23480 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2016 / Notices 

Filed Date: 4/15/16. 

Accession Number: 20160415–5256. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/6/16. 

Docket Numbers: ER16–1437–000. 

Applicants: 62SK 8ME LLC. 

Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: CO– 

TENANCY AND SHARED FACILITIES 

Normal to be effective 6/7/2016. 

Filed Date: 4/15/16. 

Accession Number: 20160415–5263. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/6/16. 

Take notice that the Commission 

received the following electric securities 

filings: 

Docket Numbers: ES16–28–000. 

Applicants: American Transmission 

Company LLC, ATC Management Inc. 

Description: Application under 

Section 204 of the Federal Power Act for 

Authorization to Issue Securities of 

American Transmission Company LLC. 

Filed Date: 4/15/16. 

Accession Number: 20160415–5178. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/6/16. 

The filings are accessible in the 

Commission’s eLibrary system by 

clicking on the links or querying the 

docket number. 

Any person desiring to intervene or 

protest in any of the above proceedings 

must file in accordance with Rules 211 

and 214 of the Commission’s 

Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 

385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern 

time on the specified comment date. 

Protests may be considered, but 

intervention is necessary to become a 

party to the proceeding. 

eFiling is encouraged. More detailed 

information relating to filing 

requirements, interventions, protests, 

service, and qualifying facilities filings 

can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/

docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For 

other information, call (866) 208–3676 

(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502–8659. 

Dated: April 15, 2016. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2016–09225 Filed 4–20–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0738; FRL–9945–15– 

OAR] 

Notice of Final Approval for the 

Operation of a Pressure-Assisted 

Multi-Point Ground Flare at Occidental 

Chemical Corporation 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice; final approval. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces our 

approval of the Alternative Means of 

Emission Limitation (AMEL) request for 

the operation of a multi-point ground 

flare (MPGF) at Occidental Chemical 

Corporation’s (OCC) ethylene plant in 

Ingleside, Texas. This approval notice 

specifies the operating conditions and 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements for 

demonstrating compliance with the 

AMEL request that this facility must 

follow. In addition, this notice finalizes 

a framework that facilities can follow to 

help expedite and streamline approval 

of future AMEL requests for pressureassisted MPGF. 

DATES: The AMEL request for the MPGF 

at OCC’s ethylene plant in Ingleside, 

Texas, is approved and in effect on 

April 21, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: The Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) has established 

a docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0738. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., confidential business information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

http://www.regulations.gov, or in hard 

copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA 

WJC West Building, Room Number 

3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC. The Public Reading 

Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. 

to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time 

(EST), Monday through Friday. The 

telephone number for the Public 

Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and 

the telephone number for the Air Docket 

is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions about this final action, contact 

Mr. Andrew Bouchard, Sector Policies 

and Programs Division (E143–01), Office 

of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

(OAQPS), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone 

number: (919) 541–4036; fax number: 

(919) 541–0246; and email address: 

bouchard.andrew@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Acronyms and Abbreviations 

We use multiple acronyms and terms 

in this notice. While this list may not be 

exhaustive, to ease the reading of this 

notice and for reference purposes, the 

EPA defines the following terms and 

acronyms here: 

AMEL alternative means of emission 

limitation 

Btu/scf British thermal units per standard 

cubic foot 

CBI confidential business information 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

Eqn equation 

FR Federal Register 

GC gas chromatograph 

HAP hazardous air pollutants 

LFL lower flammability limit 

LFLcz combustion zone lower flammability 

limit 

MPGF multi-point ground flare 

NESHAP national emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutants 

NHV net heating value 

NHVcz combustion zone net heating value 

NSPS new source performance standards 

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards 

OCC Occidental Chemical Corporation 

PS Performance Specification 

QA quality assurance 

QC quality control 

VOC volatile organic compounds 

Organization of This Document. The 

information in this notice is organized 

as follows: 

I. Background 

A. Summary 

B. Regulatory Flare Requirements and 

OCC’s AMEL Request 

II. Summary of Public Comments on OCC’s 

AMEL Request and the Framework for 

Streamlining Approval of Future 

Pressure-Assisted MPGF AMEL Requests 

A. OCC’s AMEL Request 

B. Framework for Streamlining Approval of 

Future Pressure-Assisted MPGF AMEL 

Requests 

III. Final Notice of Approval of OCC’s AMEL 

Request and Required Operating 

Conditions 

IV. Final Framework for Streamlining 

Approval of Future Pressure-Assisted 

MPGF AMEL Requests 

I. Background 

A. Summary 

On August 31, 2015, the EPA 

published an initial notification in the 

Federal Register (FR) acknowledging 

receipt of an AMEL approval request for 

the operation of an MPGF at OCC’s 

ethylene plant in Ingleside, Texas, (see 

80 FR 52426, August 31, 2015). This 

initial notification solicited comment on 

all aspects of the AMEL request and the 

resulting alternative operating 

conditions that are necessary to achieve 

a reduction in emissions of volatile 

organic compounds (VOC) and organic 

hazardous air pollutants (HAP) at least 

equivalent to the reduction in emissions 

required by various standards in 40 CFR 

parts 60, 61, and 63 that apply to 

emission sources that would be 

controlled by these pressure-assisted 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2016 / Notices 23481 

MPGF. These standards point to the 

operating requirements for flares in the 

General Provisions to parts 60 and 63, 

respectively, to comply with the 

emission reduction requirements. 

Because pressure-assisted MPGF cannot 

meet the velocity requirements in the 

General Provisions, OCC requested an 

AMEL. This action provides a summary 

of the comments received as part of the 

public review process, our responses to 

those comments, and our approval of 

the AMEL request received from OCC 

for use of a pressure-assisted MPGF at 

their Ingleside, Texas, ethylene plant, 

along with the operating conditions they 

must follow for demonstrating 

compliance with the AMEL request. 

Additionally, the August 31, 2015, FR 

initial notification also solicited 

comment on a framework for 

streamlining future MPGF AMEL 

requests that we anticipate, when 

followed, would afford the Agency the 

ability to review and approve future 

AMEL requests for MPGF in a more 

efficient and expeditious manner. This 

action provides a summary of comments 

received on the framework as part of the 

public review process, our responses to 

those comments, and finalizes a 

framework for streamlining future 

pressure-assisted MPGF AMEL requests. 

We note that future AMEL requests 

would still require a notice and an 

opportunity for the public to comment. 

B. Regulatory Flare Requirements and 

OCC’s AMEL Request 

OCC submitted an AMEL request to 

the EPA on December 16, 2014, seeking 

to operate an MPGF for use during 

limited high-pressure maintenance, 

startup, and shutdown events, as well as 

emergency situations at their ethylene 

plant in Ingleside, Texas. In their 

request, OCC cited various regulatory 

requirements in 40 CFR parts 60, 61, 

and 63 that will apply to the flare waste 

gas streams that will be collected and 

routed to their pressure-assisted MPGF. 

OCC sought such an AMEL request 

because their MPGF is not designed to 

operate below the maximum permitted 

velocity requirements for flares in the 

General Provisions of 40 CFR parts 60 

and 63. OCC provided information that 

the MPGF they propose to use will 

achieve a reduction in emissions at least 

equivalent to the reduction in emissions 

for flares complying with these General 

Provisions requirements (for further 

background information on the 

regulatory flare requirements and a 

facility’s ability to request an AMEL, see 

80 FR 52427–52428, August 31, 2015). 

II. Summary of Public Comments on 

OCC’s AMEL Request and the 

Framework for Streamlining Approval 

of Future Pressure-Assisted MPGF 

AMEL Requests 

This section contains a summary of 

major comments and responses, and 

rationale for the approved MPGF 

operating conditions and monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements necessary to ensure the 

MPGF will achieve a reduction in 

emissions of HAP and VOC at least 

equivalent to the reduction in emissions 

of other traditional flare systems 

complying with the requirements in 40 

CFR 60.18(b) and 40 CFR 63.11(b). This 

section also contains a summary of the 

major comments and responses received 

on the framework for streamlining 

approval of future MPGF AMEL 

requests and our rationale for finalizing 

this framework. 

A. OCC’s AMEL Request 

Comment: Commenters stated that the 

LFLcz equation (i.e., Eqn. 2 in Section III 

below) should be revised so that the 

calculated LFLvg is expressed in volume 

percent rather than in volume fraction. 

Response: While the equation is 

mathematically correct with respect to 

calculating LFLvg in volume fraction, we 

agree with the commenters that it 

should be revised to reflect the same 

units as the compliance metric of LFLvg

in volume percent. Since multiplying 

the volume fraction term by 100 will 

yield a result in units of volume 

percent, we have updated Eqn. 2 in 

Section III to reflect this consistency 

change. 

Comment: Commenters stated that the 

calibration requirements in Table 2 of 

Section III of this notice require OCC to 

monitor net heating value by gas 

chromatograph (GC) and follow the 

procedure in Performance Specification 

(PS) 9 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, 

and that these requirements require a 

daily mid-level calibration check and 

that the EPA should change them from 

a daily basis to a weekly basis. 

Commenters stated that a weekly 

calibration should be allowed because 

operating conditions in Table 2 in 

Section III(1)(f) of this notice only allow 

the time needed to perform a daily 

calibration, along with other 

maintenance periods and instrument 

adjustments, to not exceed 5 percent 

and that a daily calibration will lead to 

a built-in loss of monitor downtime of 

almost 5 percent since it requires 1 hour 

in a 24-hour day (e.g., 4.2 percent of the 

time). Commenters also requested that 

this monitor downtime should be 

calculated on a rolling 12-month basis 

for compliance purposes and that the 

EPA clarify that the calibration and 

maintenance procedures conducted 

when the flare is not receiving regulated 

material be excluded from the monitor 

downtime calculation. 

Response: The requirement to perform 

a daily mid-level calibration check for a 

GC is codified in the procedure of PS 9 

of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, and 

Table 2 of Section III in this notice 

already provides some relief with 

respect to the amount of analysis 

needed (i.e., a single daily mid-level 

calibration check can be used (rather 

than triplicate analysis)) for the 

calibration checks on a GC. The AMEL 

does not require monitoring with a GC, 

but rather allows for the use of either a 

GC or a calorimeter to demonstrate 

compliance with the monitoring and 

operating requirements. Given that 

OCC’s MPGF will handle both planned 

maintenance, startup and shutdown 

events as well as potential emergency 

situations, a monitoring system used to 

demonstrate compliance for this AMEL 

must be capable of producing a reliable 

result instantaneously, and the more 

frequent (i.e., daily) calibrations 

required in PS 9 provides a high level 

of assurance that the GC reading will be 

both precise and accurate. Thus, we are 

not changing the requirement within PS 

9 to allow less frequent (i.e., weekly) 

calibration checks for a GC. We do 

understand that monitoring equipment 

can break down or need maintenance 

from time to time to continue to perform 

reliably. Therefore, to provide flexibility 

that ensures the GC is maintained 

properly, we are clarifying that 

calibration and maintenance procedures 

conducted when the flare is not 

receiving regulated material are 

excluded from the monitor downtime 

calculation. Also, we are clarifying that 

monitor downtime to perform 

calibration and maintenance procedures 

may not exceed 5 percent of the time 

when the flare is receiving regulated 

material, calculated on an annual, nonrolling average basis as OCC further 

clarified in their comments on the 

AMEL request during a conference call 

with the EPA (see memorandum, 

‘‘Meeting Record for January 12, 2016, 

Meeting Between the U.S. EPA and 

Occidental Chemical Corporation,’’ at 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2014– 

0738). 

Comment: Commenters stated that the 

EPA should include a provision in the 

final AMEL to allow a small percentage 

of downtime (i.e., 5 percent of the time 

the flare is receiving regulated material) 

for video camera maintenance and 

repair/replacement. One commenter 

asked for the EPA to add language to 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
23482 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2016 / Notices 

clarify that the video camera 

requirement for monitoring visible 

emissions applies only when the flare is 

receiving regulated material. 

Response: Given that the MPGFs 

approved in earlier AMELs, as well as 

OCC’s MPGF, are all back-up control 

devices, we are clarifying that the video 

camera requirement for monitoring 

visible emissions applies only when the 

flare is receiving regulated material. 

Furthermore, while we realize that 

MPGFs have sufficiently tall fences built 

around them primarily for safety, their 

design does pose a potential challenge 

with respect to allowing a person on the 

ground to monitor the MPGFs for visible 

emissions. Given that the AMEL 

requests we have approved to date from 

The Dow Chemical Company (Dow) and 

ExxonMobil Chemical Company 

(ExxonMobil) (see 80 FR 52426, August 

31, 2015), as well as this AMEL 

approved for OCC, all allow for 

permitted use of MPGF only in cases of 

maintenance, startup, shutdown, and 

emergency situations and not on a 

continuous basis, the time when the 

MPGF is not in operation should be 

sufficient for video camera maintenance 

and repair/replacement to occur. 

Therefore, we are not including a 

provision to allow any downtime for 

video camera maintenance and repair/

replacement when the MPGF is 

receiving regulated material. 

Comment: A few commenters 

suggested that the EPA clarify the 

language in the referenced operating 

conditions in Section III(2) of this notice 

which states: ‘‘Each stage of MPGF 

burners must have at least two pilots 

with a continuously lit pilot flame.’’ 

Specifically, commenters requested that 

the EPA clarify that while each stage of 

the MPGF is equipped with a minimum 

of two pilots, that only one 

continuously lit pilot flame is needed 

when the stage is in operation. 

Response: We disagree that it is 

necessary to change the operating 

conditions language in Section III(2) as 

suggested by the commenters, and we 

believe the requirements for the OCC 

AMEL approval should be consistent 

with the previous AMEL operating 

conditions published for both Dow and 

ExxonMobil (see 80 FR 52426, August 

31, 2015). The operating conditions in 

Section III(2) and reporting 

requirements in Section III(6) of this 

notice are clear that the MPGF system 

should be equipped with a minimum of 

two pilots per stage and that a flame 

must be present at all times the stage is 

in use and burning regulated material. 

In addition, a complete loss of pilot 

flame for more than 1 minute in a 15- 

minute period is an excess emission that 

must be reported. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that the EPA clarify the language with 

respect to requiring ‘‘records’’ in the 

excess emissions reporting requirements 

and suggested replacing the term with 

‘‘periods.’’ 

Response: We disagree with changing 

the terminology ‘‘records’’ to ‘‘periods’’ 

in the excess emissions reporting 

requirements. Section III(6)(c) of the 

operating conditions below are clear 

that we are not requiring reporting of all 

records that an owner or operator may 

keep or that they may be required to 

keep as a condition of AMEL approval 

for a given MPGF, but rather, that the 

owner or operator must report the 

specific information in the excess 

emissions report. 

B. Framework for Streamlining 

Approval of Future Pressure-Assisted 

MPGF AMEL Requests 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the framework for streamlining approval 

of future MPGF AMEL requests should 

not require information unrelated to a 

burner equivalency determination, 

information that has already been 

submitted to other parts of the Agency 

for permitting purposes, or proprietary 

MPGF burner design information. 

Specifically, the commenter stated that 

the EPA should remove the following 

information from the framework that 

owners or operators seeking approval of 

an MPGF AMEL are required to submit: 

• Details of the overall emissions 

control scheme: Section IV(1)(b). 

• MPGF capacity and operation 

(including number of rows (stages), 

number of burners and pilots per stage 

and staging curve): Section IV(1)(b). 

• MPGF burner size and design: 

Section IV(1)(c) and (1)(d). 

• Cross-light testing: Section IV(5) in 

its entirety. 

• Flaring reduction considerations: 

Section IV(6)(a). 

Another commenter stated that at 

Section IV(3)(a)(ii), for an engineering 

evaluation demonstration, once a burner 

of a specific type, size, and geometry 

has been tested on a waste gas, that 

burner can be considered to be proven 

stable and smokeless for that waste gas 

only. Further, the commenter states that 

engineering assessment and 

extrapolation should only be permitted 

under the framework where burner 

design and waste gas are the same as 

tested because any deviation in burner 

design or waste gas could lead to 

significant changes in stability or 

smokeless capacity. 

Response: First, we note that the 

objective of the framework is to provide 

the regulated community with a clear 

and concise understanding of the 

minimum information that must be 

provided to the Agency so that we can 

adequately evaluate an MPGF AMEL 

request. The information listed in the 

framework is necessary to evaluate 

whether an MPGF operates properly and 

controls emissions of regulated material 

at least equivalent to applicable 

regulations. Hence, information related 

to details of the overall emissions 

control scheme, MPGF capacity, 

operation and burner size, cross-light 

testing, and flaring reduction 

considerations are all important and 

necessary information to adequately 

make an equivalency determination. 

Therefore, we are not removing them 

from the framework. 

Second, with respect to submitting 

information that may have been 

developed and submitted already for 

permitting purposes, we note that this 

framework is designed to help 

streamline and expedite future 

approvals of MPGF AMEL requests. If 

an owner or operator does not submit 

the information set forth in the 

framework, additional time and 

resources will have to be spent to 

evaluate the AMEL request. 

Lastly, with respect to concerns about 

MPGF burner design and the potential 

for some of the information to be 

proprietary (e.g., geometry, tip drillings, 

and hole size), we note that the MPGF 

burner tests conducted to date indicate 

that flare head design (along with waste 

gas composition) can influence flame 

stability, which is one of the more 

important factors affecting performance 

of the MPGF that the Agency must 

consider in whether to approve an 

AMEL request and agree with the 

commenter that flare stability is affected 

by burner design/waste gas combination 

tested (see 80 FR 8023, February 13, 

2015, for more details). To the extent the 

owner, operator or flare vendor/

manufacturer considers this information 

to be CBI, they should note that in their 

MPGF AMEL request, and we will 

provide details on our CBI policy and 

procedures on how they should submit 

this information to the Agency after the 

AMEL request has been received. At a 

minimum, facilities should note the 

flare vendor and burner model name. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the framework allow 

flare vendors/manufacturers and owners 

or operators to determine and document 

the most appropriate burner testing 

durations (e.g., 5-minute screening test 

to determine flameout followed by three 

15-minute tests at other more stable 

points). Another commenter suggested 

that for the sole purpose of flame 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2016 / Notices 23483 

stability evaluation, 3 to 5 minutes is 

sufficient for a testing duration. 

One commenter suggested that the 

specific requirements of the flare flame 

stability tests be enumerated in Section 

IV(4)(b) below since it references back to 

performance test information in Section 

IV(3)(a)(i). 

Response: After consideration of the 

comments received during the comment 

period as well as the supplemental 

technical information received after the 

close of the comment period (see 

memorandum, ‘‘Meeting Record for 

January 7, 2016, Meeting Between the 

U.S. EPA and Zeeco,’’ at Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0738), we agree 

with the commenters that the duration 

of the MPGF stability test runs in 

Section IV(4)(c) can be shortened from 

15 minutes, but disagree with the 

commenters that we should allow flare 

vendors/manufacturers and owners or 

operators to determine and document 

the most appropriate burner testing 

durations. In reviewing the available 

test data on an MPGF where unstable 

test runs with constant conditions were 

observed, a few runs were aborted in 4 

minutes or less due to instability (see 

memorandum, ‘‘Review of Available 

Test Data on Multipoint Ground Flares,’’ 

at Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2014– 

0738–0002). The commenters have 

suggested that the instability was related 

to the changing and decreasing heat 

content and composition of the fuel gas 

stream as the fuel gas mixture was being 

produced for the trial flare run. If the 

demonstration had instead relied upon 

a constant gas mixture that could have 

been produced in a mix tank, rather 

than an online mixer, than the 

demonstration of stability could have 

been done over a shorter duration. In 

addition, when correlating back the 

MPGF stability testing duration to the 

averaging time for a monitoring system 

like a GC that can be used to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

operating conditions laid out in Section 

III below, the total testing time of the 

three runs should tie back to the time it 

takes for one GC analysis cycle to occur 

(e.g., 15 minutes in duration). Therefore, 

based on these reasons, as well as in 

order to minimize emissions from the 

MPGF stability testing requirements, we 

are finalizing in Section IV(4)(c) that the 

duration of each individual MPGF 

stability test run must be a minimum of 

5 minutes in duration rather than the 

longer period of 15 minutes in duration 

that was in the initial framework. 

Regarding the comment to enumerate 

the performance test information in 

Section IV(4)(b) rather than crossreferencing to Section IV(3)(a)(i), we 

disagree that the change is necessary. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

in lieu of using a generic olefin gas or 

an olefinic gas mixture for purposes of 

the destruction efficiency/combustion 

efficiency performance demonstration 

specified in the framework, the 

framework should require the 

performance test to be based only on 

waste gas representative of the proposed 

flaring application, in conjunction with 

the specific burner type proposed for 

use. 

Response: As discussed in Section 

IV(3)(a), the framework provides the 

owner or operator with the option to test 

the MPGF using a representative waste 

gas or a waste gas, such as an olefin gas 

or olefinic gas mixture, that will 

challenge the performance and 

smokeless capacity of the MPGF. Since 

MPGF testing is occurring prior to plant 

construction and startup, sufficient 

representative waste gas may not be 

available to satisfy the testing 

requirements specified. Therefore, we 

allow olefin gas or olefinic gas mixtures 

to be considered since they represent 

the olefins industry where the MPGF 

installations are being used and since 

they have been shown to challenge 

MPGF performance. For this reason, we 

disagree with the commenter that we 

should amend this requirement in the 

framework. 

Comment: A few commenters 

suggested that the EPA allow the AMEL 

framework to provide approval for 

alternate proposed combustion 

parameters or on-line monitoring 

requirements and technology. 

One commenter suggested that the 

framework should provide success 

criteria for submittal and that a clear 

articulation of the criteria the Agency 

will use to promptly approve an AMEL 

request is needed. 

Response: As laid out in Section IV 

(7) below, sources should consider all 

the information laid out in their AMEL 

application and make recommendations 

on the type of monitoring and operating 

conditions necessary for the MPGF to 

demonstrate equivalent reductions in 

emissions as compared to flares 

complying with the requirements at 40 

CFR 60.18 and 40 CFR 63.11. 

Additionally, we note that while the 

framework should provide the regulated 

community a blueprint for the 

minimum information the Agency needs 

to review and eventually finalize an 

MPGF AMEL request, the Clean Air Act 

requires us to provide the public with 

notice and opportunity to comment on 

the AMEL (see 80 FR 8023, February 13, 

2015, and 80 FR 52426, August 31, 

2015, for more details) and consider this 

input before any AMEL request can be 

formally finalized. Because of this 

statutory requirement, we cannot 

provide any additional language for the 

regulated community with respect to 

promptly approving an AMEL request 

without first considering public 

comments regardless of whether or not 

all the information submitted to the 

Agency exactly follows the framework 

in Section IV below. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the framework should specify that 

cross-light testing is only required when 

every burner in the MPGF does not have 

a continuous pilot. 

Another commenter agreed with the 

cross-light testing specified in the 

framework. 

Response: An MPGF can have 

hundreds of burners and, when seeking 

an approval of an AMEL request, the 

owner or operator must demonstrate 

that the system can be operated with a 

flame present at all times when 

regulated material is routed to the flare 

and that the burners will light and 

combust this regulated material. To 

date, the AMEL requests for MPGF 

systems we have approved indicate that 

cross lighting will be used to light the 

vast majority of individual burners 

within a given stage, which is why this 

testing requirement is specified in the 

framework. If a future MPGF design will 

not use cross lighting, the owner or 

operator must demonstrate through 

testing how the burners within a stage 

will be lit to combust regulated material. 

Because this would be a different design 

from the MPGF that informed our 

development of the framework, different 

requirements from those specified in 

Section IV (5) below for the pilot flames 

and pilot monitoring systems may be 

required for such an MPGF system and 

these should be conveyed in the AMEL 

request. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that a mechanism similar to the 

‘‘Framework for Streamlining Approval 

for Future Pressure-Assisted MPGF 

AMEL’’ should also be made available 

for elevated flares that use pressureassisted burners. 

Response: While we understand the 

commenter’s suggestion that the Agency 

clearly prescribe a path forward for 

evaluating non-MPGF pressure-assisted 

flare designs that may not be able to 

comply with the flare requirements of 

40 CFR 60.18(b) or 40 CFR 63.11(b), this 

request is beyond the scope of both 

OCC’s MPGF AMEL request and the 

framework for pressure-assisted MPGF. 

III. Final Notice of Approval of OCC’s 

AMEL Request and Required Operating 

Conditions 

Based on information the EPA 

received from OCC and the comments 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
23484 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2016 / Notices 

received through the public comment 

period, we are approving OCC’s request 

for an AMEL and establishing operating 

requirements for the pressure-assisted 

MPGF at OCC’s Ingleside, Texas, 

ethylene plant. The operating 

conditions for OCC’s MPGF that will 

achieve a reduction in emissions at least 

equivalent to the reduction in emissions 

being controlled by a steam-assisted, airassisted, or non-assisted flare complying 

with the requirements of either 40 CFR 

63.11(b) or 40 CFR 60.18(b) are as 

follows: 

(1) The MPGF system must be 

designed and operated such that the 

combustion zone gas net heating value 

(NHVcz) is greater than or equal to 800 

British thermal units per standard cubic 

foot (Btu/scf) or the combustion zone 

gas lower flammability limit (LFLcz) is 

less than or equal to 6.5 percent by 

volume. Owners or operators must 

demonstrate compliance with the NHVcz

or LFLcz metric by continuously 

complying with a 15-minute block 

average. Owners or operators must 

calculate and monitor for the NHVcz or 

LFLcz according to the following: 

a) Calculation of NHVcz

(i) The owner or operator shall 

determine NHVcz from compositional 

analysis data by using the following 

equation: 

Where: 

NHVvg = Net heating value of flare vent gas, 

Btu/scf. Flare vent gas means all gas 

found just prior to the MPGF. This gas 

includes all flare waste gas (i.e., gas from 

facility operations that is directed to a 

flare for the purpose of disposing of the 

gas), flare sweep gas, flare purge gas and 

flare supplemental gas, but does not 

include pilot gas. 

i = Individual component in flare vent gas. 

n = Number of components in flare vent gas. 

xi = Concentration of component i in flare 

vent gas, volume fraction. 

NHVi = Net heating value of component i 

determined as the heat of combustion 

where the net enthalpy per mole of 

offgas is based on combustion at 25 

degrees Celsius (°C) and 1 atmosphere 

(or constant pressure) with water in the 

gaseous state from values published in 

the literature, and then the values 

converted to a volumetric basis using 20 

°C for ‘‘standard temperature.’’ Table 1 

summarizes component properties 

including net heating values. 

(ii) For MPGF, NHVvg = NHVcz. 

(b) Calculation of LFLcz

(i) The owner or operator shall 

determine LFLcz from compositional 

analysis data by using the following 

equation: 

Where: 

LFLvg = Lower flammability limit of flare vent 

gas, volume percent (vol %). 

n = Number of components in the vent gas. 

i = Individual component in the vent gas. 

ci = Concentration of component i in the vent 

gas, vol %. 

LFLi = Lower flammability limit of 

component i as determined using values 

published by the U.S. Bureau of Mines 

(Zabetakis, 1965), vol %. All inerts, 

including nitrogen, are assumed to have 

an infinite LFL (e.g., LFLN2 = ∞, so that 

cN2/LFLN2 = 0). LFL values for common 

flare vent gas components are provided 

in Table 1. 

(ii) For MPGF, LFLvg = LFLcz. 

(c) The operator of an MPGF system 

shall install, operate, calibrate, and 

maintain a monitoring system capable of 

continuously measuring flare vent gas 

flow rate. 

(d) The operator shall install, operate, 

calibrate, and maintain a monitoring 

system capable of continuously 

measuring (i.e., at least once every 15 

minutes), calculating, and recording the 

individual component concentrations 

present in the flare vent gas or the 

owner or operator shall install, operate, 

calibrate, and maintain a monitoring 

system capable of continuously 

measuring, calculating, and recording 

NHVvg.

(e) For each measurement produced 

by the monitoring system, the operator 

shall determine the 15-minute block 

average as the arithmetic average of all 

measurements made by the monitoring 

system within the 15-minute period. 

(f) The operator must follow the 

calibration and maintenance procedures 

according to Table 2. Maintenance 

periods, instrument adjustments, or 

checks to maintain precision and 

accuracy and zero and span adjustments 

may not exceed 5 percent of the time the 

flare is receiving regulated material. 

TABLE 1—INDIVIDUAL COMPONENT PROPERTIES

Component Molecular 

formula 

MWi

(pounds per 

pound-mole) 

NHVi

(British 

thermal units 

per standard 

cubic foot) 

LFLi

(volume %) 

Acetylene ......................................................................................................... C2H2 26.04 1,404 2.5 

Benzene ........................................................................................................... C6H6 78.11 3,591 1.3 

1,2-Butadiene ................................................................................................... C4H6 54.09 2,794 2.0 

1,3-Butadiene ................................................................................................... C4H6 54.09 2,690 2.0 

iso-Butane ........................................................................................................ C4H10 58.12 2,957 1.8 

n-Butane .......................................................................................................... C4H10 58.12 2,968 1.8 

cis-Butene ........................................................................................................ C4H8 56.11 2,830 1.6 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICESEN21AP16.000</GPH> EN21AP16.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2016 / Notices 23485 

TABLE 1—INDIVIDUAL COMPONENT PROPERTIES—Continued 

Component Molecular 

formula 

MWi

(pounds per 

pound-mole) 

NHVi

(British 

thermal units 

per standard 

cubic foot) 

LFLi

(volume %) 

iso-Butene ........................................................................................................ C4H8 56.11 2,928 1.8 

trans-Butene .................................................................................................... C4H8 56.11 2,826 1.7 

Carbon Dioxide ................................................................................................ CO2 44.01 0 ∞ 

Carbon Monoxide ............................................................................................ CO 28.01 316 12.5 

Cyclopropane ................................................................................................... C3H6 42.08 2,185 2.4 

Ethane .............................................................................................................. C2H6 30.07 1,595 3.0 

Ethylene ........................................................................................................... C2H4 28.05 1,477 2.7 

Hydrogen ......................................................................................................... H2 2.02 274 4.0 

Hydrogen Sulfide ............................................................................................. H2S 34.08 587 4.0 

Methane ........................................................................................................... CH4 16.04 896 5.0 

Methyl-Acetylene ............................................................................................. C3H4 40.06 2,088 1.7 

Nitrogen ........................................................................................................... N2 28.01 0 ∞ 

Oxygen ............................................................................................................. O2 32.00 0 ∞ 

Pentane+ (C5+) ............................................................................................... C5H12 72.15 3,655 1.4 

Propadiene ....................................................................................................... C3H4 40.06 2,066 2.16 

Propane ........................................................................................................... C3H8 44.10 2,281 2.1 

Propylene ......................................................................................................... C3H6 42.08 2,150 2.4 

Water ............................................................................................................... H2O 18.02 0 ∞ 

TABLE 2—ACCURACY AND CALIBRATION REQUIREMENTS

Parameter Accuracy requirements Calibration requirements 

Flare Vent Gas Flow Rate ... ±20 percent of flow rate at velocities ranging from 0.1 

to 1 foot per second.

±5 percent of flow rate at velocities greater than 1 foot 

per second.

Performance evaluation biennially (every 2 years) and 

following any period of more than 24 hours throughout which the flow rate exceeded the maximum rated 

flow rate of the sensor, or the data recorder was off 

scale. Checks of all mechanical connections for leakage monthly. Visual inspections and checks of system operation every 3 months, unless the system 

has a redundant flow sensor. 

Select a representative measurement location where 

swirling flow or abnormal velocity distributions due to 

upstream and downstream disturbances at the point 

of measurement are minimized. 

Pressure ............................... ±5 percent over the normal range measured or 0.12 

kilopascals (0.5 inches of water column), whichever 

is greater.

Review pressure sensor readings at least once a week 

for straight-line (unchanging) pressure and perform 

corrective action to ensure proper pressure sensor 

operation if blockage is indicated. 

Performance evaluation annually and following any period of more than 24 hours throughout which the 

pressure exceeded the maximum rated pressure of 

the sensor, or the data recorder was off scale. 

Checks of all mechanical connections for leakage 

monthly. Visual inspection of all components for integrity, oxidation and galvanic corrosion every 3 

months, unless the system has a redundant pressure 

sensor. 

Select a representative measurement location that minimizes or eliminates pulsating pressure, vibration, and 

internal and external corrosion. 

Net Heating Value by Calorimeter.±2 percent of span .......................................................... Calibration requirements should follow manufacturer’s 

recommendations at a minimum. 

Temperature control (heated and/or cooled as necessary) the sampling system to ensure proper yearround operation. 

Where feasible, select a sampling location at least 2 

equivalent diameters downstream from and 0.5 

equivalent diameters upstream from the nearest disturbance. Select the sampling location at least 2 

equivalent duct diameters from the nearest control 

device, point of pollutant generation, air in-leakages, 

or other point at which a change in the pollutant concentration or emission rate occurs. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
23486 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2016 / Notices 

TABLE 2—ACCURACY AND CALIBRATION REQUIREMENTS—Continued 

Parameter Accuracy requirements Calibration requirements 

Net Heating Value by Gas 

Chromatograph.

As specified in PS 9 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B ..... Follow the procedure in PS 9 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, except that a single daily mid-level calibration check can be used (rather than triplicate analysis), the multi-point calibration can be conducted 

quarterly (rather than monthly), and the sampling line 

temperature must be maintained at a minimum temperature of 60 °C (rather than 120 °C). 

(2) The MPGF system shall be 

operated with a flame present at all 

times when in use. Each stage of MPGF 

burners must have at least two pilots 

with a continuously lit pilot flame. The 

pilot flame(s) must be continuously 

monitored by a thermocouple or any 

other equivalent device used to detect 

the presence of a flame. The time, date, 

and duration of any complete loss of 

pilot flame on any stage of MPGF 

burners must be recorded. Each 

monitoring device must be maintained 

or replaced at a frequency in accordance 

with the manufacturer’s specifications. 

(3) The MPGF system shall be 

operated with no visible emissions 

except for periods not to exceed a total 

of 5 minutes during any 2 consecutive 

hours. A video camera that is capable of 

continuously recording (i.e., at least one 

frame every 15 seconds with time and 

date stamps) images of the flare flame 

and a reasonable distance above the 

flare flame at an angle suitable for 

visible emissions observations must be 

used to demonstrate compliance with 

this requirement. The owner or operator 

must provide real-time video 

surveillance camera output to the 

control room or other continuously 

manned location where the video 

camera images may be viewed at any 

time. 

(4) The operator of an MPGF system 

shall install and operate pressure 

monitor(s) on the main flare header, as 

well as a valve position indicator 

monitoring system for each staging 

valve to ensure that the MPGF operates 

within the range of tested conditions or 

within the range of the manufacturer’s 

specifications. The pressure monitor 

shall meet the requirements in Table 2. 

Maintenance periods, instrument 

adjustments or checks to maintain 

precision and accuracy, and zero and 

span adjustments may not exceed 5 

percent of the time the flare is receiving 

regulated material. 

(5) Recordkeeping Requirements. 

(a) All data must be recorded and 

maintained for a minimum of 3 years or 

for as long as applicable rule subpart(s) 

specify flare records should be kept, 

whichever is more stringent. 

(6) Reporting Requirements. 

(a) The information specified in 

Section III (6)(b) and (c) below should 

be reported in the timeline specified by 

the applicable rule subpart(s) for which 

the MPGF will control emissions. 

(b) Owners or operators should 

include the following information in 

their initial Notification of Compliance 

status report: 

(i) Specify flare design as a pressureassisted MPGF. 

(ii) All visible emission readings, 

NHVcz and/or LFLcz determinations, and 

flow rate measurements. For MPGF, exit 

velocity determinations do not need to 

be reported as the maximum permitted 

velocity requirements in the General 

Provisions at 40 CFR 60.18 and 40 CFR 

63.11 are not applicable. 

(iii) All periods during the 

compliance determination when a 

complete loss of pilot flame on any stage 

of MPGF burners occurs. 

(iv) All periods during the compliance 

determination when the pressure 

monitor(s) on the main flare header 

show the MPGF burners operating 

outside the range of tested conditions or 

outside the range of the manufacturer’s 

specifications. 

(v) All periods during the compliance 

determination when the staging valve 

position indicator monitoring system 

indicates a stage of the MPGF should 

not be in operation and is or when a 

stage of the MPGF should be in 

operation and is not. 

(c) The owner or operator shall notify 

the Administrator of periods of excess 

emissions in their Periodic Reports. 

These periods of excess emissions shall 

include: 

(i) Records of each 15-minute block 

during which there was at least 1 

minute when regulated material was 

routed to the MPGF and a complete loss 

of pilot flame on a stage of burners 

occurred. 

(ii) Records of visible emissions 

events that are time and date stamped 

and exceed more than 5 minutes in any 

2-hour consecutive period. 

(iii) Records of each 15-minute block 

period for which an applicable 

combustion zone operating limit (i.e., 

NHVcz or LFLcz) is not met for the MPGF 

when regulated material is being 

combusted in the flare. Indicate the date 

and time for each period, the NHVcz

and/or LFLcz operating parameter for the 

period and the type of monitoring 

system used to determine compliance 

with the operating parameters (e.g., gas 

chromatograph or calorimeter). 

(iv) Records of when the pressure 

monitor(s) on the main flare header 

show the MPGF burners are operating 

outside the range of tested conditions or 

outside the range of the manufacturer’s 

specifications. Indicate the date and 

time for each period, the pressure 

measurement, the stage(s) and number 

of MPGF burners affected and the range 

of tested conditions or manufacturer’s 

specifications. 

(v) Records of when the staging valve 

position indicator monitoring system 

indicates a stage of the MPGF should 

not be in operation and is or when a 

stage of the MPGF should be in 

operation and is not. Indicate the date 

and time for each period, whether the 

stage was supposed to be open, but was 

closed or vice versa, and the stage(s) and 

number of MPGF burners affected. 

IV. Final Framework for Streamlining 

Approval of Future Pressure-Assisted 

MPGF AMEL Requests 

We are finalizing a framework that 

sources may use to submit an AMEL 

request to the EPA in order to use an 

MPGF as control devices to comply with 

new source performance standards 

(NSPS) and national emission standards 

for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) 

under 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63. At 

a minimum, sources considering use of 

an MPGF as an emissions control 

technology should provide the EPA 

with the following information in its 

AMEL request when demonstrating 

MPGF equivalency: 

(1) Project Scope and Background. 

(a) Size and scope of plant, products 

produced, location of facility, and the 

MPGF proximity, if less than 2 miles, to 

the local community and schools. 

(b) Details of overall emissions control 

scheme (e.g., low pressure control 

scenario and high pressure control 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2016 / Notices 23487 

scenario), MPGF capacity and operation 

(including number of rows (stages), 

number of burners and pilots per stage 

and staging curve), and how the MPGF 

will be used (e.g., controls routine 

flows, only controls flows during 

periods of startup, shutdown, 

maintenance, emergencies). 

(c) Details of typical and/or 

anticipated waste gas compositions and 

profiles to be routed to the MPGF for 

control. 

(d) MPGF burner design including 

type, geometry, and size. 

(e) Anticipated date of startup. 

(2) Regulatory Applicability. 

(a) Detailed list or table of applicable 

NESHAP and/or NSPS, applicable 

standards that allow use of flares, and 

authority that allows the owner or 

operator to request an AMEL. 

(3) Destruction Efficiency/Combustion 

Efficiency Performance Demonstration. 

(a) Sources must provide a 

performance demonstration to the 

Agency that the MPGF pressure-assisted 

burner being proposed for use will 

achieve a level of control at least 

equivalent to the most stringent level of 

control required by the underlying 

standards (e.g., 98-percent destruction 

efficiency or better). Facilities can elect 

to do a performance test that includes a 

minimum of three test runs under the 

most challenging conditions (e.g., 

highest operating pressure and/or sonic 

velocity conditions) using passive 

Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy 

(PFTIR) testing, extractive sampling or 

rely on an engineering assessment. 

Sources must test using fuel 

representative of the type of waste gas 

the MPGF will typically burn or 

substitute a waste gas such as an olefin 

gas or olefinic gas mixture that will 

challenge the MPGF to achieve a high 

destruction efficiency smokelessly. 

(i) If a performance test is conducted 

on the burners, a test report must be 

submitted to the Agency which includes 

at a minimum: A description of the 

testing, a protocol describing the test 

methodology used, associated test 

method quality assurance/quality 

control (QA/QC) parameters, raw field 

and laboratory data sheets, summary 

data report sheets, calibration standards, 

calibration curves, completed visible 

emissions observation forms, a 

calculation of the average destruction 

efficiency and combustion efficiency 

over the course of each test, the date, 

time and duration of the test, the waste 

gas composition and NHVcz and/or LFLcz

the gas tested, the flowrate (at standard 

conditions) and velocity of the waste 

gas, the MPGF burner tip pressure, 

waste gas temperature, meteorological 

conditions (e.g., ambient temperature, 

barometric pressure, wind speed and 

direction and relative humidity), and 

whether there were any observed flare 

flameouts. 

(ii) If an engineering assessment is 

done, sources must provide to the 

Agency a demonstration that a proper 

level of destruction/combustion 

efficiency was obtained through prior 

performance testing for a similar 

equivalent burner type design. To 

support an equivalent burner 

assessment of destruction/combustion 

efficiency, sources must discuss and 

provide information related to design 

principles of burner type, burner size, 

burner geometry, air-fuel mixing, and 

the combustion principles associated 

with this burner that will assure 

smokeless operation under a variety of 

operating conditions. Similarly, sources 

must also provide details outlining why 

all of these factors, in concert with the 

waste gas that was tested in the 

supporting reference materials, support 

the conclusion that the MPGF burners 

being proposed for use by the source 

will achieve at least an equivalent level 

of destruction efficiency as required by 

the underlying applicable regulations. 

(4) MPGF Stability Testing. 

(a) The operation of an MPGF with a 

stable, lit flame is of paramount 

importance to continuously ensuring 

good flare performance; therefore, any 

source wishing to demonstrate 

equivalency for purposes of using these 

types of installations must conduct a 

stability performance test. Since flare tip 

design and waste gas composition have 

significant impact on the range of stable 

operation, sources should use a 

representative waste gas the MPGF will 

typically burn or a waste gas, such as an 

olefin or olefinic mixture, that will 

challenge the MPGF to perform at a high 

level with a stable flame as well as 

challenge its ability to achieve 

smokeless operation. 

(b) Sources should first design and 

carry out a performance test to 

determine the point of flare flame 

instability and flameout for the MPGF 

burner and waste gas composition 

chosen to be tested. Successful, initial 

demonstration of stability is achieved 

when there is a stable, lit flame for a 

minimum of 5 minutes at consistent 

flow and waste gas composition. It is 

recommended, although not required, 

that sources determine the point of 

instability at sonic flow conditions or at 

the highest operating pressure 

anticipated. Any data which 

demonstrate instability and complete 

loss of flame prior to the 5-minute 

period must be reported along with the 

initial stable flame demonstration. 

Along with destruction efficiency and 

combustion efficiency, the data 

elements laid out in Section IV(3)(a)(i) 

above should also be reported. 

(c) Using the results from Section 

IV(4)(b) above as a starting point, 

sources must perform a minimum of 

three replicate tests at both the 

minimum and maximum operating 

conditions on at least one MPGF burner 

at or above the NHVcz or at or below the 

LFLcz determined in Section IV(4)(b). If 

more than one burner is tested, the 

spacing between the burners must be 

representative of the projected 

installation. Each test must be a 

minimum of 5 minutes in duration with 

constant flow and composition for the 

three runs at minimum conditions, and 

the three runs at the maximum 

conditions. The data and data elements 

mentioned in Section IV(4)(b) must also 

be reported. 

(5) MPGF Cross-light Testing. 

(a) Sources must design and carry out 

a performance test to successfully 

demonstrate that cross lighting of the 

MPGF burners will occur over the range 

of operating conditions (e.g., operating 

pressure and/or velocity (Mach) 

condition) for which the burners will be 

used. Sources may use the NHVcz and/ 

or LFLcz established in Section IV(4) 

above and perform a minimum of three 

replicate runs at each of the operating 

conditions. Sources must cross-light a 

minimum of three burners and the 

spacing between the burners and 

location of the pilot flame must be 

representative of the projected 

installation. At a minimum, sources 

must report the following: A description 

of the testing, a protocol describing the 

test methodology used, associated test 

method QA/QC parameters, the waste 

gas composition and NHVcz and/or LFLcz

of the gas tested, the velocity (or Mach 

speed ratio) of the waste gas tested, the 

MPGF burner tip pressure, the time, 

length, and duration of the test, records 

of whether a successful cross-light was 

observed over all of the burners and the 

length of time it took for the burners to 

cross-light, records of maintaining a 

stable flame after a successful cross-light 

and the duration for which this was 

observed, records of any smoking events 

during the cross-light, waste gas 

temperature, meteorological conditions 

(e.g., ambient temperature, barometric 

pressure, wind speed and direction, and 

relative humidity), and whether there 

were any observed flare flameouts. 

(6) Flaring Reduction Considerations. 

(a) Sources must make a 

demonstration, considering MPGF use, 

on whether additional flare reduction 

measures, including flare gas recovery, 

should be used and implemented. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
23488 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2016 / Notices 

(7) MPGF Monitoring and Operating 

Conditions. 

(a) Based on the results of the criteria 

mentioned above in this section, sources 

must make recommendations to the 

Agency on the type of monitoring and 

operating conditions necessary for the 

MPGF to demonstrate equivalent 

reductions in emissions as compared to 

flares complying with the requirements 

at 40 CFR 60.18 and 40 CFR 63.11, 

taking into consideration a control 

scheme designed to handle highly 

variable flows and waste gas 

compositions. 

We anticipate this framework will 

enable the Agency to review and 

approve future AMEL requests for 

MPGF installations in a more 

expeditious timeframe. We note, 

however, that future AMEL requests are 

still subject to public notice and 

comment. 

Dated: April 11, 2016. 

Janet G. McCabe, 

Acting Assistant Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2016–08911 Filed 4–20–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9945–38–OEI] 

Privacy Act of 1974; System of 

Records 

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of new Privacy Act 

system of records. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Office of 

Land and Emergency Management is 

giving notice that it proposes to create 

a new system of records pursuant to the 

provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 

U.S.C. 552a). This system of records 

contains information of individuals 

which is collected in the course of 

response and environmental assessment 

actions, including actions taken under a 

variety of EPA authorities. The 

information maintained under this 

SORN is needed to support EPA’s 

decision making process on what 

actions may be necessary to address 

potential environmental impacts at 

residential properties, including 

necessary remediation activities. This 

information is collected to ensure an 

appropriate and cohesive response to 

situations requiring EPA response 

activities and to protect the health and 

welfare of residents potentially affected 

by an environmental or public health 

emergency, and maintained so to be 

accessible as needed for coordination of 

environmental response activities. This 

information may include individuals’ 

contact information, information related 

to their address or place of residence, 

correspondence, and related 

information collected in the course of 

sampling and cleanup work. 

DATES: Persons wishing to comment on 

this system of records notice must do so 

by May 31, 2016. If no comments are 

received, the system of records notice 

will become effective by May 31, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

2016–0100, by one of the following 

methods: 

www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

Email: oei.docket@epa.gov. 

Fax: 202–566–1752. 

Mail: OEI Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 

Hand Delivery: OEI Docket, EPA/DC, 

EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC. Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Docket’s normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OEI–2016– 

0100. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

for which disclosure is restricted by 

statute. Do not submit information that 

you consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov. 

The www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov your email address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the comment that is 

placed in the public docket and made 

available on the Internet. If you submit 

an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http://

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

for which disclosure is restricted by 

statute. Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the OEI Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West 

Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566– 

1752. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Terrence Ferguson, Office of Land and 

Emergency Management (OLEM), Office 

of Superfund Remediation and 

Technology Information (OSRTI), Mail 

Code 5202T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone 

number (202) 566–0370. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

is creating a Privacy Act system of 

records to allow the agency to maintain 

records that are necessary to conduct 

environmental assessments at 

residential properties in order to 

respond to emergency situations and 

during environmental assessment 

activities conducted by EPA under 

many different programs including 

Superfund, the Resource Conservation 

and Recovery Act (RCRA), and the Safe 

Drinking Water Act (SDWA). This 

system of records promotes 

transparency, efficiency, and improved 

environmental and health outcomes by 

encompassing all records associated 

with EPA residential assessment work, 

including the database repositories, 

field documentation, and analytical 

reports. Over the course of these 

assessments EPA is often required to 

support or work closely with state and 

local agencies or federal agencies in 

responses to evaluate the health and 

welfare of affected communities. EPA’s 

environmental assessment activities at 

residential properties include: 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES