system and stream sampling data was not provided to demonstrate that the fuel gas streams are sufficiently low in sulfur content or to establish appropriate alternative monitoring methods, parameters, and frequencies to ensure inherently low and stable H2S content of the off-gas vent streams to be combusted at the incinerators. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Abstract for [1200086] Q: Does EPA approve a waiver of the initial performance test under the NSPS for Non-metallic Mineral Processing Plants for the Emission Unit PO 14 at the Carmeuse Industrial Sands, Millwood Operation in Howard, Ohio? The Emission Unit PO 14 is operated infrequently and for short durations, and the plant lacks testing facilities. A: Yes. EPA approves this waiver request because the facility is operated for small amounts of time per day, which is not sufficient to implement a Method 5 or 17 performance test meeting the requirements in this standard. However, EPA does not consider a lack of testing facilities as a valid reason to waive a test and points out that construction of a source subject to testing requirements in a manner that prevents it from being tested might be considered circumvention under the General Provisions. In addition, EPA approves all determinations on a caseby-case basis and is not necessarily bound by previous determinations. Abstract for [1200088] Q1: Does EPA approve the continued operation of several gas wells at the closed Willowcreek Landfill in Atwater, Ohio without expansion of the gas collection system, despite instances of positive pressure and oxygen exceedance under the NSPS for Landfills? A1: Yes. EPA approves the continued operation of the Willowcreek wells without expansion of the collection VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:40 Sep 02, 2014 Jkt 232001 system because they are showing signs of declining gas quality and expansion of the system is expected to be of little to no value. Q2: Does EPA approve the continued operation of other wells that in the future may experience the same conditions at the Willowcreek Landfill? A2: EPA does not provide a blanket approval for all future wells experiencing the same conditions. Expansion of this alternative monitoring approval will require subsequent requests. Abstract for [1200093] Q: Are the emissions from AIRS ID 060 and 079 from dust collectors at the top of enclosed conveyor belt transfer points ‘‘process fugitive emissions’’ subject to the standard outlined in 40 CFR 60.382(b) or ‘‘stack emissions’’ subject to the standards in 40 CFR 60.382(a) of NSPS Subpart LL, which are located at the Climax Molybdenum facility in Leadville, CO? A. The EPA determines that the fugitive emissions from the dust collectors utilized by AIRS ID 060 and 079 are ‘‘stack emissions,’’ as these are being released through a ‘‘stack, chimney, or flue’’ and will be ‘‘released to the atmosphere.’’ In addition, the process fugitive emission standard applies to ‘‘emissions from an affected facility that are not collected by a capture system.’’ Therefore, the emissions from the dust collectors are not ‘‘process fugitive emissions’’ since these emissions are being captured and controlled and are not emissions that have escaped control. Abstract for [1200094] Q: Does EPA approve Elk River Landfill, Incorporated’s alternative monitoring request under 40 CFR 60.753(c) of the Landfill NSPS, Subpart WWW, for a variance of the operating temperature for five gas wells at Elk River Landfill in Elk River, Minnesota? A: Yes. EPA approves Elk’s request for an alternative operating temperature for the five gas wells. Based on the supporting information, the higher operating gas temperatures do not significantly inhibit anaerobic decomposition by killing methanogens and do not cause subsurface landfill fire at the site. Therefore, EPA approves Elk River Landfill’s request for an operating temperature of 155 °F for gas well numbers EREW35R2, EREW0042, EREW045R, EREW0066, and ERHC0010. Abstract for [1400001] Q: Does EPA approve a request from Advanced Disposal Service (ADS) to use an alternate span value of 50 parts per PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 52325 million by Volume (ppmV) in lieu of 500 ppmV required by 40 CFR 60.48b(e)(2) for the nitrogen oxide continuous emission monitors (CEMs) on each of two process heaters at the Rolling Hills Landfill (RHLF) in Buffalo, Minnesota? A: Yes. EPA approves the use of the alternate span value for the two process heaters’ CEMs. EPA concludes that the span will be more appropriate for the typical range of emission concentrations and that the span will yield more accurate measurement(s) during normal operating conditions. Abstract for [1400002] Q. Do the Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (RICE) powering floodwater pumps and associated generators at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), W.G. Huxtable Pumping Plant, Lee County, Arkansas, meet the definition of an institutional emergency RICE under 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ? A. Yes. EPA determines that the RICE SN–01 through SN–13 pumps and associate generators meet the definition of institutional emergency at 40 CFR 63.6675 because these are located at an area source facility for HAPs and are only used when significant flooding occurs. Specifically, pumping does not begin until the water level on the downstream (Mississippi River) side of the facility is higher than the water on the upstream side, a condition that would only happen in the case of significant flooding. Also, these engines are located at a facility with a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code of 924110. This NAICS code is on the list of codes that identifies the types of facilities that would be considered residential, commercial, or institutional, provided as guidance by the EPA after the RICE NESHAP was published. Therefore, the engines are existing institutional emergency stationary RICE located at an area source of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions, not subject to the RICE NESHAP per the exemption in 40 CFR 63.6585(f)(3). Abstract for [1400004] Q1: Does EPA concur that design capacity for municipal solid waste (MSW) of the Advanced Disposal Service (ADS) Rolling Hills Landfill (RHLF) in Buffalo, Minnesota, is less than 2.5 million megagrams (2.7 million tons) and 2.5 million cubic meters (3.3 million cubic yards) for purposes of NSPS Subpart WWW rule? A1: No. EPA concludes that the design capacity of the ADS RHLF is greater than 2.5 million megagrams and E:\FR\FM\03SEN1.SGM 03SEN1 52326 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 2014 / Notices 2.5 million cubic meters based on the definition of ‘‘MSW landfill’’ and of ‘‘design capacity’’ in Subpart WWW. EPA concludes that the RHLF’s MSW landfill consists of the entire disposal facility in a contiguous geographical space. EPA calculated the RHLF’s design capacity as the sum of the design capacity for each waste disposal area in the most recent permit, which lists the authorized waste disposal activities. Q2: Are the Landfill NSPS applicability thresholds based not only on physical volumes or masses but also upon the state regulatory environment, recycling mandates, and intercounty solid waste planning directives? A2: EPA determines that the state restrictions and limitations on the types of waste that the RHLF has been allowed to accept cannot reduce the design capacity below the Landfill NSPS applicability thresholds. The NSPS does not distinguish nonmethane organic compounds (NMOC) emissions generated from MSW and those generated from non-MSW. Consequently, even though restrictions on the types of waste that the RHLF has been allowed to accept may be federally enforceable under the federal SWDA, EPA concludes that ADS may not exclude the volume and mass of nonMSW from the calculation of the RHLF’s design capacity. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Abstract for [1400006] Q: Can EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for Envent Corporation to conduct monitoring of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) emissions, in lieu of installing a continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS), when performing tank degassing and other similar operations controlled by portable, temporary thermal oxidizers, at refineries in Region 6 States that are subject to NSPS subparts J or Ja? A: Yes. EPA conditionally approved the AMP based on the description of the process, the vent gas streams, the design of the vent gas controls, and the H2S monitoring data furnished. EPA included proposed operating parameter limits (OPLs) and data which the refineries must furnish as part of the conditional approval. The approved AMP applies only to similar degassing operations conducted by ENVENT at refineries in EPA Region 6. Abstract for [1400007] Q. Does EPA approve the Holly Frontier Corporation, Holly Refining & Marketing Company—Woods Cross’s (Holly’s) alternative monitoring plan (AMP) for monitoring opacity from the fluid catalytic cracking unit (FCCU) regenerator since moisture in the wet VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:40 Sep 02, 2014 Jkt 232001 gas scrubbers to the FCCU causes interference with opacity monitors, making the results unreliable? A. Yes. EPA conditionally approves Holly’s AMP request to monitor alternative operating parameters in its wet gas scrubber since these ensure optimum collection efficiency for particulates. The Holly AMP approval is conditional on maintaining liquid flow to the nozzles in the absorber tower vessel and the filtering modules, and ensuring a minimum pressure drop across the filtering modules. Abstract for [1400008] Q: Does EPA approve the alternate compliance remedies to correct the surface scan emissions exceedances that occurred during the surface emissions monitoring (SEM) event at five designated locations at the Settle’s Hill Recycling and Disposal Facility (Settle’s Hill) and Midway Landfill in Batavia, Illinois? A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves this request for alternative compliance remedies that involve installing dewatering pumps in several gas extraction wells in the vicinity of the exceedances, further enhancement of the landfill gas collection and control system (GCCS), further enhancement of the landfill cap with the placement of additional soil cover and corresponding schedule for locations designated as EX–1, –2, –3, –5, and –6 at the Midway Landfill and Settler’s Hill. The condition for approval requires that the remedies eliminate methane exceedances at the locations listed above. If such is not the case in subsequent SEM, beginning December 6, 2012, more aggressive measures will be required to reduce surface emissions at both the Midway Landfill and Settler’s Hill to ensure compliance. Abstract for [1400009] Q: Does EPA approve a higher operating value for oxygen concentration under NSPS Subpart WWW for a well collector at the Roxana Landfill, Incorporated facility located in Roxana, Illinois? A: No. EPA does not approve Roxana’s request because the criteria for approval of a higher operating value for oxygen concentration at Roxana’s Collector Well 0TD1 under the provisions in 40 CFR 60.753(c) of NSPS Subpart WWW has not been met. In order to approve a higher oxygen operating value, 40 CFR 60.753(c) requires, ‘‘data that shows the elevated parameter does not cause fires or significantly inhibit anaerobic decomposition by killing methanogens.’’ PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Abstract for [1400010] Q: Does EPA approve Flint Hills Resources’ request to set the span value for the nitrogen oxide continuous emission monitors on each of two process heaters 25H1 and 25H3 at 50 parts per million by Volume (ppmV) rather than 500 ppmV as required by 40 CFR 60.48b(e)(2)? A: Yes. EPA concludes that the span will be more appropriate for the typical range of emission concentrations and that the span will yield more accurate measurements during normal operating conditions. Abstract for [1400011] Q: Does EPA approve an exemption in lieu of Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for monitoring hydrogen sulfide (H2S) rather than installing a continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) for a refinery caustic regeneration unit off-gas vent stream combusted at two process furnaces under 40 CFR part 60 subpart J at the ExxonMobil refinery in Baton Rouge, Louisiana? A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the exemption under the seven step process detailed in EPA’s guidance for Alternative Monitoring Plans for 40 CFR part 60 subpart J, based on the description of the process vent stream, the design of the vent gas controls, and the H2S monitoring data furnished. EPA included the facility’s proposed operating parameter limits (OPLs), which the facility must continue to monitor, as part of the conditional approval. Abstract for [1400012] Q: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for Gem Mobile Services to conduct monitoring of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) emissions, in lieu of installing a continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS), when performing tank degassing and other similar operations controlled by portable, temporary thermal oxidizers, at refineries located in EPA Region 6 states that are subject to NSPS Subparts J or Ja? A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the AMP, based on the description of the process, the vent gas streams, the design of the vent gas controls, and the H2S monitoring data furnished. EPA included proposed operating parameter limits (OPLs) and data which the refineries must furnish as part of the conditional approval. The approved AMP is only for degassing operations conducted at refineries in EPA Region 6. E:\FR\FM\03SEN1.SGM 03SEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 2014 / Notices Abstract for [1400013] Q: Does EPA allow an alternative compliance timeline for landfill gas extraction well at the American Disposal Services of Illinois, Inc. (ADSI)—Livingston Landfill facility located in Pontiac, Illinois? A: No. EPA does not approve the request for an alternative compliance timeline for correcting the operational parameter exceedance at the ADSI’s landfill gas extraction well LIV–GW22 (GW22). EPA did not approve an alternative compliance timeline because the request was for a potential situation that may or may not happen and may or may not cause a delay in construction. Such approval will only be granted if ADSI can establish that forces beyond its control prevent ontime compliance. Abstract for [1400014] Q: Does EPA approve a request to use a bag leak detection (BLD) system in lieu of continuous opacity monitoring (COM) or daily Method 9 visible emissions (VE) readings, as required by 40 CFR part 60, subpart UUU for monitoring the new thermal sand reclamation system being installed at the Thyssenkrupp Waupaca, Inc. (Waupaca) foundry (Plant I) in Wisconsin? A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the use of the BLD system at the new sand cooler for monitoring in lieu of a COM or daily VE readings to comply with subpart UUU rule. This approval is conditioned upon the BLD system being subject to the same installation, operation, maintenance, monitoring, recordkeeping, and notification provisions of 40 CFR part 63 subpart EEEEE, rule applicable to Waupaca since it is an iron and steel foundry. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Abstract for [1400015] Q: Does EPA approve a request to use a bag leak detection (BLD) system in lieu of continuous opacity monitoring (COM) or daily Method 9 visible emissions (VE) readings, as required by 40 CFR part 60 subpart UUU for monitoring the new thermal sand reclamation system being installed at the Thyssenkrupp Waupaca, Inc. (Waupaca) foundry (Plants 2 and 3) in Wisconsin? A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves use of the BLD system at the new sand cooler for monitoring in lieu of a COM or daily VE readings. This approval is conditioned upon the the BLD system being subject to the same installation, operation, maintenance, monitoring, recordkeeping, and notification provisions of 40 CFR part 63 subpart VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:40 Sep 02, 2014 Jkt 232001 EEEEE, rule applicable to Waupaca since it is an iron and steel foundry. Abstract for [1400017] Q: Does the EPA approve a petition for approval of operating parameter limits (OPLs) in lieu of installing a wet scrubber, an initial performance test plan, and an initial relative accuracy test audit (RATA) protocol for a continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) at a dual chamber, commercial incinerator which thermally destroys contraband for U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) at the Southwest Border Incineration (SWBI) facility located in McAllen, Texas, and is subject to regulation as an ‘‘other solid waste incineration’’ (OSWI) unit under 40 CFR part 60 subpart EEEE? A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the SWBI’s petition for establishing specific OPLs to be monitored, initial performance test plan, and the CEMS RATA protocol based on the information submitted to EPA since the rule requirements at 40 CFR 60.2917(a) through (e) and 40 CFR 60.2940(a) through (d) were met. Final approval of SWBI’s petition will be based on the OPL range values and other conditions that are established from the results of the performance testing and the CEMS RATA. Abstract for [1400018] Q1. Is Coater A, part of a coating line that manufactures pressure sensitive tape and labels at the 3M print station facility in Hutchinson, Minnesota, which applies hot melt coating with zero potential VOC emissions and commenced construction after December 30, 1980, subject to 40 CFR part 60 subpart RR? A1. Yes. Coater A meets the applicability criteria of affected facility in both 40 CFR 60.440(a) and (c), and is therefore subject to 40 CFR part 60 subpart RR. Since Coater A applies coatings with zero potential VOC emissions, it is not subject to the emission limits of 40 CFR 60.442(a). However, it is subject to the requirements of all other applicable provisions of 40 CFR part 60 subpart RR. Q2. Is Coater B at 3M print station, which coats webs, including paper, film, and metal at two coating application stations, each followed by a drying oven, and a print station with a small oven for making product markings, and was installed in 1985 at the 3M facility in Rockland, Massachusetts, subject to 40 CFR part 60 subpart TT? A2. Yes. Coater B meets the definitions in 40 CFR part 60 subpart TT PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 52327 of two affected facilities, a prime coat operation and a finish coat operation, and is thus subject to the rule requirements. Q3. Is Coater B, a coating line which is used in the manufacture of pressure sensitive tape and label materials and was installed in 1985, also subject to 40 CFR part 60 subpart RR? A3. Yes. Coater B meets the criteria in 40 CFR 60.440 and is, therefore, a 40 CFR part 60 subpart RR affected source subject to the rule requirements. Q4. Is the 3M print station part of 40 CFR part 60 subpart TT or subpart RR affected facility? A4. The print station is an affected facility under both 40 CFR part 60 subpart TT and 40 CFR part 60 subpart RR. Under subpart TT, the print station is an affected facility, because it meets the definition of an application system applying an organic coating in 40 CFR 60.461. The print station is also an affected facility under 40 CFR part 60 subpart RR, because it meets the definition of a precoat coating applicator in 40 CFR 60.441(a). Q5. How would the analysis and conclusions for 40 CFR part 60 subpart RR change if the VOC input to the coating line had never exceeded 45 Mg VOC in any 12-month period? A5. EPA finds this question outside the scope of an applicability determination, because it is hypothetical and contrary to the stated facts. However, in general, a facility that does not input to the coating process more than 45 MG (50 tons) of VOC per 12-month period is not subject to the emission limits in 40 CFR part 60 subpart RR. Q6. When and how do the emissions limits of 40 CFR part 60 subpart TT and/ or 40 CFR part 60 subpart RR apply? A6. EPA finds this question outside the scope of an applicability determination, because it does not address applicability. However, in general, an NSPS affected facility is subject to the requirements of a rule at all times while engaged in activity that causes it to meet the definition of an affected facility. So, a 40 CFR part 60 subpart TT affected facility is subject to the rule while engaged in the activities of a metal coil surface coating operation. Similarly, a 40 CFR part 60 subpart RR affected facility is subject to the rule while engaged in the manufacture of pressure sensitive tape and labels. If a facility is subject to more than one NSPS, the facility must demonstrate compliance with each rule (i.e., keep records and calculate the emissions for activities in each applicable category). Q7. Is Coater C, a major source of HAP emissions that applies coatings to E:\FR\FM\03SEN1.SGM 03SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52328 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 2014 / Notices several types of webs, including paper, film, and metal, and was installed in 1963 at the 3M facility in Hartford City, Indiana, subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart SSSS? A7. Yes. Coater C is an existing affected source under 40 CFR part 63 subpart SSSS, because it coats metal coil as defined in 40 CFR 63.5110 and was constructed before July 18, 2000. It does not qualify for the exemption in 40 CFR 63.5090(b)(2) because more than 15 percent of the metal coil coated, based on surface area, is greater than 0.15 millimeter (0.006 inch) thick. Q8. Is Coater C located at the 3M facility in Hartford City, Indiana, also subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ rule requirements? A8. No. Coater C is not subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJ requirements, as long as it meets the 40 CFR part 63 subpart SSSS rule requirements. In 40 CFR part 63 subpart SSSS, owners/ operators of facilities are provided the option that, if they are subject to both subparts, they can choose to comply with the requirements of 40 CFR part 63 subpart SSSS, and have that constitute compliance with 40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJ, rather than complying with the requirements of both rules. Q9. Is the 3M print station of Coater C an affected source under both 40 CFR part 63 subpart SSSS and 40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJ? A9. Yes. The print station of Coater C meets the applicability criteria of both 40 CFR part 63 subpart SSSS and 40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJ. However, an owner/operator can choose to comply with the requirements of 40 CFR part 63 subpart SSSS and have that constitute compliance with 40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJ. The print station meets the applicability criteria of 40 CFR part 63 subpart SSSS, because the inks applied by the print station are included in the definition of a coating. This coating is applied by the print station which meets the definition of a work station that operates on a coil coating line. For 40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJ, the inks applied at the print station of Coater C meet the definition of a coating material in 40 CFR 63.3310 and are applied by the print station which meets the definition of a work station and operates on a web coating line. Q10. When and how do the emissions limits of 40 CFR part 63 subpart SSSS and/or 40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJ apply to 3M print station? A10. EPA finds this question outside the scope of an applicability determination, because it does not question applicability. However, in general, a 40 CFR part 63 subpart SSSS affected source is subject to the rule at VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:40 Sep 02, 2014 Jkt 232001 all times while engaged in activity that causes the facility to meet the definition of an affected facility. If the owner/ operator does not choose to comply with 40 CFR part 63 subpart SSSS, or the affected facility is engaged in activities that do not meet the applicability criteria of 40 CFR part 63 subpart SSSS, then the affected facility could be subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJ. The affected facility would be subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJ only while engaging in activities that meet the definition of a 40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJ affected source. Q11. Is Coater D, located at the 3M facility in Hutchinson, Minnesota subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart KK? The facility is a major source of HAP emissions and it is in a collection of web coating lines that are an existing affected source under MACT subpart JJJJ. Also present at the facility is a collection of wide-web flexographic printing presses which are an existing affected source under MACT Subpart KK. A flexographic print station capable of printing onto webs that are greater than 18 inches wide was added to Coater D and more than 5 percent of all materials applied onto the web of Coater D in a month occur at the flexographic print station. A11. Yes. Coater D meets the definition of a wide-web flexographic press that is a Subpart KK affected source, unless it qualifies for the exclusion provided in 40 CFR 63.821(a)(2)(ii). Coater D does not qualify for the exclusion because more than 5 percent of the mass of all materials applied by Coater D is applied by the wide-web flexographic print station. Q12. Is Coater D a 40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJ affected source? A12. No. Coater D meets the MACT Subpart JJJJ definition of a web coating line in 40 CFR 63.3310; however, 40 CFR 63.3300(b) excludes any web coating line that is a ‘‘wide-web flexographic press under Subpart KK.’’ Since Coater D is included in a 40 CFR part 63 subpart KK affected source, it is not a 40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJ affected source. Q13. How does the analysis change if in a single month (or permanently) the total mass of materials applied by the print station of Coater D is no more than 5 percent of the total mass of materials applied? A13. EPA believes that 3M is asking if Coater D’s status as a 40 CFR part 63 subpart KK affected source changes if the mass of material applied by the print station in a month subsequently falls below 5 percent of the total mass of materials applied by Coater D. Coater D PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 remains a 40 CFR part 63 subpart KK affected source even if the mass of material applied by the print station in a month subsequently falls below 5 percent of the total mass of materials applied by Coater D. The word ‘‘never’’ in the exclusion at 40 CFR 63.821(a)(2)(ii)(A) means that once the total mass of materials applied in any month exceeds 5 percent of the total mass of material applied in that month, the coating line continues to be a 40 CFR part 63 subpart KK affected source, even if percentage subsequently falls below 5 percent. Q14. When and how do the emissions standards of the applicable MACT rules apply to Coater D? A14. The EPA finds this question outside the scope of an applicability determination, because it does not question applicability. Also, EPA interprets the question as: (1) Do the emission standards apply to the entire coating line or just to the flexographic print station? and (2) If the standards apply to the entire line, do they continue to apply even when the flexographic print station is not operating? In general, the emission standards apply to the entire coating line, not just to the flexographic print station, because the print station is part of the flexographic press in 40 CFR 63.822(a) which meets the definition of an affected source under 40 CFR part 63 subpart KK. The emissions standards apply while any part of the coating line is operating even if the flexographic print station is not operating. Q15. Does the analysis change if the total mass of materials applied by the print station of Coater D has never exceeded in a month 5 percent of the total mass of materials applied by Coater D overall? A15. The EPA finds this question outside the scope of an applicability determination as it does not question applicability and is contrary to the stated facts. However, in general, Coater D, including the wide-web printing station, meets the definition of a web coating line in 40 CFR 63.3310 and is, therefore, a subpart JJJJ affected source. The section 40 CFR 63.3300(b) excludes any web coating line that is an affected source under 40 CFR part 63 subpart KK. However, an owner/operator could choose exclude Coater D from 40 CFR part 63 subpart KK if the sum of the total mass of materials applied by print stations in any month never exceeded 5 percent of the total mass of materials applied by Coater D in that same month. If the owner/operator chooses to exclude Coater D from 40 CFR part 63 subpart KK, it would remain a 40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJ affected source. If E:\FR\FM\03SEN1.SGM 03SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 2014 / Notices not excluded, it would be a subpart KK affected source. Q16. Would Coater D be a 40 CFR part 63 Subpart KK or 40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJ affected source if the print station were decommissioned or removed from the coating line? A16. The EPA finds this question outside the scope of an applicability determination. It is hypothetical and does not question applicability. To answer the question, we would need more information on which coating lines remain in operation. However, in general, upon decommissioning or removing the print station, Coater D would no longer meet the criteria for being a wide-web flexographic printing press and, therefore, would no longer be a subpart KK affected source. At that point, Coater D would be a subpart JJJJ affected source as it would no longer qualify for the exclusion in 40 CFR 63.3300(b). Q17. If an additional web coating line is constructed at the Springfield facility will it be subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJ? A17. The EPA finds this question outside the scope of an applicability determination, because it is hypothetical and does not have actual facts to address applicability. However, in general, 40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJ, in 40 CFR 63.3300, defines an affected source as: ‘‘the collection of all web coating lines at your facility.’’ Therefore, if a facility is subject to 40 CFR subpart JJJJ, all web coating lines, new or existing, at that facility would be subject to the requirements of the subpart. Q18. Are the components which are directly associated with Rack A at the 3M manufacturing facility in Hutchinson, Minnesota, while it is being used to unload solvent from Truck A into Tank A, part of an [organic liquid distribution] OLD and/or an miscellaneous coating manufacturing (MCM) affected source? Tank A at the facility is a bulk solvent storage tank where the solvent contains 5 percent weight or more of the organic HAP listed in Table 1 of 40 CFR 63 subpart EEEE. The solvent in Tank A is used exclusively to manufacture coatings and all coatings manufactured at the facility are used exclusively by the coating lines of the facility. Truck A is a tank truck that delivers the solvent to Tank A, and Rack A is a transfer rack that is used to unload the solvent from Truck A into Tank A. A18. Rack A is a 40 CFR part 63 subpart EEEE affected source when it is being used to unload Truck A because Truck A contains organic liquid (as defined in 40 CFR part 63 subpart EEEE). Therefore, the equipment leak VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:40 Sep 02, 2014 Jkt 232001 components directly associated with Rack A are 40 CFR part 63 subpart EEEE affected sources when Rack A is being used to unload solvent from Truck A into Tank A. The section 40 CFR part 63 subpart EEEE was written specifically to regulate the distribution of liquids containing 5 percent by weight or more of organic HAP and requires a commensurate level of control. By comparison, 40 CFR part 63 subpart HHHHH was written to regulate liquids with a lower concentration of organic HAP. As a result, the emission limits for 40 CFR part 63 subpart EEEE are more stringent than those in 40 CFR part 63 subpart HHHHH. Because of this different level of stringency, the EPA believes that the facility is more properly subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart EEEE because the solvent distributed by the facility has 5 percent weight or more of organic HAP, even though the liquid is used to manufacture coatings. Q19. Are any components directly associated with Truck A, while Truck A is unloading solvent into Tank A, part of an OLD and/or an MCM affected source? A19. Any equipment leak components directly associated with Truck A are part of an OLD affected source while Truck A is unloading solvent into Tank A. Because the equipment leak components directly associated with Truck A are part of an OLD affected source, they cannot be part of an MCM affected source. Q20. Is Rack A, while it is being used to unload solvent from Truck A into Tank A, part an OLD and/or an MCM affected source? A20. Rack A is part of an OLD affected source while it is being used to unload solvent from Truck A into Tank A. Because Rack A is part of an OLD affected source, it cannot be part of an MCM affected source. Q21. Is Truck A, while unloading solvent into Tank A, part of an OLD and/or an MCM affected source? A21. Truck A is part of an OLD affected source while unloading solvent into Tank A. Because Truck A is part of an OLD affected source, it cannot be part of an MCM affected source. Also, transport vehicles are not included in the MCM definition of affected sources. Q22. If either Truck A and/or Rack A are part of an MCM affected source, does the exclusion of affiliated operations at 40 CFR 63.7985(d)(2) affect how the requirements of 40 CFR part 63 subpart HHHHH apply? A22. Neither Truck A nor Rack A are part of an MCM affected source while Rack A is being used to unload solvent from Truck A to Tank A. PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 52329 Abstract for [1400020] Q: Does EPA allow an alternative remedy and corresponding schedule to address methane exceedances above 500 PPM for a landfill gas extraction well at the Settler’s Hill Recycling and Disposal Facility (Settler’s Hill)/Midway Landfill (Midway) facility located in Batavia, Illinois, subject to the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW? A: EPA approves the proposed alternative remedy to regrade and compact the clay patch in the area near landfill gas extraction well Midway EX– 2, and to import and compact an additional foot of clean clay in that same area. EPA understands that the remedy was carried forth, surface emission monitoring was performed, and no methane exceedances were detected. Abstract for [A140001] Q1: The Missouri Department of Natural Resources seeks EPA clarification on whether the 1991 Applicability Determination Index (ADI) document (ADI Number C112) represent EPA’s current position on analysis of bulk for asbestos pursuant to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for asbestos? A1: Yes. The 1991 response for analysis of bulk under the asbestos NESHAP represents EPA’s current position. A minimum of three slide mounts should be prepared and examined in their entirety by Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM) to determine if asbestos is present. If the amount by visual estimation appears to be less than 10 percent, the owner and/or operator ‘‘may (1) elect to assume the amount to be greater than 1 percent and treat the material as regulated asbestoscontaining material or (2) require verification of the amount by point counting.’’ If a result obtained by point count is different from a result obtained by visual estimation, the point count result will be used. Q2: Do the EPA interpretations contained in ADI Number C112 extend to non-friable materials that have been or will be rendered into Regulated Asbestos Containing Materials (RACM) by the forces acted on it? A2: Yes. EPA determined that the requirement for point counting extends to non-friable materials that have been or will be rendered into RACM. Q3: Would the EPA consider Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) analysis as being equally or more effective than Polarized Light E:\FR\FM\03SEN1.SGM 03SEN1 52330 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 2014 / Notices A: No. EPA has determined that DePuy is not subject to subpart XXXXXX because it is not primarily engaged in manufacturing products in one of the nine metal fabrication and finishing source categories listed in section 63.11514(a) and Table 1 of the regulation. Abstract for [A140002] Q1: Are specific maintenance activities on high voltage electric transmission towers mentioned by URS Corporation facility in San Francisco, California, considered demolitions or renovations under the Asbestos NESHAP, 40 CFR part 61, subpart M? A1: Based on the provided descriptions, EPA finds that the maintenance activities URS listed in the request are renovations under 40 CFR part 61, subpart M because the activities involve the replacement of lattice extensions and tower legs and not the permanent dismantling of the electrical transmission tower. Q2: For the described listed renovations, are notifications required for unpainted, galvanized steel? A2: No. Notifications are not required under the asbestos NESHAP if the owner and/or operator has thoroughly inspected the structure and, (1) determined that the work on the structure is a renovation operation and, (2) that the regulatory threshold amount of regulated asbestos-containing material (RACM) will not be met. Q3: Would the 15 years of sampling and thousands of sampling results showing non-detection of RACM be sufficient to support no further sampling of towers for RACM? A3: No. EPA encourages representative sampling of various building materials that are part of a renovation or demolition operation, because such testing enables the owner and/or operator to identify and manage which building materials must be handled in accordance with the asbestos NESHAP. Relying solely on historical analysis and visual inspections may not provide the owner/operator with definitive knowledge, as to whether a specific tower was ever painted with asbestos-containing paint. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Microscopy (PLM) point counting and an acceptable substitute to PLM point counting? A3. Yes. In a Federal Register notice published on August 1, 1994, at 59 FR 38970, EPA announced that TEM analysis is more capable of producing accurate results than PLM, and thus serves as a preferred substitute to PLM point counting. Q: Do the diesel engines operated at Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) facilities in Cambridge, Massachusetts fit the definition of ‘‘emergency engines’’ under 40 CFR part 63 subpart ZZZZ? A: No. EPA has determined that the engines operated at MWRA’s facilities do not meet the definition of emergency stationary for purposes of 40 CFR part 63 subpart ZZZZ, because these engines operate during typical large rainfall events and not only during emergencies or floods. However, the engines must meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 63 subpart ZZZZ applicable to nonemergency engines. Abstract for [M110009] Q: Does 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXXXX apply to the metal processing operations at DePuy Orthopedics, Inc. in Raynham, MA (DePuy), which manufactures a broad range of orthopedic solutions, including hip and knee replacement components and operating room products? VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:40 Sep 02, 2014 Jkt 232001 Abstract for [M110010] Abstract for [M110011] Q: Are the precious metals melting operations at Morgan Mill Metals in Johnston, Rhode Island, subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart TTTTTT? A: No. EPA has determined that because Morgan Mill Metals only produces precious metal-bearing products and does not produce brass, bronze, or zinc ingots, bars, blocks or metal powders, it does not operate a secondary nonferrous metals processing facility as defined in subpart TTTTTT. Abstract for [M110012] Q: The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NH DES) seeks clarification on whether a used woodfired boiler installed at Pleasant View Gardens (PVG) in Loudon, New Hampshire, is an existing, new, or reconstructed source under 40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJJJ? A: EPA determines that PVG’s woodfired boiler is an existing affected source under 40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJJJ because the boiler was constructed prior to June 4, 2010, the effective date of the rule, and the removal and reinstallation of the boiler did not trigger reconstruction as defined at 40 CFR 63.2. This applicability determination is made in reliance on the accuracy of the information provided to EPA, and does not relieve PVG of the responsibility for complying fully with any and all applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and permits. PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Abstract for [M110013] Q: The Western North Carolina Regional Air Quality Agency (WNC RAQA) seeks EPA clarification on whether the alternative monitoring approach used by an area source in its electrolytic process demonstrate continuous compliance as required by 40 CFR 63.11508(d)(6)of 40 CPR part 63, subpart WWWWWW, Area Source Standards for Platting and Polishing Operations? A: EPA determines that the monitoring system is acceptable, assuming its operation is inspected and verified by NC RAQA, because the company uses a system that prevents plating from occurring when the tank covers are not in place. Specifically, the tank design and its interlock system ensure that the tank covers are in place at least 95 percent of the electrolytic process operating time. Abstract for [M110014] Q1: The West Tennessee Permit Program Division of Air Pollution Control Department of Environment and Conservation (APC DEC) seeks clarification from EPA on whether a facility engaged in open molding operations with mechanical resin and spray gel coat applications, demonstrating compliance under 40 CFR 63.5810(b) of subpart WWWW, NESHAP for Reinforced Plastics Composites Production, is required to demonstrate compliance at the end of a month in which no hazardous air pollutant (HAP) containing materials were applied since it was not operating due to lack of product orders? A1: Yes. The facility is required to demonstrate compliance at the end of a month in which no HAP containing materials were applied, since the calculation must be ‘‘ . . . based on the amounts of each individual resin or gel coat used for the last 12 months.’’ Q2: In the event that production does resume at the facility, will it be proper for the facility to include the months in which no HAP containing materials were applied as part of the 12-month period that ends in that month in which production has resumed, or should the facility use only the most recent 11 months in which HAP containing materials were applied plus the month in which production has resumed? A2: The facility is required to perform the calculation based on the last 12 months, regardless of whether HAP containing materials were applied during those months, whether or not production resumes. E:\FR\FM\03SEN1.SGM 03SEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 2014 / Notices Abstract for [M110016] Q: Are two electric boilers at the Elm River Lutheran Church in Galesburg, ND, which burn fuel oil as a backup fuel during power outages subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJJJ? A: No. The EPA believes that the intent of the rule is that electric boilers that only burn liquid fuel during a power outage would not be subject to the rule provided that the power outage is beyond the control of the boiler owner or operator. Abstract for [M110017] Q: Does EPA approve a revision of the June 2, 2008 Alternative Monitoring Request (AMR) to waive metal, ash, and chlorine feed rate operating parameter limits for the Tooele Chemical Agent Disposal Facility (TOCDF) to allow the processing of 155-mm Projectile bursters? A: Yes. EPA approves revision of TOCDF’s AMP request to process 155mm Projectile bursters in the deactivation furnace system and to limit and monitor the Projectile feed rate rather than 12 HRA feed rate for mercury, ash, semi- and low-volatile metals, and chlorine required by 40 CFR 63.1209(l), (m), (n), and (o), respectively. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Abstract for [M110018] Q1: Does EPA approve Huntsman demonstrating compliance with 40 CFR part 63 subpart VVVVVV’s, NESHAP for Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources, management practices in 40 CFR 63.11495(a)(3) by inspecting the particulate matter (PM) collection system and baghouses in accordance with 40 CFR 63.11602(a)(2)(ii) of 40 CFR part 63 subpart CCCCCCC, NESHAP for Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing, at its Huntsman Advanced Materials facility in Los Angeles, California, which has several storage vessels subject to subpart VVVVVV and two storage vessels subject to subpart CCCCCCC? A1: No. EPA determines that the proposal to inspect the PM collection system and baghouses in lieu of inspecting the actual process vessel, cover, and equipment is not acceptable since these are not-overlapping rule requirements along the air emissions path. EPA believes that leaks can occur anywhere along the air emissions path from the mixing vessels to the stack. Therefore, process vessels, covers, and equipment subject to subpart VVVVVV must be inspected according to 40 CFR 63.11495(a)(3). Q2: Does EPA approve Huntsman’s use of one of several proposed VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:40 Sep 02, 2014 Jkt 232001 52331 alternatives to comply with the ductwork inspection requirements at 40 CFR 63.11495(a)(3) of subpart VVVVVV and 40 CFR 63.11602(a)(2)(ii) of subpart CCCCCCC? A2: Yes. EPA conditionally approves Huntsman use of Option 1(2) to meet the inspection requirements of the ductwork only, which state: ‘‘inspect flexible and stationary ductwork, according to 40 CFR 63.11602(a)(2)(ii), as required, at the specified timeframes whether or not emissions are being actively controlled on every vessel that uses the common control device header.’’ The condition for approval is that Huntsman must also record which process vessels were in operation during each inspection. Each mixing pot must be operational at least once a year during quarterly inspections and at least once a quarter during weekly inspections. Q3: Is the rigid cartridge filter Huntsman uses in its baghouses to control PM emissions excluded from the annual inspection requirements of 40 CFR 63.11602(a)(2)(ii)(B) since it does not meet the definition of ‘‘fabric filter’’ in 40 CFR 63.11607, and therefore may be excluded from the annual inspection requirement 40 CFR 63.11602(a)(2)(ii)(B) of subpart CCCCCCC? A3: Yes. EPA believes the rigid cartridge meets the definition of fabric filter in the rule. In addition, EPA believes that the Huntsman existing preventive maintenance program based on pressure differential established in Condition 5 of the South Coast Air Quality Management District ‘‘Permit to Operate’’ is an acceptable alternative to checking ‘‘the condition of the fabric filter.’’ Huntsman is still required to conduct inspection of the rigid, stationary ductwork for leaks, and of the interior of the dry particulate control unit for structural integrity, according to 40 CFR 63.11602(a)(2)(ii)(B). from Method 5 to Methods 201A and 202 after the tests were conducted in January 2011. The use of alternate test methods must be approved in writing in advance of testing. Additionally, EPA Headquarters Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), who has the delegation to approve these types of changes in test methods, stated that it would not have approved this change in the test method because the alternate method was not acceptable for compliance demonstration under 40 CFR part 63 subpart LLL. Abstract for [M120009] Q: Does EPA approve a change in test methods, from Method 5 to Methods 201 A and 202, for determining compliance with the particulate emissions standards in 40 CFR 63.1343(b)(1) of NESHAP Subpart LLL for Portland Cement Plants at the Cemex Construction Materials South (Cemex) Portland cement plant located in New Braunfels, Texas? A: No. EPA does not approve the Cemex request for a change in test methods for determining compliance with the particulate emissions standards in 40 CFR part 63 subpart LLL. Cemex retroactively requested that EPA Region 6 approve a change in test methods, Q: Does EPA approve of comparative temperature monitoring as a type of calibration verification that meets 40 CFR 63.3350(e)(9) of subpart JJJJ, Paper and Other Web Coating NESHAP, at the 3M’s Medina, Ohio facility? If not, can this comparative monitoring technique be allowed as an alternative monitoring parameter to the calibration verification requirements? A: No. EPA finds that that this comparative monitoring is not the same as a calibration verification as specified by 40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJ. However, EPA can approve it as an alternative monitoring parameter to the calibration verification requirements in 40 CFR 63.3350(e)(9). PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Abstract for [M120013] Q: Does EPA approve a waiver to monitor only the liquid flow rate (and not pH) through five water absorbers used to control emissions from tank truck loading and storage tanks subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart NNNNN, at the Dow Chemical Company’s (Dow) production facility in Plaquemine, Louisiana? A: No. EPA believes that more than one parameter should be monitored to provide a more complete determination of control performance. Monitoring liquid flow alone is insufficient to determine control effectiveness. Even in once-through absorbers, measurement of effluent pH ensures that the effluent has not reached the acid saturation concentration limit and is capable of absorbing additional acid vapor. Although 40 CFR part 63 subpart MMM allows either liquid flow rate or pressure drop to be chosen as monitored operating parameters, EPA stated in the response to comments for promulgation of 40 CFR part 63 subpart NNNNN in March 2006 that what applies in 40 CFR part 63 subpart MMM may not be appropriate for facilities subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart NNNNN. Abstract for [M120026] E:\FR\FM\03SEN1.SGM 03SEN1 52332 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 2014 / Notices Abstract for [M120034] Q. Will the overhaul of a 4400 horsepower Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engine (RICE) by Fairbanks Morse Engine (FME) facility in Beloit, Wisconsin, trigger reconstruction or modification under 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII and JJJJ? A. No. FME overhaul costs of the engine are less than 50 percent of the cost of a comparable new facility, and modification will not be triggered because emissions will not be increased. After the engine is overhauled, the engine might be subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ depending on how much diesel fuel is used in a calendar year. Abstract for [M120035] Q: Is Vesatas’ facility in Pueblo, CO subject to the NESHAP Area Source Standards for Nine Metal Fabrication and Finishing Source Categories, 40 CFR part 63 subpart XXXXXX, and is Vestas subject to the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the regulation? A. No. EPA finds that Vesatas’ facility is not subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart XXXXXX because it is not a major source of hazardous air pollutants (HAP), and the rule applies to area sources as specified at 40 CFR 63.11514. Because Vestas is not subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart XXXXXX, Vestas would not be subject to the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the regulation. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Abstract for [M130003] Q. Does EPA approve the petition to waive the initial performance testing for four identical reciprocating internal combustion engines (RICE) at the SaintGobian Containers, Inc., Burlington, Wisconsin plant? A: Yes. EPA approves the petition to waive the initial performance testing provided that the company can show the units are similar, burn the same fuel, and otherwise meet the criteria contained in EPA’s stack testing guidance dated September 30, 2005. Abstract for [M140001] Q: Does EPA approve a request to establish a minimum combustion air pressure of 20 inches of water column on an instantaneous basis based upon operating experience as the liquid waste firing system (WFS) operating parameter limit (OPL) at the Lubrizol Corporation’s Painesville facility in Ohio? A: Yes. EPA approves Lubrizol’s request to establish a minimum combustion air pressure of 20 inches of water on an instantaneous basis at all times while feeding liquid waste for its VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:40 Sep 02, 2014 Jkt 232001 WFS OPL. EPA determined that the proposed waste firing system OPL ensures that the same or greater surface area of the waste is exposed to combustion conditions (e.g., temperature and oxygen) during normal operating conditions, as the incinerator demonstrated during the 2003 destruction and removal efficiency test. Abstract for [M140002] Q1. Is the MSW Power gasification unit located at the MSW Power Corporation’s (MSW Power’s) Green Energy Machine located at the Plymouth County Correctional Facility in Plymouth, Massachusetts subject to 40 part 60 subpart EEEE? A1. No. EPA has determined that because of the energy recovery exemption in the definition of institutional waste, MSW Power gasification unit is not subject to 40 part 60 subpart EEEE while it is processing waste generated by the Plymouth County Correctional Facility and located on their grounds. Q2. Is the MSW Power boiler which combusts only syngas generated by the gasifier subject to 40 part 63 subpart JJJJJJ? A2. No. EPA has determined that because the MSW Power boiler burns only syngas, a gaseous fuel, the boiler is a gas-fired boiler as defined in the rule and therefore it is not subject to 40 part 63 subpart JJJJJJ. Abstract for [M140003] Q1. Is the Jacobs Vehicle Systems facility located in Bloomfield, Connecticut (Jacobs Vehicle), subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart T if it does not use and it has no present intention of using any of the listed hazardous air pollutants (HAP) solvents in its degreaser in the future? A1. No. EPA determines that because Jacobs Vehicle has certified that it no longer uses any of the listed HAP solvents due to switching degreasers and based on its commitment that it will continue in that mode for the foreseeable future, Jacobs Vehicle’s degreasers and Jacobs Vehicle’s facility are no longer subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart T. Q2. May Jacobs Vehicle take potential to emit restrictions to below major HAP source levels and no longer be subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart PPPPP? A2. Yes. EPA determines that Jacobs Vehicle may now limit its potential to emit to below major HAP source levels and no longer be subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart PPPPP. Jacobs Vehicle test cells are an existing affected source subject to subpart PPPPP, because these were constructed before May 14, 2002, PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 and not reconstructed after May 14, 2002, but do not have to meet an emission limitation or other substantive rule requirements. Since subpart PPPPP does not set a substantive compliance date for Jacobs Vehicle to comply with an emission limit or other substantive rule requirement for its Jacobs Vehicle test cells, the EPA’s general policy referred to as ‘‘once in, always in’’ policy would not apply. EPA’s ‘‘once in, always in’’ policy is that sources that are major on the first substantive compliance date of a NESHAP (and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the NESHAP that apply to major sources) remain major sources for purposes of that NESHAP from that point forward, regardless of the level of their potential HAP emissions after that date. Q3. If Jacobs Vehicle takes facility wide potential to emit restrictions to below major HAP source levels, would its existing compression ignition engine become subject to the area source provisions of 40 CFR part 63 subpart ZZZZ? A3. Yes. EPA’s ‘‘once in, always in’’ policy would allow Jacobs Vehicle to take restrictions on its facility-wide potential to emit to below major HAP source levels and become an area source of HAP for purposes of 40 CFR part 63 subpart ZZZZ applicability before the first compliance date of May 3, 2013. If Jacobs Vehicle were to do so before May 3, 2013, its compression ignition engine would then be subject to the requirements for engines located at an area source of HAP. Q4. If Jacobs Vehicle takes facility wide potential to emit restrictions to below major HAP source levels, would its existing boilers no longer be subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart DDDDD? Would the existing boilers then become subject to the area source provisions of 40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJJJ? A4. Yes. EPA’s ‘‘once in, always in’’ policy would allow Jacobs Vehicle to take restrictions on its facility-wide potential to emit to below major HAP source levels to become an area source of HAP and no longer be subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart DDDDD before the first compliance date of 40 CFR part 63 subpart DDDDD. Because Jacobs Vehicle’s boilers meet the definition of gas-fired boilers, provided they continue to do so, the boilers would not be subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJJJ if Jacobs Vehicle became an area source of HAP. Abstract for [M140004] Q: Does EPA approve ExxonMobil’s alternative monitoring plan (AMP) request for calculating the sulfur E:\FR\FM\03SEN1.SGM 03SEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 2014 / Notices dioxide emissions from two refinery Fluid Catalytic Cracking Units during Wet Gas Scrubber emission control device malfunctions or down time, in accordance with 40 CFR part 63 subpart UUU, at ExxonMobil’s Baton Rouge, Louisiana refinery? A: No. EPA does not approve ExxonMobil’s AMP request. EPA determined that the request was not a rule-based proposal related to ExxonMobil’s inability to meet existing 40 CFR part 63 subpart UUU provisions, but rather, a proposed alternative method to meet Consent Decree requirements that are separate from compliance with the rule. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Abstract for [M140005] Q: Does EPA approve ExxonMobil’s Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for calculating the flue gas flow rate on two refinery Fluid Catalytic Cracking Units (FCCU), in lieu of direct measurement, to demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the metal emission standard of 40 CFR 63.1564(a)(1)(iv), described as Option 4 in 40 CFR part 63 subpart UUU, and in accordance with Tables 1, 2, 6 and 7 of the final rule for Option 4, at ExxonMobil’s Baton Rouge, Louisiana refinery? A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves ExxonMobil’s AMP request, as described in the EPA response letter. The maximum acceptable difference in stack-test measured and calculated total flue gas flow rate values shall be within ± 7.5 percent. Evaluation and adjustment of affected process monitors must be completed within three months of a stack testing event that resulted in a difference value greater than ± 7.5 percent. If any three consecutive stack testing events result in the need for corrective action adjustments, ExxonMobil must conduct a new stack test within ninety days of the third corrective action implementation in order to verify that the gas flow rate correlation and calculation method are still valid. ExxonMobil should ensure that this approval is referenced and attached to the facility’s new source review and Title V permits for federal enforceability and is included in the refinery’s Consent Decree. Abstract for [Z120003] Q: Are sour water streams managed upstream of a refinery sour water stripper at the Flint Hills Resources Corpus Christi East Refinery in Tulsa, Oklahoma subject to the Benzene Waste Operations 40 CFR part 61 subpart FF? A: Yes. EPA has determined that the facility must comply with the requirements of 40 CFR part 61 subpart FF for sour water streams managed VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:40 Sep 02, 2014 Jkt 232001 upstream of a sour water stripper based on the characteristics of the waste streams at the point that the waste water exits the sour water stripper. At facilities with total benzene equal to or greater than 10 megagram per year, all benzene-contaminated wastes are subject to the control requirements of 40 CFR part 61 subpart FF, not just the end waste streams counted toward the total annual benzene amount. EPA’s response is based on the 1993 rule amendments which were issued after the March 21, 1991 letter from EPA to the American Petroleum Institute that Flint Hills’ mentioned in the request. Abstract for [Z130002] Q1: Does the Area Source Boiler Rule, NESHAP subpart JJJJJJ exempt steam boilers that service mixed residential and commercial facilities from regulation? A1: Yes. EPA clarifies to the National Oilheat Research Alliance that if a boiler meets the definition in 40 CFR 63.11237 of a residential boiler, it is not subject to the requirements of the Area Source Boiler Rule. In that definition, the boiler must be ‘‘primarily used to provide heat and/or hot water for: (1) A dwelling containing four or fewer families, or (2) A single unit residence dwelling that has since been converted or subdivided into condominiums or apartments.’’ EPA intends ‘‘primarily’’ to be interpreted as its common meaning. Therefore, a mixed-use facility must have a majority of the heat and/or hot water produced by the boiler allocated to the residential unit or units. One way a facility could demonstrate primary use is by showing that a majority of the facility’s square footage is residential, but EPA recognizes that there may be other ways for a facility to demonstrate primary use. Q2: Does the Area Source Boiler Rule define mixed residential and commercial buildings as strictly commercial or residential in use? A2: No. EPA recognizes that some buildings may be used for a variety of uses. The nature of the building is only relevant in terms of determining whether a boiler is primarily used to service the commercial or residential facilities located within the building. Abstract for [Z130003] Q: Does EPA approve of the use of closed/covered chromium electroplating and anodizing tanks at the Southern Graphics Systems, Inc, Waukesha, Wisconsin facility in order to satisfy the requirement of a ‘‘physical barrier’’ per the ‘‘housekeeping practice’’ provisions in 40 CFR part 63 subpart N? PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 52333 A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the use of closed/covered chromium electroplating and anodizing tanks in order to satisfy the physical barrier requirement of 40 CFR part 63 subpart N. This approval is conditioned upon these tanks being closed/covered at all times buffing, grinding and polishing operations take place; and, the surface area of the tanks is a hundred percent covered, with no visible gaps on the top or side of the tank, except for ventilation inlets routed to a control device under negative pressure. Abstract for [Z140001] Q: Does EPA approve Colonial Pipeline Company’s alternative monitoring request for use of top-side in-service inspections to meet the outof-service inspection requirements for specific types of internal floating roof tanks with uniform and specific roof, deck, and seal configurations at several facilities, subject to several gasoline distribution (GD)-related regulations (40 CFR part 63, subpart R (GD MACT) and 40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBB (GD GACT) and/or 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb, NSPS for Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Vessels)? A: Yes. EPA approves Colonial’s topside in-service internal inspection methodology for the IFR tanks specified in the AMP request, which have uniform and specific roof, deck, and seal configurations, to meet the NSPS Kb internal out-of-service inspection required at intervals no greater than 10 years by the applicable regulations. EPA has determined that for the specified IFR storage tanks (tanks that are full contact, aluminum honeycomb panel constructed decks with mechanical shoe primary and secondary seals in tanks with geodesic dome roofs equipped with skylights), Colonial will be able to have visual access to all of the requisite components (i.e., the primary and secondary mechanical seals, gaskets, and slotted membranes) through the top side of the IFR storage tanks, as well as properly inspect and repair the requisite components while these tanks are still in service, consistent with the inspection and repair requirements established under NSPS Subpart Kb. In addition, Colonial’s top-side in-service internal inspection methodology includes more stringent requirements than would otherwise be applicable to the IFR storage tanks specified in the AMP request. Colonial has agreed to (1) identifying and addressing any gaps of more than 1/8 inch between any deck fitting gasket, seal, or wiper and any surface that it is intended to seal; comply with the fitting and deck seal requirements and the repair time frame E:\FR\FM\03SEN1.SGM 03SEN1 52334 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 2014 / Notices requirement in NSPS Subpart Kb for all tanks, including GACT tanks; and implement a full top-side and bottomside out-of-service inspection of the tank each time an IFR storage tank is emptied and degassed for any reason. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Abstract for [Z140002] Q: Are solvent transfer racks and transport equipment, which are dedicated for the use of unloading hexane from transport vehicles to a vegetable oil production plant, located at the PICO Northstar Hallock facility (PICO Hallock) in Minnesota, subject to part 63, subpart GGGG, Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production NESHAP or to subpart EEEE, Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants? A: EPA agrees that the PICO Hallock solvent transfer racks and equipment are subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart GGGG and are not subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart EEEE, because they would fall under the definition of ‘‘Vegetable oil production process’’ in the rule. Although solvent transfer racks and equipment which are dedicated for the use of unloading hexane from transport vehicles to a vegetable oil production facility are not explicitly mentioned in the definition of vegetable oil production process in 40 CFR part 63 subpart GGGG, they should be considered part of the ‘‘equipment comprising a continuous process for producing crude vegetable oil and meal products’’ when they are used solely to support the vegetable oil production process. EPA believes that the information provided by PICO Hallock confirms that the solvent transfer racks at the facility are exclusively used for this limited purpose. Abstract for [Z140003] Q: Does EPA approve United Services Automobile Association’s (USAA) petition for additional testing hours under 40 CFR 60.4211(f), for additional maintenance checks and readiness testing hours of six emergency generator internal combustion engines at USAA’s San Antonio, Texas headquarters facility? A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves USAA’s request. USAA demonstrated that extensive testing and maintenance of the emergency generators is required to ensure electrical continuity and reliability for maintaining critical operations in a continuous standby mode for immediate emergency use. EPA granted conditional approval of additional testing and maintenance hours on the six engines, provided that the facility maintains documentation to VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:40 Sep 02, 2014 Jkt 232001 show that the additional hours are not used for meeting peak electrical demand. Abstract for [XXXX] Q: Does EPA approve an extension of the initial performance test deadline for a new biomass-fired cogeneration boiler (boiler) due to a force majeure event at the Nippon Paper Industries USA Corporation, Ltd. (NPIUSA) facility in Port Angeles, Washington? A: Yes. EPA determines that a force majeure event, as defined in 40 CFR part 60, subpart A and 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, has occurred and that an extension of the performance test deadline under the applicable federal standards is appropriate. The inability to meet the performance test deadline was caused by circumstances beyond the control of NPIUSA, its contractors, or any entity controlled by NPIUSA and therefore constitutes a force majeure as defined in 40 CFR 60.2 and 63.2. The letters and supporting documentation submitted by NPIUSA provided timely notice, described the claimed force majeure event and why the event prevents NPIUSA from meeting the deadline for conducting the performance testing, what measures are being taken to minimize the delay, and NPIUSA’s proposed date for conducting the testing. The EPA therefore believes it is appropriate to extend the performance test deadline. Dated: August 22, 2014. Lisa Lund, Director, Office of Compliance. [FR Doc. 2014–20895 Filed 9–2–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. AGENCY: As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– 3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission’s burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number. DATES: Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before November 3, 2014. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible. ADDRESSES: Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email PRA@ fcc.gov and to CathyWilliams@fcc.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418–2918. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OMB Control Number: 3060–0761. Title: Section 79.1, Closed Captioning of Video Programming, CG Docket No. 05–231. Form Number: N/A. Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection. Respondents: Business or other forprofit entities; Individuals or households; and Not-for-profit entities. Number of Respondents and Responses: 22,565 respondents; 1,149,437 responses. Estimated Time per Response: 0.25 hours (15 minutes) to 120 hours. Frequency of Response: Annual, onetime and on-occasion reporting requirements; Third party disclosure requirement; Recordkeeping requirement. Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this obligation is found at section 713 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 613, and implemented at 47 CFR 79.1. Total Annual Burden: 1,254,358 hours. Total Annual Cost: $40,220,496. E:\FR\FM\03SEN1.SGM 03SEN1

Agencies

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 170 (Wednesday, September 3, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52319-52334]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-20895]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9916-20-OECA]

Recent Postings to the Applicability Determination Index Database
System of Agency Applicability Determinations, Alternative Monitoring
Decisions, and Regulatory Interpretations Pertaining to Standards Under
the Clean Air Act

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces applicability determinations,
alternative monitoring decisions, and regulatory interpretations that
EPA has made under the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); the
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP); and/
or the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Program.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: An electronic copy of each complete
document posted on the Applicability Determination Index (ADI) database
system is available on the Internet through the Office of Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance (OECA) Web site at: https://www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/caa/adi.html. The letters and memoranda
on the ADI may be located by control number, date, author, subpart, or
subject search. For questions about the ADI or this notice, contact
Maria Malave at EPA by phone at: (202) 564-7027, or by email at:
malave.maria@epa.gov. For technical questions about individual
applicability determinations or monitoring decisions, refer to the
contact person identified in the individual documents, or in the
absence of a contact person, refer to the author of the document.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The General Provisions of the NSPS in 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part 60 and the General Provisions of the NESHAP in
40 CFR part 61 provide

[[Page 52320]]

that a source owner or operator may request a determination of whether
certain intended actions constitute the commencement of construction,
reconstruction, or modification. EPA's written responses to these
inquiries are commonly referred to as applicability determinations. See
40 CFR 60.5 and 61.06. Although the NESHAP part 63 regulations [which
include Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards] and
section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) contain no specific
regulatory provision providing that sources may request applicability
determinations, EPA also responds to written inquiries regarding
applicability for the part 63 and section 111(d) programs. The NSPS and
NESHAP also allow sources to seek permission to use monitoring or
recordkeeping that is different from the promulgated requirements. See
40 CFR 60.13(i), 61.14(g), 63.8(b)(1), 63.8(f), and 63.10(f). EPA's
written responses to these inquiries are commonly referred to as
alternative monitoring decisions. Furthermore, EPA responds to written
inquiries about the broad range of NSPS and NESHAP regulatory
requirements as they pertain to a whole source category. These
inquiries may pertain, for example, to the type of sources to which the
regulation applies, or to the testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, or
reporting requirements contained in the regulation. EPA's written
responses to these inquiries are commonly referred to as regulatory
interpretations. EPA currently compiles EPA-issued NSPS and NESHAP
applicability determinations, alternative monitoring decisions, and
regulatory interpretations, and posts them to the Applicability
Determination Index (ADI). In addition, the ADI contains EPA-issued
responses to requests pursuant to the stratospheric ozone regulations,
contained in 40 CFR part 82. The ADI is an electronic index on the
Internet with over three thousand EPA letters and memoranda pertaining
to the applicability, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements of the NSPS, NESHAP, and stratospheric ozone regulations.
Users can search for letters and memoranda by date, office of issuance,
subpart, citation, control number, or by string word searches. Today's
notice comprises a summary of 64 such documents added to the ADI on
August 6, 2014. This notice lists the subject and header of each letter
and memorandum, as well as a brief abstract of the letter or
memorandum. Complete copies of these documents may be obtained from the
ADI through the OECA Web site at: www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/caa/adi.html.

Summary of Headers and Abstracts

The following table identifies the database control number for each
document posted on the ADI database system on August 6, 2014; the
applicable category; the section(s) and/or subpart(s) of 40 CFR parts
60, 61, or 63 (as applicable) addressed in the document; and the title
of the document, which provides a brief description of the subject
matter.
We have also included an abstract of each document identified with
its control number after the table. These abstracts are provided solely
to alert the public to possible items of interest and are not intended
as substitutes for the full text of the documents. This notice does not
change the status of any document with respect to whether it is ``of
nationwide scope or effect'' for purposes of CAA section 307(b)(1). For
example, this notice does not convert an applicability determination
for a particular source into a nationwide rule. Neither does it purport
to make a previously non-binding document binding.

ADI Determinations Uploaded on August 6, 2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control No. Categories Subparts Title
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1200009............................ NSPS.................. OOO, UUU.............. Request for Force Majeure
Delay for an Initial
Performance Test for a
Crusher and Calciner
Facility.
1200024............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Request for Exemption in
Lieu of AMP for Combusting
an Inherently Low Sulfur
Gas Vent Stream from a
Continuous Catalytic
Reformer at a Refinery.
1200033............................ NSPS.................. JJJJ, KKK............. Request for Clarification
of Applicability to Fuel
Gas Treatment Unit at
Compressor Station.
1200043............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Request for Alternate
Monitoring Plan for
Monitoring H2S AMP in Lieu
of CEMS at a Refinery.
1200047............................ NSPS.................. EEEE, FFFF............ Request for Exemption of
Contraband Incinerator
Based on the Owner and
Operator Definition.
1200048............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Request for Exemption in
Lieu of AMP for Combusting
an Inherently Low Sulfur
Gas Vent Stream at a
Refinery.
1200049............................ NSPS.................. D..................... Boiler Derate not Approved
for Changes only on Fuel
Feed System.
1200052............................ NSPS.................. VVa................... Request for Clarification
of Initial Monitoring
Requirement for Pumps and
Valves for New Process
Units.
1200053............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Request for Alternate
Monitoring Plan for Vented
Gas Stream with an
Inherently Low and Stable
Amount of H2S.
1200056............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Request for Exemption in
Lieu of AMP for Combusting
an Inherently Low Sulfur
Gas Vent Stream from a
Cyclic Reformer Caustic
Scrubber at a Refinery.
1200058............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Request for Exemption in
Lieu of AMP for Combusting
an Inherently Low Sulfur
Gas Vent Stream at a
Refinery.
1200059............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Exemption in Lieu of AMP-
Merox Disulfide Separator
Vent Stream--NSPS Subpart
J--Chalmette Refining--
Chalmette, Louisiana
Refinery.
1200064............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Request for Exemption in
Lieu of AMP for Combusting
an Inherently Low Sulfur
Gas Vent Stream from a
Continuous Catalytic
Reformer at a Refinery.
1200074............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Request for Exemption in
Lieu of AMP for Combusting
an Inherently Low Sulfur
Gas Vent Stream at a
Refinery.

[[Page 52321]]

1200080............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Request for Alternate
Monitoring Plan for Sour
Water Tanks at a Refinery.
1200086............................ NSPS.................. OOO................... Initial Performance Testing
Waiver for an NSPS
Facility that Operates
Very Infrequently.
1200088............................ NSPS.................. WWW................... Request for Approval to
Continue Operating Wells
at a Closed Landfill
Despite Instances of
Positive Pressure.
1200093............................ NSPS.................. LL.................... Request for Applicability
Determination for Dust
Collector Emissions at
Conveyor Belt Transfer
Points in a Metallic
Mineral Processing
Facility.
1200094............................ NSPS.................. WWW................... Alternative Monitoring Plan
for Higher Operating
Temperatures for Five Gas
Wells.
1400001............................ NSPS.................. WWW................... Request for Use of
Alternative Span Value for
Nitrogen Oxide CEMs at
Landfill.
1400002............................ NSPS.................. KKKK, ZZZZ............ Request to Determine if
Stationary Reciprocating
Internal Combustion
Engines (RICE) Meet
Institutional Emergency
Definition.
1400004............................ NSPS.................. Ce, WWW............... Request for Applicability
Determination on Landfill
Thresholds.
1400006............................ NSPS.................. J, Ja................. Request for Alternative
Monitoring Plan for
Monitoring Hydrogen
Sulfide (H2S) in Tank
Degassing Vapors Combusted
in Portable Thermal
Oxidizers at Petroleum
Refineries.
1400007............................ MACT, NSPS............ J, UUU................ Alternative Monitoring Plan
for Opacity for a Fluid
Catalytic Cracking Unit
Regenerator.
1400008............................ NSPS.................. WWW................... Request for Alternative
Compliance Remedy/Schedule
to Correct Surface
Emissions Exceedances at
Landfill.
1400009............................ NSPS.................. WWW................... Request for Alternative
Monitoring using a Higher
Operating Value for Oxygen
for a Landfill Gas
Collector.
1400010............................ NSPS.................. Db.................... Alternative Span Value for
Nitrogen Oxide CEMs.
1400011............................ NSPS.................. J..................... Request for Exemption in
Lieu of Alternative
Monitoring Plan for Fuel
Gas Streams Routed From
Caustic Regeneration Unit
to Furnaces.
1400012............................ NSPS.................. J, Ja................. Alternative Monitoring Plan
for Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S)
in Tank Degassing Vapors
Combusted in Portable
Thermal Oxidizers at
Petroleum Refineries.
1400013............................ NSPS.................. WWW................... Request for Alternative
Compliance Timeline for
Landfill Gas Extraction
Well.
1400014............................ MACT, NSPS............ EEEEE, UUU............ Alternative Monitoring
Request for a New Sand
Cooler at an Iron Foundry.
1400015............................ MACT, NSPS............ EEEEE, UUU............ Alternative Monitoring
Request for a New Sand
Cooler at an Iron Foundry.
1400017............................ NSPS.................. EEEE.................. Request for Alternative
Monitoring Plan for a
Continuous Emission
Monitoring System for a
Commercially Operated
Contraband Incinerator.
1400018............................ MACT, NSPS............ EEEE, HHHHH, JJJJ, KK, Request for Several MACT/
RR, SSSS, TT. NSPS Applicability
Determinations for
Different Process at a
Print Station Facility.
1400020............................ NSPS.................. WWW................... Request for Alternative
Remedy and Compliance
Timeline for a Landfill
Gas Extraction Well.
A140001............................ Asbestos.............. M..................... Applicability of Test
Methods to Asbestos-
Containing Bulk Samples.
A140002............................ Asbestos.............. M..................... Request for Determination
on whether maintenance of
High Voltage Electric
Transmission Towers is
Renovation or Demolition.
M110009............................ MACT.................. XXXXXX................ Request for Clarification
of Applicability of Metals
Processing Operations at
an Orthopedic Components
Manufacturer.
M110010............................ MACT.................. ZZZZ.................. Request for Exemption as
Emergency Engines for
Stationary Reciprocating
Internal Combustion
Engines.
M110011............................ MACT, NESHAP.......... TTTTTT................ Request for Clarification
of Applicability of Rule
to a Precious Metals
Melting Operation.
M110012............................ MACT.................. JJJJJ................. Request for Clarification
of Wood-Fired Boiler
Source Categorization.
M110013............................ MACT.................. WWWWWW................ Alternative Monitoring Plan
for Batch Electrolytic
Process Tanks at a Media
Replication Facility.
M110014............................ MACT.................. WWWW.................. Clarification on Monthly
Compliance Demonstration
for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Open
Moulding Operations.
M110016............................ MACT, NESHAP.......... JJJJJJ................ Request for Clarification
of Applicability to
Electric Boilers when
Burning Fuel Oil as a
Backup Fuel.
M110017............................ MACT.................. EEE................... Request to Revise
Alternative Monitoring
Plan for Deactivation
Furnace System of a
Hazardous Waste Combustor.
M110018............................ MACT.................. CCCCCCC, VVVVVV....... Request for Alternative
Compliance Methods for
Hazardous Air Pollutants
for an Area Source.

[[Page 52322]]

M120009............................ MACT.................. LLL................... Request for Approval of
Alternate Test Method for
Demonstrating Compliance
with Particulate Emissions
Standards for a Portland
Cement Facility.
M120013............................ MACT.................. MMM, NNNNN............ Request to Waive pH
Monitoring Requirement for
Control of Emissions from
Tank Truck Loading and
Storage Tanks.
M120026............................ MACT.................. JJJJ.................. Use of Alternative
Comparative Monitoring in
lieu of Calibration
Verification Requirements.
M120034............................ MACT, NSPS............ IIII, JJJJ, ZZZZ...... Reciprocating Internal
Combustion Engine Overhaul
does not trigger
Reconstruction and
Modification because of
Costs and Unaltered
Emissions.
M120035............................ MACT.................. MMMM, XXXXXX.......... Clarification on
Applicability of Area
Source Requirements for a
Metal Fabrication and
Finishing Source Facility.
M130003............................ MACT.................. ZZZZ.................. Request to Waive an Initial
Performance Test for
Identical RICEs at a HAP
Area Source.
M140001............................ MACT.................. EEE................... Request Alternative
Operating Parameter Limit
for Liquid Waste Firing
System.
M140002............................ MACT, NESHAP, NSPS.... EEEE, JJJJJJ.......... Energy Recovery and Syngas
Exemption Request for a
Gasification Unit.
M140003............................ MACT, NESHAP.......... DDDDD, JJJJJJ, PPPPP, Exemption of Halogenated
T, ZZZZ. Solvent Cleaning,
Stationary RICE, and
Institutional Boilers for
Vehicle Facility.
M140004............................ MACT.................. UUU................... Alternative Monitoring
Method for Sulfur Dioxide
Emissions During Emission
Control Device
Malfunctions or Down Time.
M140005............................ MACT.................. UUU................... Alternative Monitoring Plan
for Calculation of Flue
Gas Flow Rate in Lieu of
Direct Measurement.
M140007............................ NESHAP, NSPS.......... DDDDD, A, Db.......... Force Majeure Determination
for a new biomass-fired
cogeneration boiler.
Z120003............................ NESHAP................ FF.................... Request for Clarification
on Applicability to Sour
Water Streams Managed
Upstream of a Refinery
Sour Water Stripper.
Z130002............................ NESHAP................ JJJJJJ................ Request for Clarification
of Steam Boiler Exemption
for Mixed Residential and
Commercial Use.
Z130003............................ NESHAP................ N..................... Request for Approval of the
Use of Closed/Covered
Electroplating and
Anodizing Tanks in order
to Satisfy Physical
Barrier Requirements.
Z140001............................ MACT, NESHAP, NSPS.... BBBBBB, Kb, R, WW..... Alternative Monitoring
Request for Use of Top-
side in-service Inspection
Methodology for Internal
Floating Roof Storage
Tanks.
Z140002............................ MACT, NESHAP.......... EEEE, GGGG............ Regulatory Interpretation
of Solvent Transfer Racks
and Equipment for
Vegetable Oil Production
Plant.
Z140003............................ NESHAP, NSPS.......... IIII.................. Petition for Additional
Testing Hours for an
Emergency Generator.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abstracts

Abstract for [1200009]

Q1: Does EPA consider, as force majeure, certain weather conditions
that prevented initial stack tests from being conducted before the
compliance deadline under 40 CFR part 60, subparts OOO and UUU, at a
Cadre Material Products (Cadre) in Voca, Texas?
A1: Yes. EPA finds that certain events, such as an ice storm, may
be considered, dependent upon the circumstances specific to each event,
as force majeure under 40 CFR part 60 subpart A. The ice storm, and the
resultant amount of time necessary to complete repairs to equipment
damaged solely as a result of the weather event, is beyond the control
of the company. EPA will grant a one-week extension.
Q2: Does EPA consider, as force majeure, certain contract disputes
between the company and its contractor over production testing and
plant operation at the same facility.
A2: No. EPA does not consider that this qualifies as a force
majeure event since it was not beyond the control of the company. EPA
will not grant an extension.

Abstract for [1200024]

Q: Does EPA approve an exemption in lieu of an Alternative
Monitoring Plan (AMP) for combusting the off gas vent stream from a
continuous catalytic reformer (PtR-3) as an inherently low-sulfur
stream under 40 CFR part 60 subpart J, at the ExxonMobil Beaumont
Refinery located in Beaumont, Texas?
A: Yes. EPA determined that a monitoring exemption is appropriate
for the vent stream combusted in the continuous catalytic reformer
(PtR-3), and therefore, the AMP request is no longer needed, based on
the process operating and monitoring data submitted by the company and
in light of changes made to Subpart J on June 24, 2008 (73 FR 35866).
EPA agreed that the vent stream combusted in the fuel gas combustion
device (FGCD) is inherently low in sulfur, and thus, meets the
exemption criteria in 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(C). EPA agreed that the
FGCD is exempt from monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 60.l05(a)(3) and
(4). If the sulfur content or process operating parameters for the vent
stream change from representations made for the exemption
determination, the company must document the changes, re-evaluate the
vent stream characteristics, and follow the appropriate steps outlined
in 60.105(b)(3)(i) through (iii). The exemption determination should
also be referenced and attached to the facility's new source review and
Title V permit for federal enforceability.

[[Page 52323]]

Abstract for [1200033]

Q: The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (OK DEQ) has
requested a determination on whether a fuel gas treatment unit at the
Atlas Pipeline Mid-Continent Herron Compressor Station in Oklahoma is
subject to NSPS Subpart KKK if it extracts heavy hydrocarbons from
field gas prior to its use as a fuel for engines subject to 40 CFR part
60 subpart JJJJ, but does not sell the field gas?
A: Based on the information provided by OK DEQ, EPA has determined
that a facility does not have to sell liquids to be considered a
natural gas processing plant under 40 CFR part 60 subpart KKK, and
there is no specific operating temperature criteria for a facility to
be considered as engaged in the extraction of natural gas liquids. The
only temperature criteria mentioned in 40 CFR part 60 subpart KKK is in
the definition of equipment in light liquid service.

Abstract for [1200043]

Q: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for
monitoring hydrogen sulfide (H2S) in lieu of installing a continuous
emission monitoring system (CEMS) for a refinery truck loading rack
off-gas vent stream combusted at a thermal oxidizer under 40 CFR part
60 subpart J at the Valero Refining Corpus Christi, Texas West
refinery?
A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves Valero AMP, based on the
description of the process vent stream, the design of the vent gas
controls, and the H2S monitoring data furnished. Valero AMP approval is
conditioned on following the seven step process detailed in EPA's
guidance for Alternative Monitoring Plans for 40 CFR part 60 subpart J
relative to monitoring the facility's proposed operating parameter
limits (OPLs).

Abstract for [1200047]

Q: Does Kippur Corporation's El Paso, Texas Other Solid Waste
Incinerator (OSWI), which is used to combust contraband, qualify for
the exclusion from 40 CFR part 60 subpart EEEE or subpart FFFF under 40
CFR 60.2993(p), if the unit is owned and operated by a non-government
(commercial) entity, but where a government agency representative
maintains a supervisory and oversight role of handling of the
contraband feed while the owner/operator's employees start and operate
the incinerator?
A: No. EPA further clarified the exclusion of 40 CFR 60.2993(p) in
the preamble to the OSWI final rule, published on December 16, 2005, to
state that the exclusion applies only to goods confiscated by a
government agency. In addition, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has
defined the term supervisor in the context of the definition of owner
or operator provided in the Clean Air Act. The court held that
substantial control is the governing criterion when determining if one
is a supervisor. The Court elaborated that significant and substantial
control means having the ability to direct the manner in which work is
performed and the authority to correct problems. Based on review of the
information provided, EPA did not consider USCBP to be an operator of
the incinerator. The training requirements of 40 CFR 60.3014 for OSWI
unit operators also demonstrate that EPA intended the operator of an
OSWI incinerator be physically in control of the system or the direct
supervisor of someone who is physically operating the incinerator. U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (USCBP) is only in control of feeding the
contraband to the incinerator, presumably for custody control, but not
for any operative purpose. Since USCBP is not in control of the
incinerator itself, the Kippur OSWI unit is not exempt and must comply
with either 40 CFR part 60 subpart EEEE or subpart FFFF.

Abstract for [1200048]

Q: Does EPA approve an exemption in lieu of an Alternative
Monitoring Plan (AMP) for combusting a vent stream from a hydrogen
plant's steam methane reformer (SMR) degassifier knockout drum as an
inherently low-content sulfur stream under 40 CFR part 60 subpart J, at
the Valero Corpus Christi East Plant (Valero) in Corpus Christi, Texas?
A: Yes. EPA determined that a monitoring exemption is appropriate
for the vent stream, and EPA voided the AMP request based on the
process and monitoring data provided, and in light of changes made to
subpart J on June 24, 2008 (73 FR 35866). EPA agreed that the flare is
exempt from monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 60.105(a)(3) and (4). The
vent stream combusted in the flare is inherently low in sulfur because
it is produced in a process unit intolerant to sulfur contamination,
and thus, meets the exemption in 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(C). If
refinery operations change from representations made for this exemption
determination, then Valero must document the change(s) and follow the
appropriate steps outlined in 40 CFR 60.105(b)(3)(i) through (iii).

Abstract for [1200049]

Q: Does EPA approve the request from Domtar Paper Company (Domtar),
LLC, in Plymouth, North Carolina to derate the capacity of a boiler
(HFBI) to less than 250 mmBtu/hr in order that it will no longer be
subject to 40 CFR part 60 subpart D?
A: No. EPA has determined that Domtar's proposed derate for coal
firing procedure is not acceptable, as it does not meet EPA's criteria
for derate of boilers based on the description in Domtar's request, as
indicated to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources. The proposed derate procedure is based only on changes to
the fuel feed system and does not reduce the capacity of the boiler.
Domtar indicates that they must maintain the ability to use hog fuel at
a heat input greater than 250 million Btu/hr for HFB1 and cannot make
changes to the induced draft fan to reduce the boiler capacity.

Abstract for [1200052]

Q1: The Alabama Department of Environmental Management (AL DEM)
requests clarification of the initial monitoring requirements for pumps
and valves for new process units subject to 40 CFR part 60 subpart VVa.
Under 40 CFR part 60 subpart VVa, is a new facility required to
initially monitor pumps and valves within 30 days of startup of a new
process unit or within 180 days of startup of the process unit?
A1: The NSPS Subpart VVa requires initial monitoring of pumps and
valves for a new process unit to be conducted within 30 days after the
startup of a new process unit. Section 60.482-2a(a)(1) requires monthly
monitoring to detect leaks from pumps in light liquid service. Section
60.482-7a(a) requires monthly monitoring to detect leaks from valves in
gas/vapor service and in light liquid service. Further, Sec. 60.482-
1a(a) requires an initial compliance demonstration within 180 days of
initial startup of the valve or pump, and does not provide a grace
period during which a facility is exempt from the work practice
standards of Subpart VVa and the requirement to conduct monthly
monitoring of pumps and valves.
Q2: Under 40 CFR part 60 subpart VVa, what is the initiation of
monthly monitoring for pumps and valves which do not begin service at
the initial startup of a process unit but are placed in service over
time?
A2: For both pumps and valves, 40 CFR part subpart VVa requires
that monthly monitoring of the pump or valve is to begin within 30 days
after the end of its startup period to ensure

[[Page 52324]]

proper installation. This requirement is addressed in 40 CFR 60.482-
2a(a)(1) for pumps in light liquid service and in 40 CFR 60.482-
7a(a)(2) for valves in gas/vapor service or light liquid service.

Abstract for [1200053]

Q: Does EPA approve an Alternate Monitoring Plan for an inherently
low-sulfur gas stream from the Caustic Vent Degasser vented to a flare
at the Marathon Petroleum Company LLC (MPC) in Robinson, Illinois?
A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves MPC's Alternate Monitoring Plan
for the Caustic Tank Degasser vent to flare based on the process
description and the data showing the low and stable H2S content of the
stream. MPC will continue to monitor the NaOH (caustic strength) in the
spent caustic wash streams in lieu of continuously monitoring this
combined stream, and the proposed sampling schedule will be implemented
quarterly until December 2013, and thereafter EPA requires sampling
frequency on a biannual basis. The biannual sampling will be performed
with a minimum of three months between the collections of the samples.
If at any time the sample results from a single detector tube are equal
to or greater than 81 ppm H2S, MPC must follow the procedures and
notification requirements established in the EPA response letter.

Abstract for [1200056]

Q: Does EPA approve an exemption in lieu of an Alternative
Monitoring Plan (AMP) for combusting a vent stream from a cyclic
reformer caustic scrubber in a process furnace as an inherently low-
sulfur stream under 40 CFR part 60 subpart J, at the British
Petroleum's Texas City, Texas refinery?
A: Yes. EPA determined the cyclic reformer caustic scrubber vent
stream, and therefore the AMP request is no longer needed, based on the
process operating parameters and monitoring data submitted by the
company and in light of changes made to Subpart J on June 24, 2008 (73
FR 35866). EPA agreed that the process furnace is exempt from
monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 60.105(a)(3) and (4). The vent stream
combusted in the furnace is inherently low in sulfur because it is
produced in a process unit intolerant to sulfur contamination, and
thus, meets the exemption criteria in 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(C). If it
is determined that the stream is no longer exempt, continuous
monitoring must begin within 15 days of the change, in accordance with
40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv).

Abstract for [1200058]

Q: Does EPA approve an exemption in lieu of an Alternative
Monitoring Plan (AMP) for combusting vent streams from two continuous
catalytic reformer unit lock hoppers in a flare as an inherently low-
sulfur stream under 40 CFR part 60 subpart J, at the Chalmette
Refining, Chalmette), Louisiana refinery?
A: Yes. EPA determined that a monitoring exemption is appropriate
for the continuous catalytic reformer unit lock hopper vent streams,
and EPA voided the AMP request based on the process operating
parameters and monitoring data submitted by Chalmette and in light of
changes made to subpart J on June 24, 2008 (73 FR 35866). EPA agreed
that the flare is exempt from monitoring requirements of 40 CFR
60.105(a)(3) and (4). The vent streams combusted in the flare are
inherently low in sulfur because they are produced in a process unit
intolerant to sulfur contamination, and thus, meet the exemption
criteria in 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(C). If Chalmette determines that
the streams no longer meet the exempt criteria as a result of refinery
operations change(s), then Chalmette must document the change(s) and
must begin continuous monitoring within 15 days of the change, in
accordance with 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv).

Abstract for [1200059]

Q: Does EPA approve an exemption in lieu of an Alternative
Monitoring Plan (AMP) for combusting a vent stream from an alkylation
unit Merox disulfide separator in a reboiler heater as an inherently
low-sulfur stream under 40 CFR part 60 subpart J, at the Chalmette
Refining, Chalmette, Louisiana refinery?
A: Yes. EPA determined that a monitoring exemption is appropriate
for the alkylation unit Merox separator vent stream, and therefore the
AMP request is no longer needed, based on the process operating
parameters and monitoring data submitted by Chalmette and in light of
changes made to subpart J on June 24, 2008 (73 FR 35866). EPA agreed
that the reboiler heater is exempt from monitoring requirements of 40
CFR 60.l05(a)(3) and (4). The vent stream combusted in the heater is
inherently low in sulfur because it is produced in a process unit
intolerant to sulfur contamination, and thus, meets the exemption
criteria in 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(C). EPA also clarified that, if
refinery operations change such that the sulfur content for the vent
stream changes such that it no longer meets the exemption criteria,
continuous monitoring must begin within 15 days of the change, in
accordance with 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv).

Abstract for [1200064]

Q: Does EPA approve an exemption in lieu of an Alternative
Monitoring Plan (AMP) for combusting the vent stream from a continuous
catalytic reformer unit lock hopper in two reformer heaters as an
inherently low-sulfur stream under 40 CFR part 60 subpart J, at the
ExxonMobil's Beaumont, Texas refinery?
A: Yes. EPA determined that a monitoring exemption is appropriate
for the continuous catalytic reformer unit lock hopper vent stream, and
EPA voided the AMP request based on the process operating parameters
and monitoring data submitted by ExxonMobil and in light of changes
made to subpart J on June 24, 2008 (73 FR 35866). Based on review of
the information provided, EPA agreed that the reformer heaters are
exempt from monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 60.105(a)(3) and (4). The
vent stream combusted in the heaters is inherently low in sulfur
because it is produced in a process unit intolerant to sulfur
contamination, and thus, meets the exemption in 40 CFR
60.105(a)(4)(iv)(C). If it is determined that the stream is no longer
exempt, continuous monitoring must begin within 15 days of the change,
in accordance with 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv).

Abstract for [1200074]

Q: Does EPA approve an exemption in lieu of an Alternative
Monitoring Plan (AMP) for combusting the off gas vent stream from a
hydrogen plant pressure swing adsorption (PSA) unit in a flare as an
inherently low-sulfur stream under 40 CFR part 60 subpart J, at the
Valero Refining East Refinery in Corpus Christi, Texas?
A: Yes. EPA determined that a monitoring exemption is appropriate
for the hydrogen plant PSA vent stream, and EPA voided the AMP request
based on the process operating parameters and monitoring data submitted
by Valero and in light of changes made to subpart J on June 24, 2008
(73 FR 35866). Based on review of the information provided, EPA agreed
that the flare is exempt from the monitoring requirements of 40 CFR
60.105(a)(3) and (4). The vent stream combusted in the flare is
inherently low in sulfur because it is produced in a process unit
intolerant to sulfur contamination, and thus, meets the exemption in 40
CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(C). If it is determined that the vent stream is no
longer exempt, continuous monitoring must begin within 15 days

[[Page 52325]]

of the change, in accordance with 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv).

Abstract for [1200080]

Q: Does EPA approve the Alternative Monitoring Plans (AMPs) for
monitoring hydrogen sulfide (H2S) in lieu of installing a continuous
emission monitoring system (CEMS) for three sour water tank off-gas
vent streams, subject to 40 CFR part 60 subpart J, that are combusted
in two sulfur recovery unit tail gas incinerators at the Valero
Refining facility in Houston, Texas?
A: No. EPA does not approve Valero's proposed AMPs for the off-gas
vent streams from the three sour water tank off-gas vent streams
because the necessary fuel gas system and stream sampling data was not
provided to demonstrate that the fuel gas streams are sufficiently low
in sulfur content or to establish appropriate alternative monitoring
methods, parameters, and frequencies to ensure inherently low and
stable H2S content of the off-gas vent streams to be combusted at the
incinerators.

Abstract for [1200086]

Q: Does EPA approve a waiver of the initial performance test under
the NSPS for Non-metallic Mineral Processing Plants for the Emission
Unit PO 14 at the Carmeuse Industrial Sands, Millwood Operation in
Howard, Ohio? The Emission Unit PO 14 is operated infrequently and for
short durations, and the plant lacks testing facilities.
A: Yes. EPA approves this waiver request because the facility is
operated for small amounts of time per day, which is not sufficient to
implement a Method 5 or 17 performance test meeting the requirements in
this standard. However, EPA does not consider a lack of testing
facilities as a valid reason to waive a test and points out that
construction of a source subject to testing requirements in a manner
that prevents it from being tested might be considered circumvention
under the General Provisions. In addition, EPA approves all
determinations on a case-by-case basis and is not necessarily bound by
previous determinations.

Abstract for [1200088]

Q1: Does EPA approve the continued operation of several gas wells
at the closed Willowcreek Landfill in Atwater, Ohio without expansion
of the gas collection system, despite instances of positive pressure
and oxygen exceedance under the NSPS for Landfills?
A1: Yes. EPA approves the continued operation of the Willowcreek
wells without expansion of the collection system because they are
showing signs of declining gas quality and expansion of the system is
expected to be of little to no value.
Q2: Does EPA approve the continued operation of other wells that in
the future may experience the same conditions at the Willowcreek
Landfill?
A2: EPA does not provide a blanket approval for all future wells
experiencing the same conditions. Expansion of this alternative
monitoring approval will require subsequent requests.

Abstract for [1200093]

Q: Are the emissions from AIRS ID 060 and 079 from dust collectors
at the top of enclosed conveyor belt transfer points ``process fugitive
emissions'' subject to the standard outlined in 40 CFR 60.382(b) or
``stack emissions'' subject to the standards in 40 CFR 60.382(a) of
NSPS Subpart LL, which are located at the Climax Molybdenum facility in
Leadville, CO?
A. The EPA determines that the fugitive emissions from the dust
collectors utilized by AIRS ID 060 and 079 are ``stack emissions,'' as
these are being released through a ``stack, chimney, or flue'' and will
be ``released to the atmosphere.'' In addition, the process fugitive
emission standard applies to ``emissions from an affected facility that
are not collected by a capture system.'' Therefore, the emissions from
the dust collectors are not ``process fugitive emissions'' since these
emissions are being captured and controlled and are not emissions that
have escaped control.

Abstract for [1200094]

Q: Does EPA approve Elk River Landfill, Incorporated's alternative
monitoring request under 40 CFR 60.753(c) of the Landfill NSPS, Subpart
WWW, for a variance of the operating temperature for five gas wells at
Elk River Landfill in Elk River, Minnesota?
A: Yes. EPA approves Elk's request for an alternative operating
temperature for the five gas wells. Based on the supporting
information, the higher operating gas temperatures do not significantly
inhibit anaerobic decomposition by killing methanogens and do not cause
subsurface landfill fire at the site. Therefore, EPA approves Elk River
Landfill's request for an operating temperature of 155 [deg]F for gas
well numbers EREW35R2, EREW0042, EREW045R, EREW0066, and ERHC0010.

Abstract for [1400001]

Q: Does EPA approve a request from Advanced Disposal Service (ADS)
to use an alternate span value of 50 parts per million by Volume (ppmV)
in lieu of 500 ppmV required by 40 CFR 60.48b(e)(2) for the nitrogen
oxide continuous emission monitors (CEMs) on each of two process
heaters at the Rolling Hills Landfill (RHLF) in Buffalo, Minnesota?
A: Yes. EPA approves the use of the alternate span value for the
two process heaters' CEMs. EPA concludes that the span will be more
appropriate for the typical range of emission concentrations and that
the span will yield more accurate measurement(s) during normal
operating conditions.

Abstract for [1400002]

Q. Do the Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines
(RICE) powering floodwater pumps and associated generators at the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), W.G. Huxtable Pumping Plant, Lee
County, Arkansas, meet the definition of an institutional emergency
RICE under 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ?
A. Yes. EPA determines that the RICE SN-01 through SN-13 pumps and
associate generators meet the definition of institutional emergency at
40 CFR 63.6675 because these are located at an area source facility for
HAPs and are only used when significant flooding occurs. Specifically,
pumping does not begin until the water level on the downstream
(Mississippi River) side of the facility is higher than the water on
the upstream side, a condition that would only happen in the case of
significant flooding. Also, these engines are located at a facility
with a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code of
924110. This NAICS code is on the list of codes that identifies the
types of facilities that would be considered residential, commercial,
or institutional, provided as guidance by the EPA after the RICE NESHAP
was published. Therefore, the engines are existing institutional
emergency stationary RICE located at an area source of hazardous air
pollutant (HAP) emissions, not subject to the RICE NESHAP per the
exemption in 40 CFR 63.6585(f)(3).

Abstract for [1400004]

Q1: Does EPA concur that design capacity for municipal solid waste
(MSW) of the Advanced Disposal Service (ADS) Rolling Hills Landfill
(RHLF) in Buffalo, Minnesota, is less than 2.5 million megagrams (2.7
million tons) and 2.5 million cubic meters (3.3 million cubic yards)
for purposes of NSPS Subpart WWW rule?
A1: No. EPA concludes that the design capacity of the ADS RHLF is
greater than 2.5 million megagrams and

[[Page 52326]]

2.5 million cubic meters based on the definition of ``MSW landfill''
and of ``design capacity'' in Subpart WWW. EPA concludes that the
RHLF's MSW landfill consists of the entire disposal facility in a
contiguous geographical space. EPA calculated the RHLF's design
capacity as the sum of the design capacity for each waste disposal area
in the most recent permit, which lists the authorized waste disposal
activities.
Q2: Are the Landfill NSPS applicability thresholds based not only
on physical volumes or masses but also upon the state regulatory
environment, recycling mandates, and intercounty solid waste planning
directives?
A2: EPA determines that the state restrictions and limitations on
the types of waste that the RHLF has been allowed to accept cannot
reduce the design capacity below the Landfill NSPS applicability
thresholds. The NSPS does not distinguish nonmethane organic compounds
(NMOC) emissions generated from MSW and those generated from non-MSW.
Consequently, even though restrictions on the types of waste that the
RHLF has been allowed to accept may be federally enforceable under the
federal SWDA, EPA concludes that ADS may not exclude the volume and
mass of non-MSW from the calculation of the RHLF's design capacity.

Abstract for [1400006]

Q: Can EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for Envent
Corporation to conduct monitoring of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) emissions,
in lieu of installing a continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS),
when performing tank degassing and other similar operations controlled
by portable, temporary thermal oxidizers, at refineries in Region 6
States that are subject to NSPS subparts J or Ja?
A: Yes. EPA conditionally approved the AMP based on the description
of the process, the vent gas streams, the design of the vent gas
controls, and the H2S monitoring data furnished. EPA included proposed
operating parameter limits (OPLs) and data which the refineries must
furnish as part of the conditional approval. The approved AMP applies
only to similar degassing operations conducted by ENVENT at refineries
in EPA Region 6.

Abstract for [1400007]

Q. Does EPA approve the Holly Frontier Corporation, Holly Refining
& Marketing Company--Woods Cross's (Holly's) alternative monitoring
plan (AMP) for monitoring opacity from the fluid catalytic cracking
unit (FCCU) regenerator since moisture in the wet gas scrubbers to the
FCCU causes interference with opacity monitors, making the results
unreliable?
A. Yes. EPA conditionally approves Holly's AMP request to monitor
alternative operating parameters in its wet gas scrubber since these
ensure optimum collection efficiency for particulates. The Holly AMP
approval is conditional on maintaining liquid flow to the nozzles in
the absorber tower vessel and the filtering modules, and ensuring a
minimum pressure drop across the filtering modules.

Abstract for [1400008]

Q: Does EPA approve the alternate compliance remedies to correct
the surface scan emissions exceedances that occurred during the surface
emissions monitoring (SEM) event at five designated locations at the
Settle's Hill Recycling and Disposal Facility (Settle's Hill) and
Midway Landfill in Batavia, Illinois?
A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves this request for alternative
compliance remedies that involve installing dewatering pumps in several
gas extraction wells in the vicinity of the exceedances, further
enhancement of the landfill gas collection and control system (GCCS),
further enhancement of the landfill cap with the placement of
additional soil cover and corresponding schedule for locations
designated as EX-1, -2, -3, -5, and -6 at the Midway Landfill and
Settler's Hill. The condition for approval requires that the remedies
eliminate methane exceedances at the locations listed above. If such is
not the case in subsequent SEM, beginning December 6, 2012, more
aggressive measures will be required to reduce surface emissions at
both the Midway Landfill and Settler's Hill to ensure compliance.

Abstract for [1400009]

Q: Does EPA approve a higher operating value for oxygen
concentration under NSPS Subpart WWW for a well collector at the Roxana
Landfill, Incorporated facility located in Roxana, Illinois?
A: No. EPA does not approve Roxana's request because the criteria
for approval of a higher operating value for oxygen concentration at
Roxana's Collector Well 0TD1 under the provisions in 40 CFR 60.753(c)
of NSPS Subpart WWW has not been met. In order to approve a higher
oxygen operating value, 40 CFR 60.753(c) requires, ``data that shows
the elevated parameter does not cause fires or significantly inhibit
anaerobic decomposition by killing methanogens.''

Abstract for [1400010]

Q: Does EPA approve Flint Hills Resources' request to set the span
value for the nitrogen oxide continuous emission monitors on each of
two process heaters 25H1 and 25H3 at 50 parts per million by Volume
(ppmV) rather than 500 ppmV as required by 40 CFR 60.48b(e)(2)?
A: Yes. EPA concludes that the span will be more appropriate for
the typical range of emission concentrations and that the span will
yield more accurate measurements during normal operating conditions.

Abstract for [1400011]

Q: Does EPA approve an exemption in lieu of Alternative Monitoring
Plan (AMP) for monitoring hydrogen sulfide (H2S) rather than installing
a continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) for a refinery caustic
regeneration unit off-gas vent stream combusted at two process furnaces
under 40 CFR part 60 subpart J at the ExxonMobil refinery in Baton
Rouge, Louisiana?
A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the exemption under the seven
step process detailed in EPA's guidance for Alternative Monitoring
Plans for 40 CFR part 60 subpart J, based on the description of the
process vent stream, the design of the vent gas controls, and the H2S
monitoring data furnished. EPA included the facility's proposed
operating parameter limits (OPLs), which the facility must continue to
monitor, as part of the conditional approval.

Abstract for [1400012]

Q: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for Gem
Mobile Services to conduct monitoring of hydrogen sulfide (H2S)
emissions, in lieu of installing a continuous emission monitoring
system (CEMS), when performing tank degassing and other similar
operations controlled by portable, temporary thermal oxidizers, at
refineries located in EPA Region 6 states that are subject to NSPS
Subparts J or Ja?
A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the AMP, based on the
description of the process, the vent gas streams, the design of the
vent gas controls, and the H2S monitoring data furnished. EPA included
proposed operating parameter limits (OPLs) and data which the
refineries must furnish as part of the conditional approval. The
approved AMP is only for degassing operations conducted at refineries
in EPA Region 6.

[[Page 52327]]

Abstract for [1400013]

Q: Does EPA allow an alternative compliance timeline for landfill
gas extraction well at the American Disposal Services of Illinois, Inc.
(ADSI)--Livingston Landfill facility located in Pontiac, Illinois?
A: No. EPA does not approve the request for an alternative
compliance timeline for correcting the operational parameter exceedance
at the ADSI's landfill gas extraction well LIV-GW22 (GW22). EPA did not
approve an alternative compliance timeline because the request was for
a potential situation that may or may not happen and may or may not
cause a delay in construction. Such approval will only be granted if
ADSI can establish that forces beyond its control prevent on-time
compliance.

Abstract for [1400014]

Q: Does EPA approve a request to use a bag leak detection (BLD)
system in lieu of continuous opacity monitoring (COM) or daily Method 9
visible emissions (VE) readings, as required by 40 CFR part 60, subpart
UUU for monitoring the new thermal sand reclamation system being
installed at the Thyssenkrupp Waupaca, Inc. (Waupaca) foundry (Plant I)
in Wisconsin?
A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the use of the BLD system at the
new sand cooler for monitoring in lieu of a COM or daily VE readings to
comply with subpart UUU rule. This approval is conditioned upon the BLD
system being subject to the same installation, operation, maintenance,
monitoring, recordkeeping, and notification provisions of 40 CFR part
63 subpart EEEEE, rule applicable to Waupaca since it is an iron and
steel foundry.

Abstract for [1400015]

Q: Does EPA approve a request to use a bag leak detection (BLD)
system in lieu of continuous opacity monitoring (COM) or daily Method 9
visible emissions (VE) readings, as required by 40 CFR part 60 subpart
UUU for monitoring the new thermal sand reclamation system being
installed at the Thyssenkrupp Waupaca, Inc. (Waupaca) foundry (Plants 2
and 3) in Wisconsin?
A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves use of the BLD system at the new
sand cooler for monitoring in lieu of a COM or daily VE readings. This
approval is conditioned upon the the BLD system being subject to the
same installation, operation, maintenance, monitoring, recordkeeping,
and notification provisions of 40 CFR part 63 subpart EEEEE, rule
applicable to Waupaca since it is an iron and steel foundry.

Abstract for [1400017]

Q: Does the EPA approve a petition for approval of operating
parameter limits (OPLs) in lieu of installing a wet scrubber, an
initial performance test plan, and an initial relative accuracy test
audit (RATA) protocol for a continuous emission monitoring system
(CEMS) at a dual chamber, commercial incinerator which thermally
destroys contraband for U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) at the
Southwest Border Incineration (SWBI) facility located in McAllen,
Texas, and is subject to regulation as an ``other solid waste
incineration'' (OSWI) unit under 40 CFR part 60 subpart EEEE?
A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the SWBI's petition for
establishing specific OPLs to be monitored, initial performance test
plan, and the CEMS RATA protocol based on the information submitted to
EPA since the rule requirements at 40 CFR 60.2917(a) through (e) and 40
CFR 60.2940(a) through (d) were met. Final approval of SWBI's petition
will be based on the OPL range values and other conditions that are
established from the results of the performance testing and the CEMS
RATA.

Abstract for [1400018]

Q1. Is Coater A, part of a coating line that manufactures pressure
sensitive tape and labels at the 3M print station facility in
Hutchinson, Minnesota, which applies hot melt coating with zero
potential VOC emissions and commenced construction after December 30,
1980, subject to 40 CFR part 60 subpart RR?
A1. Yes. Coater A meets the applicability criteria of affected
facility in both 40 CFR 60.440(a) and (c), and is therefore subject to
40 CFR part 60 subpart RR. Since Coater A applies coatings with zero
potential VOC emissions, it is not subject to the emission limits of 40
CFR 60.442(a). However, it is subject to the requirements of all other
applicable provisions of 40 CFR part 60 subpart RR.
Q2. Is Coater B at 3M print station, which coats webs, including
paper, film, and metal at two coating application stations, each
followed by a drying oven, and a print station with a small oven for
making product markings, and was installed in 1985 at the 3M facility
in Rockland, Massachusetts, subject to 40 CFR part 60 subpart TT?
A2. Yes. Coater B meets the definitions in 40 CFR part 60 subpart
TT of two affected facilities, a prime coat operation and a finish coat
operation, and is thus subject to the rule requirements.
Q3. Is Coater B, a coating line which is used in the manufacture of
pressure sensitive tape and label materials and was installed in 1985,
also subject to 40 CFR part 60 subpart RR?
A3. Yes. Coater B meets the criteria in 40 CFR 60.440 and is,
therefore, a 40 CFR part 60 subpart RR affected source subject to the
rule requirements.
Q4. Is the 3M print station part of 40 CFR part 60 subpart TT or
subpart RR affected facility?
A4. The print station is an affected facility under both 40 CFR
part 60 subpart TT and 40 CFR part 60 subpart RR. Under subpart TT, the
print station is an affected facility, because it meets the definition
of an application system applying an organic coating in 40 CFR 60.461.
The print station is also an affected facility under 40 CFR part 60
subpart RR, because it meets the definition of a precoat coating
applicator in 40 CFR 60.441(a).
Q5. How would the analysis and conclusions for 40 CFR part 60
subpart RR change if the VOC input to the coating line had never
exceeded 45 Mg VOC in any 12-month period?
A5. EPA finds this question outside the scope of an applicability
determination, because it is hypothetical and contrary to the stated
facts. However, in general, a facility that does not input to the
coating process more than 45 MG (50 tons) of VOC per 12-month period is
not subject to the emission limits in 40 CFR part 60 subpart RR.
Q6. When and how do the emissions limits of 40 CFR part 60 subpart
TT and/or 40 CFR part 60 subpart RR apply?
A6. EPA finds this question outside the scope of an applicability
determination, because it does not address applicability. However, in
general, an NSPS affected facility is subject to the requirements of a
rule at all times while engaged in activity that causes it to meet the
definition of an affected facility. So, a 40 CFR part 60 subpart TT
affected facility is subject to the rule while engaged in the
activities of a metal coil surface coating operation. Similarly, a 40
CFR part 60 subpart RR affected facility is subject to the rule while
engaged in the manufacture of pressure sensitive tape and labels. If a
facility is subject to more than one NSPS, the facility must
demonstrate compliance with each rule (i.e., keep records and calculate
the emissions for activities in each applicable category).
Q7. Is Coater C, a major source of HAP emissions that applies
coatings to

[[Page 52328]]

several types of webs, including paper, film, and metal, and was
installed in 1963 at the 3M facility in Hartford City, Indiana, subject
to 40 CFR part 63 subpart SSSS?
A7. Yes. Coater C is an existing affected source under 40 CFR part
63 subpart SSSS, because it coats metal coil as defined in 40 CFR
63.5110 and was constructed before July 18, 2000. It does not qualify
for the exemption in 40 CFR 63.5090(b)(2) because more than 15 percent
of the metal coil coated, based on surface area, is greater than 0.15
millimeter (0.006 inch) thick.
Q8. Is Coater C located at the 3M facility in Hartford City,
Indiana, also subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ rule
requirements?
A8. No. Coater C is not subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJ
requirements, as long as it meets the 40 CFR part 63 subpart SSSS rule
requirements. In 40 CFR part 63 subpart SSSS, owners/operators of
facilities are provided the option that, if they are subject to both
subparts, they can choose to comply with the requirements of 40 CFR
part 63 subpart SSSS, and have that constitute compliance with 40 CFR
part 63 subpart JJJJ, rather than complying with the requirements of
both rules.
Q9. Is the 3M print station of Coater C an affected source under
both 40 CFR part 63 subpart SSSS and 40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJ?
A9. Yes. The print station of Coater C meets the applicability
criteria of both 40 CFR part 63 subpart SSSS and 40 CFR part 63 subpart
JJJJ. However, an owner/operator can choose to comply with the
requirements of 40 CFR part 63 subpart SSSS and have that constitute
compliance with 40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJ. The print station meets
the applicability criteria of 40 CFR part 63 subpart SSSS, because the
inks applied by the print station are included in the definition of a
coating. This coating is applied by the print station which meets the
definition of a work station that operates on a coil coating line. For
40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJ, the inks applied at the print station of
Coater C meet the definition of a coating material in 40 CFR 63.3310
and are applied by the print station which meets the definition of a
work station and operates on a web coating line.
Q10. When and how do the emissions limits of 40 CFR part 63 subpart
SSSS and/or 40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJ apply to 3M print station?
A10. EPA finds this question outside the scope of an applicability
determination, because it does not question applicability. However, in
general, a 40 CFR part 63 subpart SSSS affected source is subject to
the rule at all times while engaged in activity that causes the
facility to meet the definition of an affected facility. If the owner/
operator does not choose to comply with 40 CFR part 63 subpart SSSS, or
the affected facility is engaged in activities that do not meet the
applicability criteria of 40 CFR part 63 subpart SSSS, then the
affected facility could be subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJ. The
affected facility would be subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJ only
while engaging in activities that meet the definition of a 40 CFR part
63 subpart JJJJ affected source.
Q11. Is Coater D, located at the 3M facility in Hutchinson,
Minnesota subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart KK? The facility is a major
source of HAP emissions and it is in a collection of web coating lines
that are an existing affected source under MACT subpart JJJJ. Also
present at the facility is a collection of wide-web flexographic
printing presses which are an existing affected source under MACT
Subpart KK. A flexographic print station capable of printing onto webs
that are greater than 18 inches wide was added to Coater D and more
than 5 percent of all materials applied onto the web of Coater D in a
month occur at the flexographic print station.
A11. Yes. Coater D meets the definition of a wide-web flexographic
press that is a Subpart KK affected source, unless it qualifies for the
exclusion provided in 40 CFR 63.821(a)(2)(ii). Coater D does not
qualify for the exclusion because more than 5 percent of the mass of
all materials applied by Coater D is applied by the wide-web
flexographic print station.
Q12. Is Coater D a 40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJ affected source?
A12. No. Coater D meets the MACT Subpart JJJJ definition of a web
coating line in 40 CFR 63.3310; however, 40 CFR 63.3300(b) excludes any
web coating line that is a ``wide-web flexographic press under Subpart
KK.'' Since Coater D is included in a 40 CFR part 63 subpart KK
affected source, it is not a 40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJ affected
source.
Q13. How does the analysis change if in a single month (or
permanently) the total mass of materials applied by the print station
of Coater D is no more than 5 percent of the total mass of materials
applied?
A13. EPA believes that 3M is asking if Coater D's status as a 40
CFR part 63 subpart KK affected source changes if the mass of material
applied by the print station in a month subsequently falls below 5
percent of the total mass of materials applied by Coater D. Coater D
remains a 40 CFR part 63 subpart KK affected source even if the mass of
material applied by the print station in a month subsequently falls
below 5 percent of the total mass of materials applied by Coater D. The
word ``never'' in the exclusion at 40 CFR 63.821(a)(2)(ii)(A) means
that once the total mass of materials applied in any month exceeds 5
percent of the total mass of material applied in that month, the
coating line continues to be a 40 CFR part 63 subpart KK affected
source, even if percentage subsequently falls below 5 percent.
Q14. When and how do the emissions standards of the applicable MACT
rules apply to Coater D?
A14. The EPA finds this question outside the scope of an
applicability determination, because it does not question
applicability. Also, EPA interprets the question as: (1) Do the
emission standards apply to the entire coating line or just to the
flexographic print station? and (2) If the standards apply to the
entire line, do they continue to apply even when the flexographic print
station is not operating? In general, the emission standards apply to
the entire coating line, not just to the flexographic print station,
because the print station is part of the flexographic press in 40 CFR
63.822(a) which meets the definition of an affected source under 40 CFR
part 63 subpart KK. The emissions standards apply while any part of the
coating line is operating even if the flexographic print station is not
operating.
Q15. Does the analysis change if the total mass of materials
applied by the print station of Coater D has never exceeded in a month
5 percent of the total mass of materials applied by Coater D overall?
A15. The EPA finds this question outside the scope of an
applicability determination as it does not question applicability and
is contrary to the stated facts. However, in general, Coater D,
including the wide-web printing station, meets the definition of a web
coating line in 40 CFR 63.3310 and is, therefore, a subpart JJJJ
affected source. The section 40 CFR 63.3300(b) excludes any web coating
line that is an affected source under 40 CFR part 63 subpart KK.
However, an owner/operator could choose exclude Coater D from 40 CFR
part 63 subpart KK if the sum of the total mass of materials applied by
print stations in any month never exceeded 5 percent of the total mass
of materials applied by Coater D in that same month. If the owner/
operator chooses to exclude Coater D from 40 CFR part 63 subpart KK, it
would remain a 40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJ affected source. If

[[Page 52329]]

not excluded, it would be a subpart KK affected source.
Q16. Would Coater D be a 40 CFR part 63 Subpart KK or 40 CFR part
63 subpart JJJJ affected source if the print station were
decommissioned or removed from the coating line?
A16. The EPA finds this question outside the scope of an
applicability determination. It is hypothetical and does not question
applicability. To answer the question, we would need more information
on which coating lines remain in operation. However, in general, upon
decommissioning or removing the print station, Coater D would no longer
meet the criteria for being a wide-web flexographic printing press and,
therefore, would no longer be a subpart KK affected source. At that
point, Coater D would be a subpart JJJJ affected source as it would no
longer qualify for the exclusion in 40 CFR 63.3300(b).
Q17. If an additional web coating line is constructed at the
Springfield facility will it be subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJ?
A17. The EPA finds this question outside the scope of an
applicability determination, because it is hypothetical and does not
have actual facts to address applicability. However, in general, 40 CFR
part 63 subpart JJJJ, in 40 CFR 63.3300, defines an affected source as:
``the collection of all web coating lines at your facility.''
Therefore, if a facility is subject to 40 CFR subpart JJJJ, all web
coating lines, new or existing, at that facility would be subject to
the requirements of the subpart.
Q18. Are the components which are directly associated with Rack A
at the 3M manufacturing facility in Hutchinson, Minnesota, while it is
being used to unload solvent from Truck A into Tank A, part of an
[organic liquid distribution] OLD and/or an miscellaneous coating
manufacturing (MCM) affected source? Tank A at the facility is a bulk
solvent storage tank where the solvent contains 5 percent weight or
more of the organic HAP listed in Table 1 of 40 CFR 63 subpart EEEE.
The solvent in Tank A is used exclusively to manufacture coatings and
all coatings manufactured at the facility are used exclusively by the
coating lines of the facility. Truck A is a tank truck that delivers
the solvent to Tank A, and Rack A is a transfer rack that is used to
unload the solvent from Truck A into Tank A.
A18. Rack A is a 40 CFR part 63 subpart EEEE affected source when
it is being used to unload Truck A because Truck A contains organic
liquid (as defined in 40 CFR part 63 subpart EEEE). Therefore, the
equipment leak components directly associated with Rack A are 40 CFR
part 63 subpart EEEE affected sources when Rack A is being used to
unload solvent from Truck A into Tank A. The section 40 CFR part 63
subpart EEEE was written specifically to regulate the distribution of
liquids containing 5 percent by weight or more of organic HAP and
requires a commensurate level of control. By comparison, 40 CFR part 63
subpart HHHHH was written to regulate liquids with a lower
concentration of organic HAP. As a result, the emission limits for 40
CFR part 63 subpart EEEE are more stringent than those in 40 CFR part
63 subpart HHHHH. Because of this different level of stringency, the
EPA believes that the facility is more properly subject to 40 CFR part
63 subpart EEEE because the solvent distributed by the facility has 5
percent weight or more of organic HAP, even though the liquid is used
to manufacture coatings.
Q19. Are any components directly associated with Truck A, while
Truck A is unloading solvent into Tank A, part of an OLD and/or an MCM
affected source?
A19. Any equipment leak components directly associated with Truck A
are part of an OLD affected source while Truck A is unloading solvent
into Tank A. Because the equipment leak components directly associated
with Truck A are part of an OLD affected source, they cannot be part of
an MCM affected source.
Q20. Is Rack A, while it is being used to unload solvent from Truck
A into Tank A, part an OLD and/or an MCM affected source?
A20. Rack A is part of an OLD affected source while it is being
used to unload solvent from Truck A into Tank A. Because Rack A is part
of an OLD affected source, it cannot be part of an MCM affected source.
Q21. Is Truck A, while unloading solvent into Tank A, part of an
OLD and/or an MCM affected source?
A21. Truck A is part of an OLD affected source while unloading
solvent into Tank A. Because Truck A is part of an OLD affected source,
it cannot be part of an MCM affected source. Also, transport vehicles
are not included in the MCM definition of affected sources.
Q22. If either Truck A and/or Rack A are part of an MCM affected
source, does the exclusion of affiliated operations at 40 CFR
63.7985(d)(2) affect how the requirements of 40 CFR part 63 subpart
HHHHH apply?
A22. Neither Truck A nor Rack A are part of an MCM affected source
while Rack A is being used to unload solvent from Truck A to Tank A.

Abstract for [1400020]

Q: Does EPA allow an alternative remedy and corresponding schedule
to address methane exceedances above 500 PPM for a landfill gas
extraction well at the Settler's Hill Recycling and Disposal Facility
(Settler's Hill)/Midway Landfill (Midway) facility located in Batavia,
Illinois, subject to the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW?
A: EPA approves the proposed alternative remedy to regrade and
compact the clay patch in the area near landfill gas extraction well
Midway EX-2, and to import and compact an additional foot of clean clay
in that same area. EPA understands that the remedy was carried forth,
surface emission monitoring was performed, and no methane exceedances
were detected.

Abstract for [A140001]

Q1: The Missouri Department of Natural Resources seeks EPA
clarification on whether the 1991 Applicability Determination Index
(ADI) document (ADI Number C112) represent EPA's current position on
analysis of bulk for asbestos pursuant to the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for asbestos?
A1: Yes. The 1991 response for analysis of bulk under the asbestos
NESHAP represents EPA's current position. A minimum of three slide
mounts should be prepared and examined in their entirety by Polarized
Light Microscopy (PLM) to determine if asbestos is present. If the
amount by visual estimation appears to be less than 10 percent, the
owner and/or operator ``may (1) elect to assume the amount to be
greater than 1 percent and treat the material as regulated asbestos-
containing material or (2) require verification of the amount by point
counting.'' If a result obtained by point count is different from a
result obtained by visual estimation, the point count result will be
used.
Q2: Do the EPA interpretations contained in ADI Number C112 extend
to non-friable materials that have been or will be rendered into
Regulated Asbestos Containing Materials (RACM) by the forces acted on
it?
A2: Yes. EPA determined that the requirement for point counting
extends to non-friable materials that have been or will be rendered
into RACM.
Q3: Would the EPA consider Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM)
analysis as being equally or more effective than Polarized Light

[[Page 52330]]

Microscopy (PLM) point counting and an acceptable substitute to PLM
point counting?
A3. Yes. In a Federal Register notice published on August 1, 1994,
at 59 FR 38970, EPA announced that TEM analysis is more capable of
producing accurate results than PLM, and thus serves as a preferred
substitute to PLM point counting.

Abstract for [A140002]

Q1: Are specific maintenance activities on high voltage electric
transmission towers mentioned by URS Corporation facility in San
Francisco, California, considered demolitions or renovations under the
Asbestos NESHAP, 40 CFR part 61, subpart M?
A1: Based on the provided descriptions, EPA finds that the
maintenance activities URS listed in the request are renovations under
40 CFR part 61, subpart M because the activities involve the
replacement of lattice extensions and tower legs and not the permanent
dismantling of the electrical transmission tower.
Q2: For the described listed renovations, are notifications
required for unpainted, galvanized steel?
A2: No. Notifications are not required under the asbestos NESHAP if
the owner and/or operator has thoroughly inspected the structure and,
(1) determined that the work on the structure is a renovation operation
and, (2) that the regulatory threshold amount of regulated asbestos-
containing material (RACM) will not be met.
Q3: Would the 15 years of sampling and thousands of sampling
results showing non-detection of RACM be sufficient to support no
further sampling of towers for RACM?
A3: No. EPA encourages representative sampling of various building
materials that are part of a renovation or demolition operation,
because such testing enables the owner and/or operator to identify and
manage which building materials must be handled in accordance with the
asbestos NESHAP. Relying solely on historical analysis and visual
inspections may not provide the owner/operator with definitive
knowledge, as to whether a specific tower was ever painted with
asbestos-containing paint.

Abstract for [M110009]

Q: Does 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXXXX apply to the metal
processing operations at DePuy Orthopedics, Inc. in Raynham, MA
(DePuy), which manufactures a broad range of orthopedic solutions,
including hip and knee replacement components and operating room
products?
A: No. EPA has determined that DePuy is not subject to subpart
XXXXXX because it is not primarily engaged in manufacturing products in
one of the nine metal fabrication and finishing source categories
listed in section 63.11514(a) and Table 1 of the regulation.

Abstract for [M110010]

Q: Do the diesel engines operated at Massachusetts Water Resources
Authority (MWRA) facilities in Cambridge, Massachusetts fit the
definition of ``emergency engines'' under 40 CFR part 63 subpart ZZZZ?
A: No. EPA has determined that the engines operated at MWRA's
facilities do not meet the definition of emergency stationary for
purposes of 40 CFR part 63 subpart ZZZZ, because these engines operate
during typical large rainfall events and not only during emergencies or
floods. However, the engines must meet the requirements of 40 CFR part
63 subpart ZZZZ applicable to non-emergency engines.

Abstract for [M110011]

Q: Are the precious metals melting operations at Morgan Mill Metals
in Johnston, Rhode Island, subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart TTTTTT?
A: No. EPA has determined that because Morgan Mill Metals only
produces precious metal-bearing products and does not produce brass,
bronze, or zinc ingots, bars, blocks or metal powders, it does not
operate a secondary nonferrous metals processing facility as defined in
subpart TTTTTT.

Abstract for [M110012]

Q: The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NH DES)
seeks clarification on whether a used wood-fired boiler installed at
Pleasant View Gardens (PVG) in Loudon, New Hampshire, is an existing,
new, or reconstructed source under 40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJJJ?
A: EPA determines that PVG's wood-fired boiler is an existing
affected source under 40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJJJ because the boiler
was constructed prior to June 4, 2010, the effective date of the rule,
and the removal and reinstallation of the boiler did not trigger
reconstruction as defined at 40 CFR 63.2. This applicability
determination is made in reliance on the accuracy of the information
provided to EPA, and does not relieve PVG of the responsibility for
complying fully with any and all applicable federal, state, and local
laws, regulations, and permits.

Abstract for [M110013]

Q: The Western North Carolina Regional Air Quality Agency (WNC
RAQA) seeks EPA clarification on whether the alternative monitoring
approach used by an area source in its electrolytic process demonstrate
continuous compliance as required by 40 CFR 63.11508(d)(6)of 40 CPR
part 63, subpart WWWWWW, Area Source Standards for Platting and
Polishing Operations?
A: EPA determines that the monitoring system is acceptable,
assuming its operation is inspected and verified by NC RAQA, because
the company uses a system that prevents plating from occurring when the
tank covers are not in place. Specifically, the tank design and its
interlock system ensure that the tank covers are in place at least 95
percent of the electrolytic process operating time.

Abstract for [M110014]

Q1: The West Tennessee Permit Program Division of Air Pollution
Control Department of Environment and Conservation (APC DEC) seeks
clarification from EPA on whether a facility engaged in open molding
operations with mechanical resin and spray gel coat applications,
demonstrating compliance under 40 CFR 63.5810(b) of subpart WWWW,
NESHAP for Reinforced Plastics Composites Production, is required to
demonstrate compliance at the end of a month in which no hazardous air
pollutant (HAP) containing materials were applied since it was not
operating due to lack of product orders?
A1: Yes. The facility is required to demonstrate compliance at the
end of a month in which no HAP containing materials were applied, since
the calculation must be `` . . . based on the amounts of each
individual resin or gel coat used for the last 12 months.''
Q2: In the event that production does resume at the facility, will
it be proper for the facility to include the months in which no HAP
containing materials were applied as part of the 12-month period that
ends in that month in which production has resumed, or should the
facility use only the most recent 11 months in which HAP containing
materials were applied plus the month in which production has resumed?
A2: The facility is required to perform the calculation based on
the last 12 months, regardless of whether HAP containing materials were
applied during those months, whether or not production resumes.

[[Page 52331]]

Abstract for [M110016]

Q: Are two electric boilers at the Elm River Lutheran Church in
Galesburg, ND, which burn fuel oil as a backup fuel during power
outages subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJJJ?
A: No. The EPA believes that the intent of the rule is that
electric boilers that only burn liquid fuel during a power outage would
not be subject to the rule provided that the power outage is beyond the
control of the boiler owner or operator.

Abstract for [M110017]

Q: Does EPA approve a revision of the June 2, 2008 Alternative
Monitoring Request (AMR) to waive metal, ash, and chlorine feed rate
operating parameter limits for the Tooele Chemical Agent Disposal
Facility (TOCDF) to allow the processing of 155-mm Projectile bursters?
A: Yes. EPA approves revision of TOCDF's AMP request to process
155-mm Projectile bursters in the deactivation furnace system and to
limit and monitor the Projectile feed rate rather than 12 HRA feed rate
for mercury, ash, semi- and low-volatile metals, and chlorine required
by 40 CFR 63.1209(l), (m), (n), and (o), respectively.

Abstract for [M110018]

Q1: Does EPA approve Huntsman demonstrating compliance with 40 CFR
part 63 subpart VVVVVV's, NESHAP for Chemical Manufacturing Area
Sources, management practices in 40 CFR 63.11495(a)(3) by inspecting
the particulate matter (PM) collection system and baghouses in
accordance with 40 CFR 63.11602(a)(2)(ii) of 40 CFR part 63 subpart
CCCCCCC, NESHAP for Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing, at its
Huntsman Advanced Materials facility in Los Angeles, California, which
has several storage vessels subject to subpart VVVVVV and two storage
vessels subject to subpart CCCCCCC?
A1: No. EPA determines that the proposal to inspect the PM
collection system and baghouses in lieu of inspecting the actual
process vessel, cover, and equipment is not acceptable since these are
not-overlapping rule requirements along the air emissions path. EPA
believes that leaks can occur anywhere along the air emissions path
from the mixing vessels to the stack. Therefore, process vessels,
covers, and equipment subject to subpart VVVVVV must be inspected
according to 40 CFR 63.11495(a)(3).
Q2: Does EPA approve Huntsman's use of one of several proposed
alternatives to comply with the ductwork inspection requirements at 40
CFR 63.11495(a)(3) of subpart VVVVVV and 40 CFR 63.11602(a)(2)(ii) of
subpart CCCCCCC?
A2: Yes. EPA conditionally approves Huntsman use of Option 1(2) to
meet the inspection requirements of the ductwork only, which state:
``inspect flexible and stationary ductwork, according to 40 CFR
63.11602(a)(2)(ii), as required, at the specified timeframes whether or
not emissions are being actively controlled on every vessel that uses
the common control device header.'' The condition for approval is that
Huntsman must also record which process vessels were in operation
during each inspection. Each mixing pot must be operational at least
once a year during quarterly inspections and at least once a quarter
during weekly inspections.
Q3: Is the rigid cartridge filter Huntsman uses in its baghouses to
control PM emissions excluded from the annual inspection requirements
of 40 CFR 63.11602(a)(2)(ii)(B) since it does not meet the definition
of ``fabric filter'' in 40 CFR 63.11607, and therefore may be excluded
from the annual inspection requirement 40 CFR 63.11602(a)(2)(ii)(B) of
subpart CCCCCCC?
A3: Yes. EPA believes the rigid cartridge meets the definition of
fabric filter in the rule. In addition, EPA believes that the Huntsman
existing preventive maintenance program based on pressure differential
established in Condition 5 of the South Coast Air Quality Management
District ``Permit to Operate'' is an acceptable alternative to checking
``the condition of the fabric filter.'' Huntsman is still required to
conduct inspection of the rigid, stationary ductwork for leaks, and of
the interior of the dry particulate control unit for structural
integrity, according to 40 CFR 63.11602(a)(2)(ii)(B).

Abstract for [M120009]

Q: Does EPA approve a change in test methods, from Method 5 to
Methods 201 A and 202, for determining compliance with the particulate
emissions standards in 40 CFR 63.1343(b)(1) of NESHAP Subpart LLL for
Portland Cement Plants at the Cemex Construction Materials South
(Cemex) Portland cement plant located in New Braunfels, Texas?
A: No. EPA does not approve the Cemex request for a change in test
methods for determining compliance with the particulate emissions
standards in 40 CFR part 63 subpart LLL. Cemex retroactively requested
that EPA Region 6 approve a change in test methods, from Method 5 to
Methods 201A and 202 after the tests were conducted in January 2011.
The use of alternate test methods must be approved in writing in
advance of testing. Additionally, EPA Headquarters Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), who has the delegation to
approve these types of changes in test methods, stated that it would
not have approved this change in the test method because the alternate
method was not acceptable for compliance demonstration under 40 CFR
part 63 subpart LLL.

Abstract for [M120013]

Q: Does EPA approve a waiver to monitor only the liquid flow rate
(and not pH) through five water absorbers used to control emissions
from tank truck loading and storage tanks subject to 40 CFR part 63
subpart NNNNN, at the Dow Chemical Company's (Dow) production facility
in Plaquemine, Louisiana?
A: No. EPA believes that more than one parameter should be
monitored to provide a more complete determination of control
performance. Monitoring liquid flow alone is insufficient to determine
control effectiveness. Even in once-through absorbers, measurement of
effluent pH ensures that the effluent has not reached the acid
saturation concentration limit and is capable of absorbing additional
acid vapor. Although 40 CFR part 63 subpart MMM allows either liquid
flow rate or pressure drop to be chosen as monitored operating
parameters, EPA stated in the response to comments for promulgation of
40 CFR part 63 subpart NNNNN in March 2006 that what applies in 40 CFR
part 63 subpart MMM may not be appropriate for facilities subject to 40
CFR part 63 subpart NNNNN.

Abstract for [M120026]

Q: Does EPA approve of comparative temperature monitoring as a type
of calibration verification that meets 40 CFR 63.3350(e)(9) of subpart
JJJJ, Paper and Other Web Coating NESHAP, at the 3M's Medina, Ohio
facility? If not, can this comparative monitoring technique be allowed
as an alternative monitoring parameter to the calibration verification
requirements?
A: No. EPA finds that that this comparative monitoring is not the
same as a calibration verification as specified by 40 CFR part 63
subpart JJJJ. However, EPA can approve it as an alternative monitoring
parameter to the calibration verification requirements in 40 CFR
63.3350(e)(9).

[[Page 52332]]

Abstract for [M120034]

Q. Will the overhaul of a 4400 horsepower Reciprocating Internal
Combustion Engine (RICE) by Fairbanks Morse Engine (FME) facility in
Beloit, Wisconsin, trigger reconstruction or modification under 40 CFR
part 63, subpart IIII and JJJJ?
A. No. FME overhaul costs of the engine are less than 50 percent of
the cost of a comparable new facility, and modification will not be
triggered because emissions will not be increased. After the engine is
overhauled, the engine might be subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ
depending on how much diesel fuel is used in a calendar year.

Abstract for [M120035]

Q: Is Vesatas' facility in Pueblo, CO subject to the NESHAP Area
Source Standards for Nine Metal Fabrication and Finishing Source
Categories, 40 CFR part 63 subpart XXXXXX, and is Vestas subject to the
notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the
regulation?
A. No. EPA finds that Vesatas' facility is not subject to 40 CFR
part 63 subpart XXXXXX because it is not a major source of hazardous
air pollutants (HAP), and the rule applies to area sources as specified
at 40 CFR 63.11514. Because Vestas is not subject to 40 CFR part 63
subpart XXXXXX, Vestas would not be subject to the notification,
record-keeping, and reporting requirements of the regulation.

Abstract for [M130003]

Q. Does EPA approve the petition to waive the initial performance
testing for four identical reciprocating internal combustion engines
(RICE) at the Saint-Gobian Containers, Inc., Burlington, Wisconsin
plant?
A: Yes. EPA approves the petition to waive the initial performance
testing provided that the company can show the units are similar, burn
the same fuel, and otherwise meet the criteria contained in EPA's stack
testing guidance dated September 30, 2005.

Abstract for [M140001]

Q: Does EPA approve a request to establish a minimum combustion air
pressure of 20 inches of water column on an instantaneous basis based
upon operating experience as the liquid waste firing system (WFS)
operating parameter limit (OPL) at the Lubrizol Corporation's
Painesville facility in Ohio?
A: Yes. EPA approves Lubrizol's request to establish a minimum
combustion air pressure of 20 inches of water on an instantaneous basis
at all times while feeding liquid waste for its WFS OPL. EPA determined
that the proposed waste firing system OPL ensures that the same or
greater surface area of the waste is exposed to combustion conditions
(e.g., temperature and oxygen) during normal operating conditions, as
the incinerator demonstrated during the 2003 destruction and removal
efficiency test.

Abstract for [M140002]

Q1. Is the MSW Power gasification unit located at the MSW Power
Corporation's (MSW Power's) Green Energy Machine located at the
Plymouth County Correctional Facility in Plymouth, Massachusetts
subject to 40 part 60 subpart EEEE?
A1. No. EPA has determined that because of the energy recovery
exemption in the definition of institutional waste, MSW Power
gasification unit is not subject to 40 part 60 subpart EEEE while it is
processing waste generated by the Plymouth County Correctional Facility
and located on their grounds.
Q2. Is the MSW Power boiler which combusts only syngas generated by
the gasifier subject to 40 part 63 subpart JJJJJJ?
A2. No. EPA has determined that because the MSW Power boiler burns
only syngas, a gaseous fuel, the boiler is a gas-fired boiler as
defined in the rule and therefore it is not subject to 40 part 63
subpart JJJJJJ.

Abstract for [M140003]

Q1. Is the Jacobs Vehicle Systems facility located in Bloomfield,
Connecticut (Jacobs Vehicle), subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart T if it
does not use and it has no present intention of using any of the listed
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) solvents in its degreaser in the future?
A1. No. EPA determines that because Jacobs Vehicle has certified
that it no longer uses any of the listed HAP solvents due to switching
degreasers and based on its commitment that it will continue in that
mode for the foreseeable future, Jacobs Vehicle's degreasers and Jacobs
Vehicle's facility are no longer subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart T.
Q2. May Jacobs Vehicle take potential to emit restrictions to below
major HAP source levels and no longer be subject to 40 CFR part 63
subpart PPPPP?
A2. Yes. EPA determines that Jacobs Vehicle may now limit its
potential to emit to below major HAP source levels and no longer be
subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart PPPPP. Jacobs Vehicle test cells are
an existing affected source subject to subpart PPPPP, because these
were constructed before May 14, 2002, and not reconstructed after May
14, 2002, but do not have to meet an emission limitation or other
substantive rule requirements. Since subpart PPPPP does not set a
substantive compliance date for Jacobs Vehicle to comply with an
emission limit or other substantive rule requirement for its Jacobs
Vehicle test cells, the EPA's general policy referred to as ``once in,
always in'' policy would not apply. EPA's ``once in, always in'' policy
is that sources that are major on the first substantive compliance date
of a NESHAP (and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the NESHAP
that apply to major sources) remain major sources for purposes of that
NESHAP from that point forward, regardless of the level of their
potential HAP emissions after that date.
Q3. If Jacobs Vehicle takes facility wide potential to emit
restrictions to below major HAP source levels, would its existing
compression ignition engine become subject to the area source
provisions of 40 CFR part 63 subpart ZZZZ?
A3. Yes. EPA's ``once in, always in'' policy would allow Jacobs
Vehicle to take restrictions on its facility-wide potential to emit to
below major HAP source levels and become an area source of HAP for
purposes of 40 CFR part 63 subpart ZZZZ applicability before the first
compliance date of May 3, 2013. If Jacobs Vehicle were to do so before
May 3, 2013, its compression ignition engine would then be subject to
the requirements for engines located at an area source of HAP.
Q4. If Jacobs Vehicle takes facility wide potential to emit
restrictions to below major HAP source levels, would its existing
boilers no longer be subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart DDDDD? Would the
existing boilers then become subject to the area source provisions of
40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJJJ?
A4. Yes. EPA's ``once in, always in'' policy would allow Jacobs
Vehicle to take restrictions on its facility-wide potential to emit to
below major HAP source levels to become an area source of HAP and no
longer be subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart DDDDD before the first
compliance date of 40 CFR part 63 subpart DDDDD. Because Jacobs
Vehicle's boilers meet the definition of gas-fired boilers, provided
they continue to do so, the boilers would not be subject to 40 CFR part
63 subpart JJJJJJ if Jacobs Vehicle became an area source of HAP.

Abstract for [M140004]

Q: Does EPA approve ExxonMobil's alternative monitoring plan (AMP)
request for calculating the sulfur

[[Page 52333]]

dioxide emissions from two refinery Fluid Catalytic Cracking Units
during Wet Gas Scrubber emission control device malfunctions or down
time, in accordance with 40 CFR part 63 subpart UUU, at ExxonMobil's
Baton Rouge, Louisiana refinery?
A: No. EPA does not approve ExxonMobil's AMP request. EPA
determined that the request was not a rule-based proposal related to
ExxonMobil's inability to meet existing 40 CFR part 63 subpart UUU
provisions, but rather, a proposed alternative method to meet Consent
Decree requirements that are separate from compliance with the rule.

Abstract for [M140005]

Q: Does EPA approve ExxonMobil's Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP)
for calculating the flue gas flow rate on two refinery Fluid Catalytic
Cracking Units (FCCU), in lieu of direct measurement, to demonstrate
initial and continuous compliance with the metal emission standard of
40 CFR 63.1564(a)(1)(iv), described as Option 4 in 40 CFR part 63
subpart UUU, and in accordance with Tables 1, 2, 6 and 7 of the final
rule for Option 4, at ExxonMobil's Baton Rouge, Louisiana refinery?
A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves ExxonMobil's AMP request, as
described in the EPA response letter. The maximum acceptable difference
in stack-test measured and calculated total flue gas flow rate values
shall be within 7.5 percent. Evaluation and adjustment of
affected process monitors must be completed within three months of a
stack testing event that resulted in a difference value greater than
7.5 percent. If any three consecutive stack testing events
result in the need for corrective action adjustments, ExxonMobil must
conduct a new stack test within ninety days of the third corrective
action implementation in order to verify that the gas flow rate
correlation and calculation method are still valid. ExxonMobil should
ensure that this approval is referenced and attached to the facility's
new source review and Title V permits for federal enforceability and is
included in the refinery's Consent Decree.

Abstract for [Z120003]

Q: Are sour water streams managed upstream of a refinery sour water
stripper at the Flint Hills Resources Corpus Christi East Refinery in
Tulsa, Oklahoma subject to the Benzene Waste Operations 40 CFR part 61
subpart FF?
A: Yes. EPA has determined that the facility must comply with the
requirements of 40 CFR part 61 subpart FF for sour water streams
managed upstream of a sour water stripper based on the characteristics
of the waste streams at the point that the waste water exits the sour
water stripper. At facilities with total benzene equal to or greater
than 10 megagram per year, all benzene-contaminated wastes are subject
to the control requirements of 40 CFR part 61 subpart FF, not just the
end waste streams counted toward the total annual benzene amount. EPA's
response is based on the 1993 rule amendments which were issued after
the March 21, 1991 letter from EPA to the American Petroleum Institute
that Flint Hills' mentioned in the request.

Abstract for [Z130002]

Q1: Does the Area Source Boiler Rule, NESHAP subpart JJJJJJ exempt
steam boilers that service mixed residential and commercial facilities
from regulation?
A1: Yes. EPA clarifies to the National Oilheat Research Alliance
that if a boiler meets the definition in 40 CFR 63.11237 of a
residential boiler, it is not subject to the requirements of the Area
Source Boiler Rule. In that definition, the boiler must be ``primarily
used to provide heat and/or hot water for: (1) A dwelling containing
four or fewer families, or (2) A single unit residence dwelling that
has since been converted or subdivided into condominiums or
apartments.'' EPA intends ``primarily'' to be interpreted as its common
meaning. Therefore, a mixed-use facility must have a majority of the
heat and/or hot water produced by the boiler allocated to the
residential unit or units. One way a facility could demonstrate primary
use is by showing that a majority of the facility's square footage is
residential, but EPA recognizes that there may be other ways for a
facility to demonstrate primary use.
Q2: Does the Area Source Boiler Rule define mixed residential and
commercial buildings as strictly commercial or residential in use?
A2: No. EPA recognizes that some buildings may be used for a
variety of uses. The nature of the building is only relevant in terms
of determining whether a boiler is primarily used to service the
commercial or residential facilities located within the building.

Abstract for [Z130003]

Q: Does EPA approve of the use of closed/covered chromium
electroplating and anodizing tanks at the Southern Graphics Systems,
Inc, Waukesha, Wisconsin facility in order to satisfy the requirement
of a ``physical barrier'' per the ``housekeeping practice'' provisions
in 40 CFR part 63 subpart N?
A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the use of closed/covered
chromium electroplating and anodizing tanks in order to satisfy the
physical barrier requirement of 40 CFR part 63 subpart N. This approval
is conditioned upon these tanks being closed/covered at all times
buffing, grinding and polishing operations take place; and, the surface
area of the tanks is a hundred percent covered, with no visible gaps on
the top or side of the tank, except for ventilation inlets routed to a
control device under negative pressure.

Abstract for [Z140001]

Q: Does EPA approve Colonial Pipeline Company's alternative
monitoring request for use of top-side in-service inspections to meet
the out-of-service inspection requirements for specific types of
internal floating roof tanks with uniform and specific roof, deck, and
seal configurations at several facilities, subject to several gasoline
distribution (GD)-related regulations (40 CFR part 63, subpart R (GD
MACT) and 40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBB (GD GACT) and/or 40 CFR part
60, subpart Kb, NSPS for Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Vessels)?
A: Yes. EPA approves Colonial's top-side in-service internal
inspection methodology for the IFR tanks specified in the AMP request,
which have uniform and specific roof, deck, and seal configurations, to
meet the NSPS Kb internal out-of-service inspection required at
intervals no greater than 10 years by the applicable regulations. EPA
has determined that for the specified IFR storage tanks (tanks that are
full contact, aluminum honeycomb panel constructed decks with
mechanical shoe primary and secondary seals in tanks with geodesic dome
roofs equipped with skylights), Colonial will be able to have visual
access to all of the requisite components (i.e., the primary and
secondary mechanical seals, gaskets, and slotted membranes) through the
top side of the IFR storage tanks, as well as properly inspect and
repair the requisite components while these tanks are still in service,
consistent with the inspection and repair requirements established
under NSPS Subpart Kb. In addition, Colonial's top-side in-service
internal inspection methodology includes more stringent requirements
than would otherwise be applicable to the IFR storage tanks specified
in the AMP request. Colonial has agreed to (1) identifying and
addressing any gaps of more than 1/8 inch between any deck fitting
gasket, seal, or wiper and any surface that it is intended to seal;
comply with the fitting and deck seal requirements and the repair time
frame

[[Page 52334]]

requirement in NSPS Subpart Kb for all tanks, including GACT tanks; and
implement a full top-side and bottom-side out-of-service inspection of
the tank each time an IFR storage tank is emptied and degassed for any
reason.

Abstract for [Z140002]

Q: Are solvent transfer racks and transport equipment, which are
dedicated for the use of unloading hexane from transport vehicles to a
vegetable oil production plant, located at the PICO Northstar Hallock
facility (PICO Hallock) in Minnesota, subject to part 63, subpart GGGG,
Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production NESHAP or to subpart
EEEE, Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants?
A: EPA agrees that the PICO Hallock solvent transfer racks and
equipment are subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart GGGG and are not
subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart EEEE, because they would fall under
the definition of ``Vegetable oil production process'' in the rule.
Although solvent transfer racks and equipment which are dedicated for
the use of unloading hexane from transport vehicles to a vegetable oil
production facility are not explicitly mentioned in the definition of
vegetable oil production process in 40 CFR part 63 subpart GGGG, they
should be considered part of the ``equipment comprising a continuous
process for producing crude vegetable oil and meal products'' when they
are used solely to support the vegetable oil production process. EPA
believes that the information provided by PICO Hallock confirms that
the solvent transfer racks at the facility are exclusively used for
this limited purpose.

Abstract for [Z140003]

Q: Does EPA approve United Services Automobile Association's (USAA)
petition for additional testing hours under 40 CFR 60.4211(f), for
additional maintenance checks and readiness testing hours of six
emergency generator internal combustion engines at USAA's San Antonio,
Texas headquarters facility?
A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves USAA's request. USAA
demonstrated that extensive testing and maintenance of the emergency
generators is required to ensure electrical continuity and reliability
for maintaining critical operations in a continuous standby mode for
immediate emergency use. EPA granted conditional approval of additional
testing and maintenance hours on the six engines, provided that the
facility maintains documentation to show that the additional hours are
not used for meeting peak electrical demand.

Abstract for [XXXX]

Q: Does EPA approve an extension of the initial performance test
deadline for a new biomass-fired cogeneration boiler (boiler) due to a
force majeure event at the Nippon Paper Industries USA Corporation,
Ltd. (NPIUSA) facility in Port Angeles, Washington?
A: Yes. EPA determines that a force majeure event, as defined in 40
CFR part 60, subpart A and 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, has occurred and
that an extension of the performance test deadline under the applicable
federal standards is appropriate. The inability to meet the performance
test deadline was caused by circumstances beyond the control of NPIUSA,
its contractors, or any entity controlled by NPIUSA and therefore
constitutes a force majeure as defined in 40 CFR 60.2 and 63.2. The
letters and supporting documentation submitted by NPIUSA provided
timely notice, described the claimed force majeure event and why the
event prevents NPIUSA from meeting the deadline for conducting the
performance testing, what measures are being taken to minimize the
delay, and NPIUSA's proposed date for conducting the testing. The EPA
therefore believes it is appropriate to extend the performance test
deadline.

Dated: August 22, 2014.
Lisa Lund,
Director, Office of Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2014-20895 Filed 9-2-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.