Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 2014 / Notices 52319 

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 

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 http://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: http:// 

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. 

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 

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: http://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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

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 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 2014 / Notices 52321 

ADI DETERMINATIONS UPLOADED ON AUGUST 6, 2014—Continued 

Control No. Categories Subparts Title 

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, 

RR, SSSS, TT.

Request for Several MACT/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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

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 .......................................... 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, T, 

ZZZZ.

Exemption of Halogenated 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 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 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 2014 / Notices 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, § 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

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. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 2014 / Notices 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 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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

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. 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 2014 / Notices 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 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. 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 2014 / Notices 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 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

52330 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 2014 / 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. 

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 nonemergency 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 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. 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 2014 / Notices 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). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

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. 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 2014 / Notices 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 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

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. 

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 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

Information Collection Being Reviewed 

by the Federal Communications 

Commission 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: 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 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES