Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Notices 10567 

responses. EPA will consider the 

comments received and amend the ICR 

as appropriate. The final ICR package 

will then be submitted to OMB for 

review and approval. At that time, EPA 

will issue another Federal Register 

notice to announce the submission of 

the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to 

submit additional comments to OMB. 

Abstract: Section 1414(c)(3)(A) of the 

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) 

requires that each state (a term that 

includes states, commonwealths, tribes 

and territories) that has primary 

enforcement authority under the SDWA 

shall prepare, make readily available to 

the public, and submit to the 

Administrator of EPA, an annual report 

of violations of national primary 

drinking water regulations in the state. 

These Annual State Public Water 

System Compliance Reports are to 

include violations of maximum 

contaminant levels, treatment 

requirements, variances and 

exemptions, and monitoring 

requirements determined to be 

significant by the Administrator after 

consultation with the states. To 

minimize a state’s burden in preparing 

its annual statutorily required report, 

EPA issued guidance that explains what 

Section 1414(c)(3)(A) requires and 

provides model language and reporting 

templates. EPA also annually makes 

available to the states a computer query 

that generates for each state (from 

information states are already separately 

required to submit to EPA’s national 

database on a quarterly basis) the 

required violations information in a 

table consistent with the reporting 

template in EPA’s guidance. 

Form Numbers: None. 

Respondents/affected entities: Entities 

that are potentially affected by this 

action are States that have primacy 

enforcement authority and meet the 

definition of ‘‘state’’ under the SDWA. 

Respondent’s obligation to respond: 

Mandatory under Section 1414 (c)(3)(A) 

of SDWA. 

Estimated number of respondents: 55 

(total). 

Frequency of response: Annually. 

Total estimated burden: 4,400 hours 

(per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 

1320.03(b). 

Total estimated cost: $530,000(per 

year), includes $0 annualized capital or 

operation & maintenance costs. 

Changes in Estimates: There is no 

change in burden from the most recently 

approved ICR as currently identified in 

the OMB Inventory of Approved 

Burdens. This is due to two 

considerations. First, the regulations 

have not changed over the past three 

years and are not anticipated to change 

over the next three years. Second, the 

growth rate for this industry is very low 

or non-existent, so there is no 

significant change in the overall burden. 

Since there are no changes in the 

regulatory requirements and there is no 

significant industry growth, there are 

also no changes in the capital/startup or 

operation and maintenance (O&M) 

costs. There is a slight increase in costs, 

which is wholly due to the use of 

updated labor rates. This ICR uses labor 

rates from the most recent Bureau of 

Labor Statistics report (September 2020) 

to calculate respondent burden costs. 

John Dombrowski, 

Deputy Director, Office of Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2021–03480 Filed 2–19–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–10017–01–OECA ] 

Applicability Determination Index Data 

System Posting: EPA Formal 

Responses to Inquiries Concerning 

Compliance With the Clean Air Act 

Stationary Source Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of availability. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces the 

availability of applicability 

determinations, alternative monitoring 

decisions, and regulatory interpretations 

made by EPA with regard to the New 

Source Performance Standards (NSPS); 

the National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP); 

the Emission Guidelines and Federal 

Plan Requirements for existing sources; 

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) data system 

is available on the internet through the 

Resources and Guidance Documents for 

Compliance Assistance page of the 

Clean Air Act Compliance Monitoring 

Website under ‘‘Air’’ at: https://

www.epa.gov/compliance/resourcesand-guidance-documents-complianceassistance. The letters and memoranda 

on the ADI may be located by author, 

date, office of issuance, subpart, 

citation, control number, or by string 

word searches. For questions about the 

ADI or this notice, contact Maria 

Malave, Monitoring, Assistance and 

Media Programs Division by phone at: 

(202) 564–7027, or by email at: 

malave.maria@epa.gov. For technical 

questions about individual applicability 

determinations, monitoring decisions, 

or regulatory interpretations, refer to the 

contact person identified in each 

individual document, 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 

that a source owner or operator may 

request a determination of whether 

certain intended actions constitute the 

commencement of construction, 

reconstruction, or modification. 40 CFR 

60.5 and 61.06. The General Provisions 

in part 60 also apply to Federal and 

EPA-approved state plans for existing 

sources in 40 CFR part 62. See 40 CFR 

62.02(b)(2). The EPA’s written responses 

to source or facility-specific inquiries on 

provisions in parts 60, 61 and 62 are 

commonly referred to as applicability 

determinations. Although the NESHAP 

part 63 regulations [which include 

Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT) standards and/or 

Generally Available Control Technology 

(GACT) standards] contain no specific 

regulatory provision providing that 

sources may request applicability 

determinations, the EPA also responds 

to written inquiries regarding 

applicability for the part 63 regulations. 

In addition, the General Provisions in 

part 60 and 63 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). The EPA’s written responses to 

these inquiries are commonly referred to 

as alternative monitoring decisions. 

Furthermore, the EPA responds to 

written inquiries about the broad range 

of regulatory requirements in 40 CFR 

parts 60 through 63 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. The EPA’s written responses 

to these inquiries are commonly referred 

to as regulatory interpretations. 

The EPA currently compiles EPAissued NSPS and NESHAP applicability 

determinations, alternative monitoring 

decisions, and regulatory 

interpretations, and posts them to the 

ADI on a regular basis. In addition, the 

ADI contains EPA-issued responses to 

requests pursuant to the stratospheric 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES
10568 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Notices 

ozone regulations contained in 40 CFR 

part 82. The ADI is a data system 

accessed via the internet, with over 

three thousand EPA letters and 

memoranda pertaining to the 

applicability, monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements of the NSPS, NESHAP, 

emission guidelines and Federal Plans 

for existing sources, and stratospheric 

ozone regulations. Users can search for 

letters and memoranda by author, date, 

office of issuance, subpart, citation, 

control number, or by string word 

searches. 

Today’s notice comprises a summary 

of 59 such documents added to the ADI 

on October 22, 2020. This notice lists 

the subject and header of each letter and 

memorandum, as well as a brief abstract 

of the content. Complete copies of these 

documents may be obtained from the 

ADI on the internet through the 

Resources and Guidance Documents for 

Compliance Assistance page of the 

Clean Air Act Compliance Monitoring 

website under ‘‘Air’’ at: https://

www.epa.gov/compliance/resourcesand-guidance-documents-complianceassistance. 

Summary of Headers and Abstracts 

The following table identifies the 

database control number for each 

document posted on October 22, 2020 to 

the ADI data system; the applicable 

category; the section(s) and/or subpart(s) 

of 40 CFR part 60, 61, 62, 63 and 82 (as 

applicable) addressed in the document; 

and the title of the document, which 

provides a brief description of the 

subject matter. 

Also included in this notice, is an 

abstract of each document identified 

with its control number. These abstracts 

are being provided to the public as 

possible items of interest and are not 

intended as substitutes for the contents 

of the original 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. 

APPLICABILITY DETERMINATIONS, ALTERNATIVE MONITORING PLANS AND REGULATORY INTERPRETATIONS UPLOADED TO

ADI ON OCTOBER 22, 2020 

Control No. Categories Subparts Title 

1900024 ....... NSPS ............................. OOOOa ......................... Applicability Determination for Mainline Valve at a Compressor Station. 

1900025 ....... NSPS, NESHAP ............ LLL, KKK, OOOO HH ... Applicability Determination for Sweetening Units Installed on a Natural 

Gas Processing Plant. 

1900026 ....... NSPS ............................. Ja ................................... Alternative Monitoring Plan for Span Gas Concentration for Total Reduced 

Sulfur Continuous Emissions Monitoring System for Flares at Petroleum 

Refineries. 

1900027 ....... NSPS ............................. J, Ja ............................... Alternative Monitoring Plan and Performance Test Waiver for Hydrogen 

Sulfide Monitoring of Tank Degassing Operations Controlled by Portable 

Fuel Gas Combustion Devices at Petroleum Refineries. 

1900028 ....... NESHAP, NSPS ............ J, Ja, UUU ..................... Modification of Operating Parameter Limits in Alternative Monitoring Plan 

for a Wet Gas Scrubber installed on Fluidized Catalytic Cracking Units 

at a Refinery. 

1900030 ....... NSPS ............................. J ..................................... Waiver Request of the Frequency Particulate Matter Testing for Fluidized 

Catalytic Cracking Unit at a Refinery. 

1900031 ....... NESHAP, NSPS ............ J, Ja, UUU ..................... Modification of Alternative Monitoring Plan to Allow Parametric Monitoring 

In lieu of Continuous Opacity Monitoring of a Wet Gas Scrubber Installed on a Fluidized Catalytic Cracking Unit at a Refinery. 

1900032 ....... NSPS ............................. J ..................................... Alternative Monitoring Plan for Delayed Coking Unit Installed on Disulfide 

Oil Oxidation Tower at a Refinery. 

1900033 ....... NESHAP, NSPS ............ J, UUU ........................... Modification of Alternative Monitoring Plan to Allow Parametric Monitoring 

In lieu of Continuous Opacity Monitoring of a Wet Gas Scrubber Installed on a Fluidized Catalytic Cracking Unit at a Refinery. 

1900034 ....... NSPS ............................. XXX ............................... Applicability Determination for Expansion of a Landfill. 

1900035 ....... NSPS ............................. J, Ja ............................... Alternative Monitoring Plan for Hydrogen Sulfide Monitoring of Storage 

Tank, Process Unit Vessel, and Piping Degassing Operations Controlled 

by Portable Fuel Gas Combustion Devices at Petroleum Refineries. 

1900036 ....... NSPS ............................. Db .................................. Alternative Monitoring Plan to Allow Predictive Emissions Monitoring In 

lieu of Continuous Emission Monitoring of NOX Emissions from a Boiler 

at a Packaging Facility. 

1900037 ....... NSPS ............................. Db .................................. Extension Due to Force Majeure Events of Initial Performance Test of 

NOX Emissions from a Boiler at a Mining Company. 

1900038 ....... NSPS ............................. Ja ................................... Alternative Monitoring Plan for Span Gas Range for NOX Continuous 

Emissions Monitoring System for Heaters at a Petroleum Refinery. 

1900039 ....... NSPS ............................. UUU ............................... Alternative Monitoring Plan for Wet Scrubbers on Fluidized Bed Dryers at 

Non-metallic Mineral Processing Facilities. 

2000001 ....... NSPS ............................. OOO .............................. Regulatory Interpretation for Vibratory Feeders at a Limestone Quarry. 

2000003 ....... NSPS ............................. EEEE ............................. Applicability Determination for Rural Institutional Waste Incinerators. 

2000004 ....... NESHAP, NSPS ............ Db, DDDDD ................... Alternative Monitoring Plan for Biomass Boiler at Kraft Pulp Mill. 

2000005 ....... NSPS ............................. A, J, Ja .......................... Alternative Monitoring Plan and Performance Testing Waiver for Hydrogen 

Sulfide Monitoring of Tank Degassing Operations Controlled by Portable 

Fuel Gas Combustion Devices at Petroleum Refineries. 

2000007 ....... NESHAP, NSPS ............ Db, DDDDD ................... Alternative Monitoring Plan for Wood-Residue Fueled Boilers at a Paperboard Mill. 

2000013 ....... NSPS ............................. A .................................... Regulatory Interpretation of the use of Part 60, Appendix F- Quality Assurance Procedures. 

FP00008 ...... Federal Plan .................. LLL ................................. Modification to Alternative Monitoring Plan for Fluidized Bed Sewage 

Sludge Incinerator at a Wastewater Treatment Plant. 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Notices 10569 

APPLICABILITY DETERMINATIONS, ALTERNATIVE MONITORING PLANS AND REGULATORY INTERPRETATIONS UPLOADED TO

ADI ON OCTOBER 22, 2020—Continued 

Control No. Categories Subparts Title 

FP00009 ...... Federal Plan .................. LLL ................................. Alternative Monitoring Plan for Fluidized Bed Sewage Sludge Incinerator 

at a Wastewater Treatment Plant. 

FP00010 ...... Federal Plan .................. LLL ................................. Alternative Monitoring Plan for Fluidized Bed Sewage Sludge Incinerator 

at a Wastewater Treatment Plant. 

FP00011 ...... Federal Plan .................. LLL ................................. Alternative Monitoring Plan for Fluidized Bed Sewage Sludge Incinerator 

Installed at a Wastewater Treatment Plant. 

FP00012 ...... Federal Plan .................. LLL ................................. Alternative Monitoring Plan for Multiple Hearth Sewage Sludge Incinerators Installed at a Wastewater Treatment Plant. 

FP00013 ...... Federal Plan .................. LLL ................................. Alternative Monitoring Plan for Multiple Hearth Sewage Sludge Incinerator 

Installed at a Wastewater Treatment Plant. 

M190004 ...... NESHAP, NSPS ............ F, LLL ............................ Alternative Monitoring Plan for Parametrically Monitoring Sulfur Dioxide 

Emissions at a Portland Cement Plant. 

M190005 ...... NESHAP ........................ S .................................... Modification of Alternative Monitoring Plan for Steam Stripper Installed on 

a Kraft Pulp Mill. 

M190006 ...... NESHAP ........................ DDDDD .......................... Alternative Monitoring Plan for Combination Boilers at a Packaging Manufacturing Facility. 

M190007 ...... NESHAP ........................ MM ................................. Alternative Monitoring Plan for Dynamic Scrubbers Installed on Smelt Dissolving Tanks at a Kraft Pulp Mill. 

M190008 ...... NESHAP ........................ MM ................................. Alternative Monitoring Plan for Dynamic Scrubbers Installed on Smelt Dissolving Tanks at a Kraft Pulp Mill. 

M190009 ...... NESHAP ........................ MM ................................. Alternative Monitoring Plan for Dynamic Scrubbers Installed on Smelt Dissolving Tanks at a Kraft Pulp Mill. 

M190010 ...... NESHAP ........................ MM ................................. Alternative Monitoring Plan for Dynamic Scrubbers Installed on Smelt Dissolving Tanks at a Kraft Pulp Mill. 

M190011 ...... NESHAP ........................ MM ................................. Alternative Monitoring Plan for Dynamic Scrubbers Installed on Smelt Dissolving Tanks at a Kraft Pulp Mill. 

M190012 ...... NESHAP ........................ MM ................................. Alternative Monitoring Plan for Dynamic Scrubbers Installed on Smelt Dissolving Tanks at a Kraft Pulp Mill. 

M190013 ...... NESHAP ........................ MM ................................. Alternative Monitoring Plan for Dynamic Scrubbers Installed on Smelt Dissolving Tanks at Kraft Pulp Mill. 

M190014 ...... NESHAP ........................ GGG .............................. Alternative Monitoring Plan for Verifying Flow to Control System Installed 

on Batch-Operated Pharmaceuticals Manufacturing Facility. 

M190015 ...... NESHAP, NSPS ............ BB, MM .......................... Alternative Monitoring Plan for Dynamic Scrubber Installed on Smelt Dissolving Tanks at Kraft Pulp Mill. 

M190016 ...... NESHAP, NSPS ............ BB, MM .......................... Alternative Monitoring Plan for Dynamic Scrubbers Installed on Smelt Dissolving Tanks at Kraft Pulp Mill. 

M190017 ...... NESHAP ........................ CC ................................. Alternative Monitoring Plan for a Cascading Flare System Installed at a 

Petroleum Refinery. 

M190018 ...... NESHAP ........................ JJJJJJ ............................ Performance Test Waiver for Carbon Monoxide for Boilers. 

M190019 ...... NESHAP ........................ FFFF, HHHHH ............... Applicability Determination for Separation Activity at a Coatings Manufacturing Facility. 

M190020 ...... NESHAP ........................ EEE ............................... Approval of Minor Test Method Modifications for Hazardous Waste Incinerators. 

M190021 ...... NESHAP ........................ RRR ............................... Alternative Monitoring Plan for Intermittent Lime Addition to Baghouse Installed on Aluminum Melting Furnaces at a Secondary Aluminum Production Facility. 

M200001 ...... NESHAP ........................ CCC ............................... Alternative Monitoring Plan for Wet Scrubber Installed on a Steel Pickle 

Line at a Steel Pickling Facility. 

M200002 ...... NESHAP, NSPS ............ BB, BBa, MM ................. Alternative Monitoring Plan for Electrostatic Precipitator and Wet Scrubber 

Installed on a Lime Kiln at a Kraft Pulp Mill. 

M200003 ...... NESHAP ........................ G, S ............................... Alternative Monitoring Plan for Equipment that is Unsafe or Difficult to 

Monitor at a Pulp and Paper Mill. 

M200004 ...... NESHAP ........................ UUUUU .......................... Applicability Determination for Electric Utility Steam Generating Units. 

M200005 ...... NESHAP ........................ VVVVVV, CCCCCCC .... Applicability Determination for a Lithium Ion Battery Manufacturing Facility. 

M200006 ...... NESHAP ........................ DDDDD .......................... Alternative Monitoring Plan for Chlorine and Mercury Monitoring for Combination Boiler Installed at a Pulp and Paper Mill. 

M200007 ...... NESHAP ........................ RRR ............................... Applicability Determination for Thermal Chip Dryer Installed at a Secondary Aluminum Production Facility. 

M200008 ...... NESHAP ........................ MM ................................. Alternative Monitoring Plan for Dynamic Scrubbers Installed on Smelt Dissolving Tanks at a Kraft Pulp Mill. 

M200009 ...... NESHAP ........................ MM ................................. Alternative Monitoring Plan for Dynamic Scrubbers Installed on Smelt Dissolving Tanks at a Kraft Pulp Mill. 

M200015 ...... MACT ............................ CC ................................. Regulatory Interpretation of Petroleum Refinery Regulations for Flaring 

Events. 

Z190001 ....... NESHAP ........................ ZZZZ .............................. Alternative Monitoring Plan for Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines Installed at Natural Gas Compressor Stations. 

Z200002 ....... NESHAP ........................ MM ................................. Alternative Monitoring Plan for Dynamic Scrubbers Installed on Smelt Dissolving Tanks at a Kraft Pulp Mill. 

Z200003 ....... NESHAP ........................ LLLLL ............................. Alternative Monitoring Plan for Group 2 Storage Tanks at an Asphalt 

Roofing Manufacturing Facility. 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES
10570 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Notices 

APPLICABILITY DETERMINATIONS, ALTERNATIVE MONITORING PLANS AND REGULATORY INTERPRETATIONS UPLOADED TO

ADI ON OCTOBER 22, 2020—Continued 

Control No. Categories Subparts Title 

Z200004 ....... NESHAP ........................ VVVVVV, BBBBBBB, 

CCCCCCC.

Applicability Determination for Frit Manufacturing Facility. 

Z200005 ....... NESHAP ........................ ZZZZ .............................. Alternative Monitoring Plan for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 

at a Natural Gas Plant. 

Abstracts 

Abstract for [1900024] 

Q: Does EPA determine that Mainline 

Valve 29 (MLV 29) installed at the 

Southern Natural Gas Company 

compressor station in Thomaston, 

Georgia (TCS) is part of the affected 

facility subject to the fugitive emission 

monitoring requirements in NSPS 

subpart OOOOa? 

A: Yes. Based on the information 

provided, EPA determines that when 

the modification to TCS occurred in 

March 2017, MLV 29 became part of the 

affected facility subject to the fugitive 

emissions monitoring requirements of 

subpart OOOOa. According to 40 CFR 

60.5397a, ’’the collection of fugitive 

emissions components at a compressor 

station, as defined in § 60.5430a, is an 

affected facility,’’ and MLV 29 meets the 

definition of ‘‘fugitive emissions 

components’’ because it is a component 

located within the fence line of a 

compressor station and potentially 

emits fugitive emissions of methane and 

volatile organic compounds. 

Abstract for [1900025] 

Q: Does EPA determine that the 

sweetening units and sweetening units 

followed by a sulfur recovery unit 

(hereinafter referred to collectively as 

‘‘sweetening units’’) at the Lost Cabin 

Gas Plant in Lysite, Wyoming are 

affected facilities under NSPS subpart 

LLL? 

A: Yes. Based on the information 

provided and our analysis of subpart 

LLL, EPA determines that the 

sweetening units are affected facilities 

under NSPS subpart LLL because 

subpart LLL applies to sweetening units 

that ‘‘process natural gas,’’ and although 

subpart LLL does not define ‘‘process 

natural gas,’’ the preambles to the 

proposed and final subpart LLL 

rulemakings (49 FR 2656, January 20, 

1984 and 50 FR 40158, October 1, 1985) 

clarify that gas processing in subpart 

LLL refers to sweetening and sulfur 

recovery. 

Abstract for [1900026] 

Q: Does EPA approve alternate span 

gas concentration values for hydrogen 

sulfide (H2S) on the total reduced sulfur 

(TRS) continuous emissions monitoring 

system (CEMS) for the Fluor and 

Cumene flares at the Citgo Refining and 

Chemicals Company (CITGO) Corpus 

Christi East petroleum refinery and the 

West Plant Process flare at the CITGO 

Corpus Christi West Plant petroleum 

refinery in Corpus Christi, Texas 

covered under NSPS subpart Ja? 

A: Yes. Based on the process data and 

analyzer information submitted by 

CITGO, EPA conditionally approves the 

request to reduce the concentration 

ranges of the calibration gas to specified 

ranges and validation standards on the 

TRS CEMS for the three flares. As 

conditions of this approval, CITGO must 

meet all other requirements of the 

monitoring procedures of NSPS Subpart 

Ja for H2S and TRS, and must also 

conduct linearity analyses on each 

Extrel MAX300–IGTM mass spectrometer 

once every three years to determine 

each detector’s linearity across the 

entire range of expected sulfur 

concentrations. A report of each 

completed linearity analysis shall be 

submitted to EPA Region 6 and the 

Texas Commission on Environmental 

Quality and maintained in each 

facility’s on-site records. 

Abstract for [1900027] 

Q: Does EPA approve an alternative 

monitoring plan (AMP) and 

performance test waiver request for 

ProAct Services Corporation (ProAct) to 

conduct monitoring of hydrogen sulfide 

(H2S) emissions in lieu of installing a 

continuous emission monitoring system, 

when performing degassing for tanks, 

vessels, and pipes controlled by 

portable temporary thermal oxidizers 

and internal combustion engines at 

various refineries located in EPA Region 

6 that are subject to NSPS subparts J and 

Ja? 

A: Yes. Based on the description of 

the process, the vent gas streams, the 

design of the vent gas controls, and the 

proposed H2S monitoring and data 

collection methods furnished by ProAct 

Services Corporation, EPA conditionally 

approves the AMP. In addition, based 

on ProAct’s proposed alternate testing 

protocols used during each degassing 

event, EPA waives performance testing 

pursuant to 40 CFR 60.8(b)(4). The 

approved AMP and performance test 

waiver are only for refineries located in 

EPA Region 6. EPA includes proposed 

operating parameter limits and data that 

the refineries must furnish as part of the 

conditional approval. 

Abstract for [1900028] 

Q: Does EPA approve a modification 

of a previously approved alternative 

monitoring plan (AMP) for Phillips 66 

Company to revise the parametric 

monitoring limits for the wet gas 

scrubbers (WGS) installed on Nos. 4 and 

5 fluidized catalytic cracking units 

(FCCU) at the Ponca City Refinery in 

Ponca City, Oklahoma covered by NSPS 

subpart J and NESHAP subpart UUU? 

A: Yes. Based upon the design of the 

WGS units and the process specific 

supplemental information provided by 

Phillips 66 Company, EPA conditionally 

approves the AMP modification for the 

two FCCU WGS at the Ponca City 

Refinery. EPA reviewed the recent 

performance test results provided by 

Phillips 66 Company and found the data 

supportive for modifying the values of 

the established final operating 

parameter limits (OPLs). The OPLs 

approved for demonstrating compliance 

with the AMP included minimum 

liquid-to-gas ratio, minimum water 

pressure to quench/spray tower, 

minimum slurry liquid circulation 

pump discharge pressure, and minimum 

pressure drop across filter modules/ 

cyclolabs. 

Abstract for [1900030] 

Q: Does EPA approve ExxonMobil 

Refining and Supply Company’s 

(ExxonMobil’s) waiver of the frequency 

of particulate matter (PM) emission rate 

testing for one fluidized catalytic 

cracking unit (FCCU) at the Beaumont 

Refinery, Beaumont, Texas, which is 

subject to NSPS subpart J and annual 

testing PM testing under consent decree, 

Civil Action No. 05–C–5809? 

A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves 

ExxonMobil ’s request to reduce the 

frequency of PM testing for the one 

FCCU at the Beaumont Refinery from 

annually to once every five years, with 

the limitation that ExxonMobil shall 

resume annual PM testing for the FCCU 

any time the NSPS subpart J emission 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Notices 10571 

limit of 1.0 pound of PM per 1000 

pounds of coke burned (on a 3-hour 

average basis) is exceeded. 

Abstract for [1900031] 

Q: Does EPA approve a modification 

of a previously issued alternative 

monitoring plan (AMP) for the wet gas 

scrubber (WGS) on one fluidized 

catalytic cracking unit (FCCU) at the 

Marathon El Paso Refinery in El Paso, 

Texas, subject to NSPS subparts J and Ja 

and NESHAP subpart UUU, for 

parametric monitoring of opacity at the 

WGS in lieu of a continuous opacity 

monitoring system (COMS), due to 

changes in operating conditions at the 

units when moisture levels are high in 

the stacks? 

A: Yes. Based upon the design of the 

WGS unit and the process specific 

supplemental information provided, 

EPA approves the AMP modification to 

use parametric monitoring in lieu of 

COMS for the WGS on one FCCU at the 

Marathon El Paso Refinery. EPA 

reviewed the recent performance test 

results and found the data supportive 

for modifying the final operating 

parameter limits (OPLs). The OPLs that 

EPA approves for demonstrating 

compliance with the AMP included 

minimum Liquid-to-Gas Ratio and the 

minimum pressure drop across the 

WGS. 

Abstract for [1900032] 

Q: Does EPA approve an alternative 

monitoring plan (AMP) if delayed 

coking unit (DCU) 843 is rerouted from 

Flare #23 to the Merichem Flare, to 

exempt Valero Port Arthur Refinery 

(Valero) in Port Arthur, Texas subject to 

NSPS subpart J from monitoring 

hydrogen sulfide (H2S) in the DCU 843 

overhead vapor stream from the 

disulfide oxidation tower T–6750? 

A: Yes. Based on the description of 

the vent gas stream, the process 

parameters to be monitored, the design 

of the vent gas controls, and H2S 

monitoring data, EPA conditionally 

approves the AMP. The fuel gas stream 

from the disulfide oxidation tower T– 

6750 is inherently low in sulfur as 

demonstrated by H2S monitoring data 

previously furnished to EPA for a 

previously issued AMP exempting H2S 

monitoring for oxidation tower T–6750 

when DCU 843 was previously routed to 

Flare #23. Valero must continue to meet 

all other applicable NSPS requirements, 

and the DCU 843 overhead vapor stream 

from disulfide oil oxidation tower T– 

6750 must be combusted in the 

Merichem Flare. 

Abstract for [1900033] 

Q: Does EPA approve a modification 

of a previously issued alternative 

monitoring plan (AMP) for the wet gas 

scrubber (WGS) on one fluidized 

catalytic cracking unit (FCCU) at the 

Shell Chemical, LP Deer Park Refinery 

in Deer Park, Texas (Shell Chemical, 

LP), subject to NSPS subpart J and 

NESHAP subpart UUU, for parametric 

monitoring of opacity at the WGS in lieu 

of a continuous opacity monitoring 

system (COMS)? 

A: Yes. Based upon the design of the 

WGS unit and the process specific data 

and supplemental information provided 

by Shell Chemical, LP, EPA approves an 

AMP modification to use parametric 

monitoring in lieu of COMS for the 

WGS on one FCCU at the Deer Park 

Refinery. EPA reviewed the recent 

performance test results and found the 

data supportive for modifying the final 

operating parameter limits (OPLs). The 

OPLs that EPA approves for 

demonstrating compliance with the 

AMP included minimum Liquid-to-Gas 

Ratio, minimum liquid side pressure at 

the filter module nozzles, and minimum 

pressure drop at the quench nozzle. 

Abstract for [1900034] 

Q: Does EPA determine that an 

expansion to the Advanced Disposal 

Services Glacier Ridge Landfill, LLC 

(GRL) in Horicon, Wisconsin meets the 

applicability criteria of NSPS subpart 

XXX, if the expansion was approved 

under a solid waste permit and 

construction had commenced prior to 

July 17, 2014? 

A: No. EPA determines that GRL 

landfill expansion has not triggered 

subpart XXX applicability because a 

modification as defined in under 40 

CFR 60.761 has not occurred. GRL’s 

current design capacity of 20,269,000 

cubic yards was permitted by the 

Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources prior to July 17, 2014 and 

construction on that permitted 

expansion was commenced prior to July 

17, 2014, the effective date of NSPS 

subpart XXX. 

Abstract for [1900035] 

Q: Does EPA approve the alternative 

monitoring plan (AMP) request from 

PSC Industrial Outsourcing, LP 

(HydroChemPSC) to conduct monitoring 

of hydrogen sulfide emissions, in lieu of 

installing a continuous emission 

monitoring system, when performing 

degassing for storage tanks, process unit 

vessels, and piping controlled by 

temporary portable fuel gas combustion 

devices (FGCDs) at petroleum refineries 

located in EPA Region 5 that are subject 

to NSPS subparts J and Ja? 

A: Yes. Since the storage tank, process 

unit vessel and piping degassing 

operations are infrequent and 

temporary, EPA conditionally approves 

an AMP when HydroChemPSC uses a 

portable FGCD to control emissions 

from these processes. EPA included in 

the response letter specifications 

regarding sampling procedures, 

frequency of sampling, methods to 

determine compliance, recordkeeping, 

and data that the refineries must furnish 

as part of the conditional approval. 

Abstract for [1900036] 

Q: Does EPA approve an alternative 

monitoring plan (AMP) request from 

Packaging Corporation of America 

(PCA) to use a predictive emission 

monitoring system (PEMS) in lieu of a 

NOx continuous emission monitoring 

system (CEMS) on Boiler B24 at the PCA 

facility in Tomahawk, Wisconsin, 

subject to NSPS subpart Db? 

A: No. Based on the information 

provided, EPA denies PCA’s AMP 

request for use of a PEMs in lieu of a 

Nox CEMS because the heat input 

capacity of Boiler B24 (352.9 MMBtu/ 

hr) significantly exceeds the 250 

MMBtu/hr capacity limit in 40 CFR 

60.49b(c) for allowing use of PEMS and 

Boiler B24. Additionally, Boiler B24 

may burn types of solid fuels (e.g., 

biomass, tire-derived fuel, paper 

recycling residuals, and paper pellets) 

not identified in 40 CFR 60.48b(g)(2). 

Finally, Boiler B24 was constructed in 

1977 and has been in operation since 

that time. 

Abstract for [1900037] 

Q: Does EPA approve an extension of 

the deadline from April 2, 2019 to July 

31, 2019 for the initial performance test 

for nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions for 

Boiler No. 4 at the Tilden Mining 

Company, LLC, (Tilden) facility in 

Ishpeming, Michigan, covered by NSPS 

subpart Db, due to force majeure events 

including a series of equipment failures 

that delayed achieving the maximum 

production rate? 

A: No. Based on the information 

provided, EPA denies the request for an 

extension of the performance test 

deadline. Based on the information 

provided, Tilden’s Boiler No. 4 achieved 

maximum production rate on February 

1, 2019, providing the 60-day testing 

period specified in 40 CFR 60.8(a). 

Because Tilden had 60 days to complete 

testing prior to April 2, 2019, the 

equipment failures do not qualify as 

force majeure events, which are defined 

by 40 CFR 60.2 as ‘‘prevent[ing] the 

owner or operator from complying with 

the regulatory requirement to conduct 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES
10572 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Notices 

performance tests within the specified 

timeframe.’’ 

Abstract for [1900038] 

Q: Does EPA approve an alternate 

span gas concentration range equal to 1 

to 3 times the NSPS subpart Ja limit for 

the nitrogen oxides (NOx) continuous 

emission monitoring system (CEMS) for 

heaters 25H–3, 25H–4, 37H–3/4/5, and 

30H–401 at the Flint Hills Resources 

Pine Bend Refinery (FHR) in Saint Paul, 

Minnesota covered under NSPS subpart 

Ja? 

A: Yes. Based on the process data and 

analyzer information submitted by FHR, 

EPA conditionally approves the request 

to change the span gas range to 1 to 3 

times the NSPS Subpart Ja limit for the 

NOx CEMS for the four heaters because 

a lower span should provide more 

accurate measurement of NOx emissions 

from these heaters during typical 

operations. The conditions for approval 

are specified in the EPA response letter. 

Abstract for [1900039] 

Q: Does EPA approve Covia Holdings 

Corporation’s (Covia’s) alternative 

monitoring plan (AMP) request to 

establish pressure drop and liquid flow 

rate parametric limits for monitoring 

particulate matter (PM) emissions from 

wet scrubbers on fluidized bed dryers at 

its two non-metallic mineral processing 

facilities located in Ottawa, Minnesota 

and Kasota, Minnesota, subject to NSPS 

subpart UUU, by using for each 

scrubber, the results of multiple 

performance tests conducted 2012 

through the most recent performance 

test, as opposed to using only the most 

recent performance test? 

A: Yes. Based on the performance test 

and process data submitted by Covia, as 

well as Covia’s statement that there have 

been no modifications to any of the 

processes or control devices since the 

earliest test, EPA conditionally approves 

the request. The conditions for the 

approval are specified in the EPA 

response letter and exclude use of any 

test older than 12 years or conducted 

prior to modifications to the dryer or 

scrubber, and any test that resulted in 

PM emissions above ten percent of the 

emissions limit that would lower the 

minimum pressure drop or expand the 

liquid flow rate range. Additionally, all 

future test results for the wet scrubbers 

must be shared with EPA Region 5 and 

the Minnesota Pollution Control 

Agency. 

Abstract for [2000001] 

Q: Does EPA determine that two 

vibratory feeders at the Blue Waters 

Industries’ limestone quarry in Lebanon, 

Tennessee meet the definition of 

affected facilities under NSPS subpart 

OOO? 

A: No. Based upon the design and 

operation of the vibratory feeders, EPA 

determines that the feeders do not fit the 

definitions of any of the facilities 

subject to subpart OOO. Although the 

feeders are not affected facilities under 

subpart OOO, the transfer points from 

the feeders onto two downstream 

conveyor belts would be subject to an 

opacity limit in Table 3 to subpart OOO 

for fugitive emissions sources, if the 

conveyors were constructed, modified, 

or reconstructed after August 13, 1983. 

Abstract for [2000003] 

Q: Does EPA determine that the 

institutional waste incinerators operated 

at four United States Air Force (USAF) 

Long Range Radar Sites (LRRS) located 

in Point Barrow, Barter Island, Cold 

Bay, and Oliktok, Alaska qualify under 

40 CFR 60.2887(h) to be excluded from 

NSPS subpart EEEE? 

A: No. EPA determines that the USAF 

LRRS institutional waste incinerators do 

not qualify for the ‘‘rural institutional 

waste incinerators’’ exclusion under 40 

CFR 60.2887(h) under subpart EEEE 

because the application for exclusion 

was not submitted prior to the initial 

startup of the incinerators and 

information was not provided 

demonstrating that alternative disposal 

options are unavailable or economically 

infeasible. 

Abstract for [2000004] 

Q: Does EPA approve an alternative 

monitoring plan (AMP) to continuously 

monitor pressure drop and liquid flow 

rate of the venturi scrubber installed on 

the No. 1 bark boiler at the Foley 

Cellulose LLC Kraft pulp mill (Foley 

Mill) in Perry, Florida subject to NSPS 

Subpart Db, in lieu of continuously 

monitoring opacity or particulate matter 

(PM)? 

A: Yes. Based on the information 

provided, EPA approves the AMP. EPA 

agrees with the technical concerns 

raised by Foley Mill regarding using a 

PM continuous emission monitoring 

system or continuous opacity 

monitoring system on biomass-fired 

boilers, due to water droplets in the flue 

downstream of the scrubbers. The 

approved AMP is equivalent to the PM 

monitoring requirements for a 300 

MMBtu/hour biomass boiler subject to 

NESHAP subpart DDDDD, and the 

requirements of the AMP are detailed in 

the EPA response letter. 

Abstract for [2000005] 

Q: Does EPA approve an Alternative 

Monitoring Plan (AMP) and 

performance test waiver request for USA 

DeBusk, LLC (Debusk) to conduct 

monitoring of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) 

emissions, in lieu of installing a 

continuous emission monitoring system, 

when performing degassing for tanks, 

vessels, and piping controlled by 

temporary portable fuel gas combustion 

devices (FGCDs) at petroleum refineries 

located in Region 4 that are subject to 

NSPS subparts J and Ja? 

A: Yes. Based on the description of 

the process, the vent gas streams, the 

design of the vent gas controls, and the 

proposed H2S monitoring and data 

collection methods furnished by 

Debusk, EPA conditionally approves the 

AMP for H2S emissions from degassing 

and cleaning of tanks, vessels, and 

piping. In addition, based on Debusk’s 

proposed alternate testing protocols 

used during each degassing event, EPA 

waives performance testing pursuant to 

40 CFR 60.8(b)(4). EPA includes in the 

response letter conditions regarding 

sampling procedures, re-sampling 

requirements, methods for determining 

compliance, FGCD operation, 

recordkeeping, and reporting. 

Abstract for [2000007] 

Q: Does EPA approve an alternative 

monitoring plan (AMP) to continuously 

monitor scrubber operating parameter 

limits (OPLs) to demonstrate 

compliance with the opacity limit for 

the No. 2 and No. 3 wood-residue fueled 

boilers equipped, respectively, with a 

wet electrostatic precipitator (WESP) 

and a venturi scrubber, at the WestRock 

Coated Board, LLC Mahrt Mill in Phenix 

City, Alabama subject to NSPS subpart 

Db? 

A: Yes. EPA approves the AMP as 

proposed to continuously monitor the 

operating load or steam generation for 

both boilers, the total secondary electric 

power input of the WESP for the No. 2 

boiler, and the pressure drop and liquid 

flow rate of the scrubber for the No. 3 

boiler. EPA agrees with the technical 

concerns raised by Mahrt Mill regarding 

using a PM continuous emission 

monitoring system or continuous 

opacity monitoring system on biomassfired boilers, due to water droplets in 

the flue downstream of the scrubbers. 

The approved AMP is equivalent to the 

PM monitoring requirements for 

biomass boilers of equivalent size 

subject to NESHAP subpart DDDDD, 

and the requirements of the AMP are 

detailed in the EPA response letter. 

Abstract for [2000013] 

Q: Does EPA agreed with the 

Oklahoma Department of Environmental 

Quality (ODEQ) that all affected sources 

subject to any NSPS are required to 

comply with the requirements specified 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Notices 10573 

in appendix F to 40 CFR part 60, which 

is used for continuous emission 

monitoring systems (CEMS) in 

determining compliance with emissions 

limits as specified in the NSPS General 

Provisions? 

A: No. Each subpart should be 

reviewed for applicable references to 

appendix F and portions of the General 

Provisions (GP) to 40 CFR part 60 for 

affected facilities specified in the 

subpart. Due consideration should be 

given to the applicability sections 

provided within each subpart and 

appendix F (Quality Assurance 

Procedures). 

Abstract for [FP00008] 

Q: Does EPA approve a modification 

of a previously approved alternative 

monitoring plan (AMP) for establishing 

operating limits (OPLs) for the sewage 

sludge incinerator (SSI) using a 

VenturiPakTM wet scrubber with 

mercury modules at the City of 

Anacortes Wastewater Treatment Plant 

(Anacortes) in Anacortes, Washington 

subject to 40 CFR part 62, subpart LLL? 

A: Yes. Based on the information 

provided, EPA conditionally approves 

the AMP modification. EPA agrees with 

establishing the sand bed temperature of 

the SSI as the operating parameter for 

monitoring dioxins/furans in lieu of the 

exhaust gas temperature, and Anacortes 

must limit the maximum dry sludge 

feed rate to no greater than 110 percent 

of the average dry sludge feed rate 

achieved during the most recent 

performance test demonstrating 

compliance with the dioxins/furans 

emission limits. EPA agrees with 

replacing the 12-hour block averaging 

time for OPLs specified in table 4 to 

subpart LLL with an ‘‘operating day 

block average’’ averaging time because 

Anacortes typically operates only 6 to 8 

hours per day. EPA also agrees that the 

reduced performance testing frequency 

provided in 40 CFR 62.16000(a)(3) 

should apply to Anacortes. The 

approved operating parameters and 

conditions for establishing OPLs are 

specified in the EPA approval letter. 

Abstract for [FP00009] 

Q1: Does EPA approve an alternative 

monitoring plan (AMP) for establishing 

and monitoring operating parameters to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

mercury (Hg) emission limit applicable 

to the fluidized bed sewage sludge 

incinerator (SSI) equipped with a 

control equipment not specified in 40 

CFR 62.15965 at the Edmonds 

Wastewater Treatment Plant (Edmonds) 

in Edmonds, Washington subject to 40 

CFR part 62 subpart LLL? 

A1: Yes. Based on the information 

provided, EPA approves the AMP for 

demonstrating compliance with the Hg 

emission limit by monitoring and 

recording continuously the pressure 

drop across the Hg control system (i.e., 

W.L. Gore and Associates, Inc./ 

EnviroCare International Sorbent 

Polymer Composite technology Hg 

control system in combination with a 

mist eliminator) and the inlet 

temperature to the system, and by 

monitoring on a quarterly basis the Hg 

concentrations in the flue gas at the 

inlet and outlet of the system. 

Q2: Does EPA approve an AMP to use 

a wet scrubber system and to practice 

good combustion practices for 

demonstrating compliance with the 

dioxins/furans emission limit applicable 

to Edmonds’ SSI? 

A2: No. Based on the information 

provided, EPA does not approve the 

AMP because it does not propose to 

monitor any operating parameters or 

establish operating parameter limits 

(OPLs) for Edmunds’ SSI to demonstrate 

compliance with the dioxins/furans 

emissions limit. Edmonds should 

submit a revised petition in accordance 

with 40 CFR 62.15965(b)(2)(i) through 

(v) that addresses dioxins/furansspecific operating parameters and OPLs 

associated with good combustion 

practices. 

Q3: Does EPA approve Edmonds’ 

AMP for its VenturiPakTM scrubber 

system to demonstrate compliance with 

the three OPLs for scrubbers in table 4 

to subpart LLL, by monitoring the OPLs 

only at the drain that receives the total 

scrubber water discharge from the 

scrubber system? 

A3: No. EPA does not approve the 

AMP because Edmunds did not provide 

the information specified by 40 CFR 

62.15995(e)(1) through (6). Edmunds’ 

scrubber system generally consists of 

five different scrubbers operated in 

series, and the Federal Plan requires 

monitoring pressure drop, liquid flow 

rate, and pH of each wet scrubber in a 

scrubber system. Edmonds may revise 

and resubmit their AMP. 

Q4: Does EPA approve Edmonds’ 

AMP changing the location for 

monitoring the minimum combustion 

chamber operating temperature of the 

SSI from the exhaust gas to the fluidized 

sand bed? 

A4: Yes. Based on the information 

provided, EPA approves the AMP since 

the alternative location will enable 

accurate and representative 

measurements. 

Q5: Does EPA approve Edmonds’ 

AMP specifying the facility’s ash 

handling system monitoring 

procedures? 

A5: No. Based on the information 

provided, EPA does not approve the 

AMP because Edmonds’ AMP does not 

include operating procedures to address 

the complete ash conveying system 

(including conveyor transfer points) or 

sufficient information for EPA to 

evaluate whether daily inspections of 

the ash handling system and 

observation of the loadout activities will 

be adequate to meet the requirements of 

40 CFR 62.15955 and 62.15995 on an 

ongoing basis. Edmonds may revise and 

resubmit their AMP. 

Abstract for [FP00010] 

Q1: Does EPA approve an alternative 

monitoring plan (AMP) to demonstrate 

compliance with the mercury (Hg) 

emission limit applicable to the 

fluidized bed sewage sludge incinerator 

(SSI) equipped with a W.L. Gore and 

Associates, Inc./EnviroCare 

International Sorbent Polymer 

Composite technology Hg control 

system at the Lynnwood Wastewater 

Treatment Plant (Lynnwood) in 

Lynnwood, Washington subject to 40 

CFR part 62 subpart LLL? 

A1: Yes. Based on the information 

provided, EPA approves the AMP for 

demonstrating compliance with the Hg 

emission limit by monitoring and 

recording continuously the pressure 

drop across the Hg control system and 

the inlet temperature to the system, and 

by monitoring on a quarterly basis the 

Hg concentrations in the flue gas at the 

inlet and outlet of the system. 

Q2: Does EPA approve an AMP to use 

a wet scrubber system and to practice 

good combustion practices for 

demonstrating compliance with the 

dioxins/furans emission limit applicable 

to Lynnwood’s SSI? 

A2: No. Based on the information 

provided, EPA does not approve the 

AMP because it does not propose to 

monitor any operating parameters or 

establish operating parameter limits 

(OPLs) for Lynnwood’s SSI to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

dioxins/furans emissions limit. 

Lynnwood should submit a revised 

petition in accordance with 40 CFR 

62.15965(b)(2)(i) through (v) that 

addresses dioxins/furans-specific 

operating parameters and OPLs 

associated with good combustion 

practices. 

Q3: Does EPA approve Lynnwood’s 

AMP for its wet scrubber system to 

demonstrate compliance with the OPLs 

for scrubbers in table 4 to subpart LLL 

by monitoring the pressure drop across 

the venturi scrubber, the total scrubber 

water flow rates not including the mist 

eliminator, and the pH of the scrubber 

discharge from the impingement tray 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES
10574 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Notices 

scrubber and associated tray irrigation 

water flow? 

A3: No. EPA does not approve the 

AMP because Lynnwood did not 

provide the information specified by 40 

CFR 62.15995(e)(1) through (6). 

Lynnwood’s scrubber system generally 

consists of five different scrubbers 

operated in series, and the Federal Plan 

requires monitoring pressure drop, 

liquid flow rate, and pH of each wet 

scrubber in a scrubber system. 

Lynnwood may revise and resubmit 

their AMP. 

Q4: Does EPA approve Lynnwood’s 

AMP for monitoring the minimum 

combustion chamber operating 

temperature of the SSI using the average 

reading of three thermocouples that 

measure the combustion temperature 

within the fluidized sand bed of the 

SSI? 

A4: Yes. Based on the information 

provided, EPA approves the AMP for 

the SSI because it meets the 40 CFR 

62.15960 requirements. 

Q5: Does EPA approve Lynnwood’s 

AMP specifying the facility’s ash 

handling system monitoring 

procedures? 

A5: No. Based on the information 

provided, EPA does not approve the 

AMP because Lynnwood’s AMP does 

not include operating procedures to 

address the complete ash conveying 

system (including conveyor transfer 

points) or sufficient information for EPA 

to evaluate whether daily observations 

of the filter cake and observation of the 

loadout activities will be adequate to 

meet the requirements of 40 CFR 

62.15955 and 62.15995 on an ongoing 

basis. Lynnwood may revise and 

resubmit their AMP. 

Abstract for [FP00011] 

Q1: Does EPA approve an alternative 

monitoring plan (AMP) to demonstrate 

compliance with the mercury (Hg) 

emission limit applicable to the 

fluidized bed sewage sludge incinerator 

(SSI) equipped with a W.L. Gore and 

Associates, Inc./EnviroCare 

International Sorbent Polymer 

Composite technology Hg control 

system in combination with a mist 

eliminator at the Vancouver Wastewater 

Treatment Plant (Vancouver) in 

Vancouver, Washington subject to 40 

CFR part 62 subpart LLL? 

A1: No. Based on the information 

provided, EPA does not approve 

Vancouver’s AMP to monitor the Hg 

concentrations collected on the sorption 

media modules within the Hg control 

system because Vancouver was unable 

to establish an operating parameter limit 

(OPL) and averaging time for this 

operating parameter. EPA approves 

monitoring and recording continuously 

the inlet temperature to the Hg control 

system and monitoring on a quarterly 

basis the Hg concentrations in the flue 

gas at the inlet and outlet of the system. 

Vancouver should submit a revised 

petition proposing Hg-specific OPLs 

that meet the requirements of 40 CFR 

62.15965(b)(2)(iii), and Vancouver 

should consider whether the pressure 

drop across the Hg control system 

should be included as an OPL. 

Q2: Does EPA approve an AMP to use 

a wet scrubber system and to practice 

good combustion practices for 

demonstrating compliance with the 

dioxins/furans emission limit applicable 

to Vancouver’s SSI? 

A2: No. Based on the information 

provided, EPA does not approve the 

AMP because it does not propose to 

monitor any operating parameters or 

establish OPLs for Vancouver’s SSI to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

dioxins/furans emissions limit. 

Vancouver should submit a revised 

petition in accordance with 40 CFR 

62.15965(b)(2)(i) through (v) to propose 

dioxins/furans OPLs associated with 

good combustion practices. 

Q3: Does EPA approve Vancouver’s 

AMP for its quench/venturi wet 

scrubber system to demonstrate 

compliance with the OPLs for scrubbers 

in table 4 to subpart LLL by monitoring 

the pressure drop across the tray 

scrubber, the total scrubber water flow 

rate from the quench, venturi, and tray 

scrubbers, and the pH of the tray 

scrubber effluent? 

A3: No. EPA does not approve the 

AMP because Vancouver did not 

provide the information specified by 40 

CFR 62.15995(e)(1) through (6). 

Vancouver’s scrubber system consists of 

multiple scrubbers operated in series, 

and subpart LLL requires monitoring 

pressure drop, liquid flow rate, and pH 

of each wet scrubber in a scrubber 

system. Vancouver may revise and 

resubmit their AMP. 

Q4: Does EPA approve Vancouver’s 

AMP for monitoring the minimum 

combustion chamber operating 

temperature of the SSI using the average 

reading of three thermocouples that 

measure the combustion temperature 

within the fluidized sand bed of the 

SSI? 

A4: Yes. Based on the information 

provided, EPA approves the AMP for 

the SSI because it meets the 40 CFR 

62.15960 requirements. 

Q5: Does EPA approve Vancouver’s 

AMP for the facility’s ash handling 

system monitoring procedures? 

A5: No. Based on the information 

provided, EPA does not approve the 

AMP because it does not include 

operating procedures to address the 

complete ash conveying system or 

sufficient information for EPA to 

evaluate whether daily observations of 

the ash filter cake to the roll-off bins and 

the weekly sampling of the moisture 

content of the ash filter cake will be 

adequate to meet the requirements of 40 

CFR 62.15955 and 62.15995 on an 

ongoing basis. Vancouver may revise 

and resubmit their AMP. 

Abstract for [FP00012] 

Q1: Does EPA approve an alternative 

monitoring plan (AMP) to demonstrate 

compliance with the mercury (Hg) 

emission limit applicable to two 

multiple hearth sewage sludge 

incinerators (SSIs) equipped with a wet 

venturi scrubber and wet electrostatic 

precipitator (WESP) at the Bellingham 

Wastewater Treatment Plant 

(Bellingham) in Bellingham, 

Washington subject to 40 CFR part 62 

subpart LLL? 

A1: No. Based on the information 

provided, EPA does not approve the 

AMP because it proposes no monitoring 

of Hg-specific operating parameter 

limits (OPLs) and provides no 

information on the influence of the wet 

scrubber and WESP on Hg emissions. 

Bellingham should submit a revised 

petition proposing Hg-specific OPLs 

that adequately address 40 CFR 

62.15965(b)(2)(i) through (v). 

Q2: Does EPA approve an AMP to use 

an afterburner (thermal oxidizer), wet 

scrubber, WESP, and good combustion 

practices to comply with the dioxins/ 

furans emission limit applicable to 

Bellingham’s SSIs? 

A2: No. Based on the information 

provided, EPA does not approve the 

AMP because it does not propose to 

monitor any OPLs to demonstrate 

compliance with the dioxins/furans 

emission limit, and it does not provide 

any information on the afterburner’s 

influence on dioxins/furans emissions. 

Bellingham should submit a revised 

petition to adequately address 40 CFR 

62.15965(b)(2)(i) through (v), including 

proposing dioxins/furans-specific OPLs 

associated with good combustion 

practices. 

Q3: Does EPA approve Bellingham’s 

AMP for its WESPs to demonstrate 

compliance with the OPLs for scrubbers 

in table 4 to subpart LLL by monitoring 

the secondary voltage, amperage, and 

hourly inlet water flow to the WESP? 

A3: No. EPA does not approve 

monitoring hourly inlet water flow to 

the WESP in lieu of hourly outlet water 

flow from the WESP because 

Bellingham did not provide the 

information specified by 40 CFR 

62.15995(e)(1) through (6). EPA 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Notices 10575 

approves monitoring of the secondary 

voltage and amperage of the WESPs. 

Q4: Does EPA approve Bellingham’s 

AMP for its wet scrubber systems, to 

demonstrate compliance with the OPLs 

for scrubbers in table 4 to subpart LLL 

by monitoring the combined pressure 

drop across the venturi and tray wet 

scrubbers, the total scrubber water flow 

rate to both venturi and tray wet 

scrubbers, and the pH of the tray 

scrubber influent? 

A4: No. EPA does not approve the 

AMP because Bellingham did not 

provide the information specified by 40 

CFR 62.15995(e)(1) through (6). 

Bellingham’s scrubber systems consist 

of multiple scrubbers operated in series, 

and subpart LLL requires parameter 

monitoring of each wet scrubber in a 

scrubber system. 

Q5: Does EPA approve Bellingham’s 

AMP for monitoring the minimum 

temperature of the afterburner 

combustion chamber of the SSIs using a 

temperature sensor located near the exit 

from the afterburner chamber upstream 

of the entry of the venturi scrubber? 

A5: No. Based on the information 

provided, EPA does not approve the 

AMP because EPA needs more 

information regarding the design and 

performance specifications of the 

afterburner and supplemental burner to 

determine whether the temperature 

sensor provides a representative 

temperature of the afterburner 

combustion chamber. 

Q6: Does EPA approve Bellingham’s 

AMP for the facility’s ash handling 

system monitoring procedures? 

A6: No. Based on the information 

provided, EPA does not approve the 

AMP. The AMP must be revised to 

include the upstream portion of the ash 

handling system during Method 22 

testing and to explain how Bellingham 

will properly conduct the Method 22 

test during ash filling. Further, the AMP 

must provide information for EPA to 

evaluate if the ash handling units used 

to capture and control fugitive ash 

emissions, equipment inspections, 

visible fugitive ash emission checks, 

and monitoring of the fabric filter 

pressure drop and water usage in the 

ash handling system will meet on an 

ongoing basis the requirements of 40 

CFR 62.15955 and 62.15995. 

Abstract for [FP00013] 

Q1: Does EPA approve an alternative 

monitoring plan (AMP) to demonstrate 

compliance with the operating 

parameter limits (OPLs) for the 

VenturiPakTM scrubber system for the 

multiple hearth sewage sludge 

incinerator (SSI) at the Anchorage Water 

& Wastewater Utility (Anchorage) in 

Anchorage, Washington subject to 40 

CFR part 62 subpart LLL? 

A1: No. EPA does not approve the 

AMP to monitor the combined pressure 

drop across the impingement tray 

scrubber, venturi scrubber, separator 

tray scrubber, and mist eliminator; the 

combined liquid flow rate of all the 

scrubbers, and the combined pH of all 

scrubber liquid effluent. Anchorage’s 

scrubber systems consist of multiple 

scrubbers operated in series, and 

subpart LLL requires monitoring 

pressure drop, liquid flow rate, and pH 

of each wet scrubber in a scrubber 

system; however, the AMP did not 

provide the information specified by 40 

CFR 62.15995(e)(1) through (6). 

Anchorage may revise and resubmit 

their AMP. 

Q2: Does EPA approve Anchorage’s 

AMP for monitoring the minimum 

temperature of the afterburner 

combustion chamber of the SSIs using 

three temperature sensors in the 

afterburner combustion chamber? 

A2: No. Based on the information 

provided, EPA does not approve the 

AMP because the AMP does not address 

how the temperature sensors are 

representative of control of the SSI 

exhaust emissions as specified in 40 

CFR 62.15995(a)(1) or how the sensor 

locations are representative as specified 

in 40 CFR 62.15995(a)(3)(ii)(D)(1). 

Anchorage must resubmit a revised 

AMP that addresses all requirements in 

40 CFR 62.15995(a)(1) through (8). 

Q3: Does EPA approve Anchorage’s 

AMP for the facility’s ash handling 

system monitoring procedures? 

A3: No. EPA does not approve the 

AMP because it does not provide 

sufficient detail to determine whether 

the ash handling system operating 

procedures meet the requirements of 40 

CFR 62.15955 and 62.15995 or whether 

the visible emission limit is met on an 

ongoing basis. Further, the AMP does 

not clearly indicate whether all 

components of the ash handling system 

are included in the operating 

procedures and whether the Method 22 

compliance testing will be performed on 

the entire ash handling system. 

Q4: Does EPA approve Anchorage’s 

AMP for to demonstrate compliance 

with the mercury (Hg) emission limit 

without the use of Hg-specific controls? 

A4: No. EPA does not approve the 

AMP. Anchorage’s AMP does not 

propose any Hg-specific OPLs or 

provide any information on how it 

controls Hg emissions from the SSI, 

including the extent to which 

Anchorage relies on maintaining the Hg 

concentration in the dry sludge feed 

below a certain level to comply with the 

Hg emission limit. Anchorage should 

submit a revised petition regarding Hgspecific OPLs that adequately addresses 

40 CFR 62.15965(b)(2)(i) through (v). 

Q5: Does EPA approve Anchorage’s 

AMP to demonstrate compliance with 

the dioxins/furans emission limit using 

good combustion practices and a series 

of wet scrubbers, but without the use of 

dioxins/furans-specific controls? 

A5: No. EPA does not approve the 

AMP because it does not propose to 

monitor dioxins/furans-specific OPLs 

for its SSI to demonstrate compliance 

with the dioxins/furans emission limit, 

or to provide any information on the 

control of dioxins/furans from the SSI, 

such as the extent to which it relies on 

maintaining the temperature in the 

combustion zone above a certain level to 

comply with the dioxins/furans 

emission limit. Anchorage should 

submit a revised petition to propose 

dioxins/furans OPLs associated with 

good combustion practices that 

adequately addresses 40 CFR 

62.15965(b)(2)(i) through (v). 

Abstract for [M190004] 

Q. Does EPA approve an alternative 

monitoring plan to change the sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) operating limit to 300 

ppm and monitor stack emissions with 

an SO2 continuous emissions 

monitoring system (CEMS) that has a 

range of 0–300 ppm and a span of 0–200 

ppm at Holcim (US) Inc.’s Portland 

cement plant (Portland Plant) in 

Florence, Colorado subject to NESHAP 

subpart LLL? 

A: Yes. Based on the process 

information and test data submitted by 

Portland Plant, EPA conditionally 

approves an SO2 operating limit of 300 

ppm, which is more stringent than the 

369 ppm SO2 operating level 

determined by Portland Plant’s 2018 

hydrogen chloride (HCl) compliance 

test, and using an SO2 CEMS with a 

range of 0–300 ppm and a span of 0–200 

ppm. If future HCl performance testing 

indicates the SO2 operating parameter 

limit should be less than 300 ppm, 

Portland Plant must establish a lower 

SO2 operating parameter limit, and the 

SO2 operating limit must be set, and 

later monitored, in the same units 

(PPMVD or PPMV). Further, should SO2

levels increase above the 30-day rolling 

average SO2 operating limit by 10 

percent or more, then Portland Plant 

must undertake the actions required by 

40 CFR 63.1349(b)(8)(x)(A) and (B) and 

40 CFR 63.1350(l)(3)(i) and (ii). 

Abstract for [M190005] 

Q: Does EPA approve a modification 

of a previously approved Alternative 

Monitoring Plan (AMP) for Foley 

Cellulose LLC (Foley Mill) to revise the 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES
10576 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Notices 

location for methanol flow rate and 

density monitoring for measuring steam 

stripper treatment of pulping 

condensates at the Foley Mill in Perry, 

Florida covered by NESHAP subpart S? 

A: Yes. Based upon flow rate and 

density monitoring data provided by 

Foley Mill, and supplemental 

information provided by Foley Mill 

regarding the size of the methanol 

storage tank and average amount of 

methanol burned on a normal 

production day, EPA approves the AMP 

modification for revising the location for 

methanol flow rate and density 

monitoring. The monitoring location 

would move from the current 

monitoring location for methanol flow 

rate and density where the rectified 

methanol stream enters the methanol 

storage tank to the outlet of the 

methanol storage tank for monitoring 

density and to the inlet of the methanol 

burners in the No. 2 and No. 4 recovery 

furnaces for monitoring flow rate. 

Because the average residence time for 

the tank contents is just under 8 days 

and the averaging period for 

determining compliance is based on a 

15-day rolling average, EPA considers 

this method adequate for measuring the 

density and flow of the rectified 

methanol stream. 

Abstract for [M190006] 

Q: Does EPA approve an alternative 

monitoring plan (AMP) request from 

Packaging Corporation of America 

(PCA), for periods when the wet 

scrubber is not engaged due to 

maintenance activities, to monitor on an 

hourly basis the natural gas and bark 

feed rates to the Riley Combination 

Boiler and the Combustion Engineering 

Combination Boiler at PCA’s facility in 

Valdosta, Georgia subject to NESHAP 

subpart DDDDD, in lieu of monitoring 

wet scrubber flow rate, pressure drop, 

and pH? 

A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves 

the AMP for periods when only natural 

gas is fired in the boilers, provided that 

PCA demonstrates through existing data 

or emissions testing that the two boilers 

comply with the applicable particulate 

matter, mercury,and hydrogen chloride 

emission standards in NESHAP subpart 

DDDDD when the wet scrubber is not 

engaged. 

Abstract for [M190007] 

Q: Does EPA approve an alternative 

monitoring plan (AMP) to establish the 

fan amperage operating limits for the 

Ducon scrubbers installed on the smelt 

dissolving tanks subject to NESHAP 

subpart MM at International Paper’s 

Kraft pulp mill in Prattville, Alabama 

(Prattville Mill) as the midpoint 

between the no-load amperage value 

and the lowest of the 1-hour average fan 

amperage values determined during 

compliance testing? 

A: Yes. Based on the information 

provided, EPA conditionally approves 

the AMP for Prattville Mill. EPA agrees 

that fluctuations in amperage for a 

constant speed fan are a function of 

atmospheric conditions, rather than of 

scrubber performance; therefore, setting 

the fan amperage limit at the lowest 

one-hour average fan amperage value 

based on compliance testing in 

accordance with 40 CFR 

63.864(j)(5)(i)(A) could cause reporting 

of deviations that do not represent 

exceedances of the applicable emission 

limits. The AMP conditions applicable 

to each of Prattville Mill’s scrubbers are 

specified in the EPA response letter. 

Abstract for [M190008] 

Q: Does EPA approve an alternative 

monitoring plan (AMP) to establish the 

fan amperage operating limits for the 

Ducon scrubbers installed on the smelt 

dissolving tanks subject to NESHAP 

subpart MM at International Paper’s 

Kraft pulp mill (Savannah Mill) as the 

midpoint between the no-load amperage 

value and the lowest of the 1-hour 

average fan amperage values determined 

during compliance testing? 

A: Yes. Based on the information 

provided, EPA conditionally approves 

the AMP for Savannah Mill. EPA agrees 

that fluctuations in amperage for a 

constant speed fan are a function of 

atmospheric conditions, rather than of 

scrubber performance; therefore, setting 

the fan amperage limit at the lowest 

one-hour average fan amperage value 

based on compliance testing in 

accordance with 40 CFR 

63.864(j)(5)(i)(A) could cause reporting 

of deviations that do not represent 

exceedances of the applicable emission 

limits. The AMP conditions applicable 

to each of Savannah Mill’s scrubbers are 

addressed in the EPA response letter. 

Abstract for [M190009] 

Q: Does EPA approve an alternative 

monitoring plan (AMP) to establish the 

fan amperage operating limits for the 

Ducon scrubbers installed on the smelt 

dissolving tanks subject to NESHAP 

subpart MM at International Paper’s 

Kraft pulp mill in Selma, Alabama 

(Riverdale Mill) as the midpoint 

between the no-load amperage value 

and the lowest of the 1-hour average fan 

amperage values determined during 

compliance testing? 

A: Yes. Based on the information 

provided, EPA conditionally approves 

the AMP for Riverdale Mill. EPA agrees 

that fluctuations in amperage for a 

constant speed fan are a function of 

atmospheric conditions, rather than of 

scrubber performance; therefore, setting 

the fan amperage limit at the lowest 

one-hour average fan amperage value 

based on compliance testing in 

accordance with 40 CFR 

63.864(j)(5)(i)(A) could cause reporting 

of deviations that do not represent 

exceedances of the applicable emission 

limits. The AMP conditions applicable 

to each of Riverdale Mill’s scrubbers are 

specified in the EPA response letter. 

Abstract for [M190010] 

Q: Does EPA approve an alternative 

monitoring plan (AMP) to establish the 

fan amperage operating limits for the 

Ducon scrubbers installed on the smelt 

dissolving tanks subject to NESHAP 

subpart MM at International Paper’s 

Kraft pulp mill in Redwood, Mississippi 

(Vicksburg Mill) as the midpoint 

between the no-load amperage value 

and the lowest of the 1-hour average fan 

amperage values determined during 

compliance testing? 

A: Yes. Based on the information 

provided, EPA conditionally approves 

the AMP for Vicksburg Mill. EPA agrees 

that fluctuations in amperage for a 

constant speed fan are a function of 

atmospheric conditions, rather than of 

scrubber performance; therefore, setting 

the fan amperage limit at the lowest 

one-hour average fan amperage value 

based on compliance testing in 

accordance with 40 CFR 

63.864(j)(5)(i)(A) could cause reporting 

of deviations that do not represent 

exceedances of the applicable emission 

limits. The AMP conditions applicable 

to each of Vicksburg Mill’s scrubbers are 

specified in the EPA response letter. 

Abstract for [M190011] 

Q: Does EPA approve an alternative 

monitoring plan (AMP) to establish the 

fan amperage operating limits for the 

Ducon scrubbers installed on the smelt 

dissolving tanks subject to NESHAP 

subpart MM at International Paper’s 

Kraft pulp mill in Eastover, South 

Carolina (Eastover Mill) as the midpoint 

between the no-load amperage value 

and the lowest of the 1-hour average fan 

amperage values determined during 

compliance testing, for IP’s Eastover 

Mill? 

A: Yes. Based on the information 

provided, EPA conditionally approves 

the AMP for Eastover Mill. EPA agrees 

that fluctuations in amperage for a 

constant speed fan are a function of 

atmospheric conditions, rather than of 

scrubber performance; therefore, setting 

the fan amperage limit at the lowest 

one-hour average fan amperage value 

based on compliance testing in 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Notices 10577 

accordance with 40 CFR 

63.864(j)(5)(i)(A) could cause reporting 

of deviations that do not represent 

exceedances of the applicable emission 

limits. The AMP conditions applicable 

to each of Eastover Mill’s scrubbers are 

specified in the EPA response letter. 

Abstract for [M190012] 

Q: Does EPA approve an alternative 

monitoring plan (AMP) to establish the 

fan amperage operating limits for the 

Ducon scrubbers installed on the smelt 

dissolving tanks subject to NESHAP 

subpart MM at International Paper’s 

Kraft pulp mill in Georgetown, South 

Carolina (Georgetown Mill) as the 

midpoint between the no-load amperage 

value and the lowest of the 1-hour 

average fan amperage values determined 

during compliance testing? 

A: Yes. Based on the information 

provided, EPA conditionally approves 

the AMP for Georgetown Mill. EPA 

agrees that fluctuations in amperage for 

a constant speed fan are a function of 

atmospheric conditions, rather than of 

scrubber performance; therefore, setting 

the fan amperage limit at the lowest 

one-hour average fan amperage value 

based on compliance testing in 

accordance with 40 CFR 

63.864(j)(5)(i)(A) could cause reporting 

of deviations that do not represent 

exceedances of the applicable emission 

limits. The AMP conditions applicable 

to each of Georgetown Mill’s scrubbers 

are specified in the EPA response letter. 

Abstract for [M190013] 

Q: Does EPA approve an alternative 

monitoring plan (AMP) to establish the 

fan amperage operating limits for the 

Ducon scrubbers installed on the smelt 

dissolving tanks subject to NESHAP 

subpart MM at International Paper’s 

Kraft pulp mill in Franklin, Virginia 

(Franklin Mill) as the midpoint between 

the no-load amperage value and the 

lowest of the 1-hour average fan 

amperage values determined during 

compliance testing? 

A: Yes. Based on the information 

provided, EPA conditionally approves 

the AMP for Franklin Mill. EPA agrees 

that fluctuations in fan amperage for a 

constant speed fan are a function of 

atmospheric conditions, rather than of 

scrubber performance; therefore, setting 

the fan amperage limit at the lowest 1- 

hour average fan amperage value based 

on compliance testing in accordance 

with 40 CFR 63.864(j)(5)(i)(A) could 

cause reporting of deviations that do not 

represent exceedances of the applicable 

emission limits. The AMP conditions 

applicable to each of Franklin Mill’s 

scrubbers are specified in the EPA 

response letter. 

Abstract for [M190014] 

Q: Does EPA approve an alternative 

monitoring plan (AMP) to identify 

periods of no flow to the regenerative 

thermal oxidizer and packed-bed 

scrubber by using process data regarding 

the end and start of batch production 

runs in lieu of monitoring flow at the 

inlet or outlet of this control system 

installed on UPM Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 

(UPM’s) batch-operated pharmaceuticals 

manufacturing facility in Bristol, 

Tennessee subject to NESHAP subpart 

GGG? 

A: Yes. Based on the information 

provided, EPA approves UPM’s AMP for 

determining periods of no flow of 

emissions to the control system for the 

batch operation, for the purpose of 

removing periods of no flow when 

calculating daily average values of 

operating parameter averages for the 

control system. Because of the ductwork 

configuration at the facility, both 

process air and room air are collected 

and sent to the control system for 

reducing hazardous air pollutant (HAP) 

emissions; therefore, the air flow data at 

the inlet or outlet of the control system 

is not a reliable indicator of periods 

when there are no HAP emissions. EPA 

agrees with UPM’s rationale for starting 

each period of no flow 15 minutes after 

the end of a batch, and UPM’s plan to 

end each period of no flow when the 

next batch begins. 

Abstract for [M190015] 

Q1: Does EPA approve an alternative 

monitoring plan (AMP) to establish the 

fan amperage operating limits for the 

Ducon scrubbers installed on the smelt 

dissolving tanks subject to NESHAP 

subpart MM at International Paper’s 

Kraft pulp mill in Columbus, Georgia 

(Columbus Mill) as the midpoint 

between the no-load amperage value 

and the lowest of the 1-hour average fan 

amperage values determined during 

compliance testing? 

A1: Yes. Based on the information 

provided, EPA conditionally approves 

the AMP for Columbus Mill. EPA agrees 

that fluctuations in fan amperage for a 

constant speed fan are a function of 

atmospheric conditions, rather than of 

scrubber performance; therefore, setting 

the fan amperage limit at the lowest 1- 

hour average fan amperage value based 

on compliance testing in accordance 

with 40 CFR 63.864(j)(5)(i)(A) could 

cause reporting of deviations that do not 

represent exceedances of the applicable 

emission limits. The AMP conditions 

applicable to each of Columbus Mill’s 

scrubbers are specified in the EPA 

response letter. 

Q2: Does EPA also approve the AMP 

at Columbus Mill as an alternative to 

monitoring the pressure differential of 

the gas stream through the Ducon 

scrubbers installed on the smelt 

dissolving tanks which are also subject 

to NSPS subpart BB? 

A2: Yes. Based on the information 

provided, EPA approves the AMP in 

lieu of monitoring differential pressure 

monitoring required in 40 CFR 

60.282(b)(2)(i). Based on the operation 

of the Ducon scrubbers, fan amps are an 

appropriate alternative to pressure 

differential. The other requirements of 

subpart BB continue to apply. 

Abstract for [M190016] 

Q1: Does EPA approve an alternative 

monitoring plan (AMP) to establish the 

fan amperage operating limits for the 

Ducon UW–4 scrubbers installed on the 

smelt dissolving tanks subject to 

NESHAP subpart MM at International 

Paper’s Kraft pulp mill in Riegelwood, 

North Carolina (Riegelwood Mill) as the 

midpoint between the no-load amperage 

value and the lowest of the 1-hour 

average fan amperage values determined 

during compliance testing? 

A1: Yes. Based on the information 

provided, EPA conditionally approves 

the AMP for Riegelwood Mill. EPA 

agrees that fluctuations in fan amperage 

for a constant speed fan are a function 

of atmospheric conditions, rather than 

of scrubber performance; therefore, 

setting the fan amperage limit at the 

lowest 1-hour average fan amperage 

value based on compliance testing in 

accordance with 40 CFR 

63.864(j)(5)(i)(A) could cause reporting 

of deviations that do not represent 

exceedances of the applicable emission 

limits. The AMP conditions applicable 

to each of Riegelwood Mill’s scrubbers 

are specified in the EPA response letter. 

Q2: Does EPA also approve the AMP 

at Riegelwood Mill as an alternative to 

monitoring the pressure differential of 

the gas stream through the Ducon 

scrubbers installed on the smelt 

dissolving tanks, which are also subject 

to NSPS subpart BB? 

A2: Yes. Based on the information 

provided, EPA approves the AMP in 

lieu of monitoring differential pressure 

monitoring required in 40 CFR 

60.282(b)(2)(i). Based on the operation 

of the Ducon scrubbers, fan amps are an 

appropriate alternative to pressure 

differential. The other requirements of 

subpart BB continue to apply. 

Abstract for [M190017] 

Q: Does EPA approve an alternative 

monitoring plan (AMP) to determine 

compliance with net heating value 

requirements of a cascading flare system 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES
10578 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Notices 

at CITGO Petroleum Corporation’s Lake 

Charles Manufacturing Complex (CITGO 

LCMC) in Lake Charles, Louisiana 

subject to NESHAP subpart CC, to 

monitor the net heating value of the 

primary flare in lieu of monitoring the 

net heating value of secondary flare B– 

107? 

A: Yes. Based on the information 

provided, EPA approves the AMP since 

monitoring the net heating value (NHV) 

at the primary flare will be comparable 

to monitoring the NHV at the secondary 

flare because the two flares are 

connected to a single flare gas header 

system such that discharges will be 

directed first to the primary flare. In 

addition, CITGO LCMC has elected to 

directly monitor the net heating value of 

the primary flare’s vent gas following 

the methods provided in 40 CFR 

63.670(j)(3). 

Abstract for [M190018] 

Q: Does EPA approve a waiver of the 

requirement to conduct triennial carbon 

monoxide (CO) performance tests under 

NESHAP subpart JJJJJJ due to the 

permanent cessation of coal use, for 18 

boilers at nine facilities owned by 

Wisconsin Department of 

Administration (DOA) in Wisconsin 

subject to NESHAP subpart JJJJJJ? 

A: Yes. Based on the information 

provided, the applicable regulations, 

and pursuant to 40 CFR 63.7(h), EPA 

conditionally approves the performance 

testing waiver for each of the 18 boilers 

identified in the EPA response letter. 

For each boiler that no longer fires coal, 

DOA must continue to monitor the 

excess oxygen level in the flue gas, and 

if the 30-day rolling average oxygen 

level is below the minimum oxygen 

level determined from the performance 

tests conducted in 2017, DOA must 

report the exceedance to EPA. If DOA 

combusts coal in any of the boilers after 

April 30, 2020, then DOA must conduct 

the CO performance test required by 

subpart JJJJ within 30 days and 

thereafter as required by subpart JJJJJJ. 

Abstract for [M190019] 

Q1: Does EPA determine that the final 

filtering step of a coating product to 

remove lumps/gels from the final 

product (epoxy dispersion process), 

which The Dow Chemical Company 

(Dow) is planning to start up at its 

facility in Midland, Michigan, meets the 

definition of ‘‘separation activity’’ in 

NESHAP subpart HHHHH, such that 

NESHAP subpart HHHHH would not 

apply and the epoxy dispersion process 

would potentially be subject to NESHAP 

subpart FFFF? 

A1: No. Based on the information 

provided by Dow regarding the planned 

epoxy dispersion process, EPA 

determines that the specific epoxy 

dispersion process that Dow plans for 

its Midland, Michigan facility is not 

considered a ‘‘separation activity’’ 

under subpart HHHHH, therefore 

subpart HHHHH would potentially 

apply to Dow’s planned epoxy 

dispersion process, and NESHAP 

subpart FFFF would not apply. If Dow 

uses HAP-containing materials in the 

process, or uses HAP-containing 

cleaning solvents, the requirements of 

Subpart HHHHH would apply to the 

epoxy dispersion process. 

Q2: What is meant by ‘‘separation 

activity’’ in subpart HHHHH? 

A2: EPA is unable to answer Dow’s 

broad question in this response 

regarding what is meant by ‘‘separation 

activity’’ in subpart HHHHH. 

Abstract for [M190020] 

Q1: Does EPA approve test method 

modifications for EPA Reference 

Methods 5, 26A, and 29 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A to use a Teflon® transfer 

line between the filter and the first 

impinger of the sampling train during 

comprehensive performance tests 

conducted using the three reference 

methods on Veolia ES Technical 

Solutions, LLC’s (Veolia’s) three 

hazardous waste incinerators (Unit #2, 

Unit #3, and Unit #4) in Illinois covered 

under NESHAP subpart EEE? 

A1: Yes. EPA conditionally approves 

Veolia’s test method modifications for 

EPA Reference Methods 5, 26A, and 29, 

provided that Veolia takes certain 

precautions to preserve the samples’ 

integrity as specified in the EPA 

response letter. 

Q2: Does EPA continue to approve 

Veolia’s use of the fifteen test method 

modifications previously approved by 

EPA on November 16, 2009 and June 15, 

2011? 

A2: Yes. Because these test methods 

were previously approved by EPA, the 

methods may be used at Veolia’s 

hazardous waste incinerators without 

any further action from EPA. 

Abstract for [M190021] 

Q: Does EPA approve an alternative 

monitoring plan (AMP) for monitoring 

intermittent lime addition to Baghouse 

#1 installed on two Group 1 

reverberatory aluminum melting 

furnaces (RMF #1 and RMF #2) in lieu 

of using a pulse jet fabric filter with 

continuous lime injection at Huntington 

Aluminum Incorporated’s (HAI’s) 

facility in Huntington, Indiana covered 

under NESHAP subpart RRR? 

A: No. Based on the information 

provided, EPA denies HAI’s request for 

an AMP for intermittent lime injection 

because HAI did not provide 

assurances, through data and 

information, that the proposed 

intermittent lime addition monitoring 

procedure is adequate to ensure that all 

relevant emissions standards will be 

met on a continuous basis. Additionally, 

the emissions testing data that is 

available to the Agency is insufficient to 

support the proposed alternative. 

Abstract for [M200001] 

Q: Does EPA approve the alternative 

monitoring plan (AMP) request from 

Nucor Steel Gallatin (Nucor) for the wet 

scrubber that controls hydrochloric acid 

emissions from a steel pickling line at 

the Nucor’s facility in Ghent, Kentucky 

subject to NESHAP subpart CCC, 

because water is not provided at a 

continuous rate to this ‘‘water-efficient’’ 

scrubber? 

A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves 

Nucor’s AMP for the scrubber because 

conductivity is determined to be an 

acceptable indicator for acid strength in 

a wet scrubber. Because temperature 

fluctuations can interfere with accurate 

conductivity measurement, Nucor must 

coordinate with the Kentucky 

Department of Air Quality to ensure that 

the accuracy of conductivity 

measurements can be assured if there 

are any temperature variations and, if 

needed, additional assurance 

requirements to account for temperature 

fluctuations be included in Nucor’s 

permit. 

Abstract for [M200002] 

Q1: Does EPA approve an alternative 

monitoring plan (AMP) for International 

Paper (IP) to conduct monitoring of 

opacity using a continuous opacity 

monitoring system (COMS) at a point in 

between the electrostatic precipitator 

(ESP) and wet scrubber in lieu of 

continuous parameter monitoring of the 

differential pressure, liquid flow rate, 

and scrubbing liquid supply pressure, 

for the wet scrubber installed to control 

particulate matter (PM) emissions for 

Lime Kiln No. 4 at IP’s Riegelwood Mill 

in Riegelwood, North Carolina that is 

subject to NESHAP subpart MM and 

NSPS subpart BB, because the wet 

scrubber is not used to control 

emissions of PM? 

A1: Yes. Based on the description of 

the process, the vent gas streams, the 

design of the vent gas controls, and the 

proposed opacity monitoring furnished 

by IP, EPA conditionally approves the 

AMP. Since the wet scrubber is not 

serving as a PM control device and 

compliance is demonstrated before the 

wet scrubber, it is not necessary to 

monitor the PM operating parameters 

for the wet scrubber per NESHAP 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Notices 10579 

subpart MM and NSPS subpart BB. IP 

must maintain proper operation of the 

ESP automatic voltage controller per the 

requirements of NESHAP subpart MM, 

perform compliance testing after the 

ESP and prior to the wet scrubber, and 

continue to conduct PM testing per the 

requirements of NESHAP subpart MM 

and NSPS subpart BB. 

Q2: Does EPA also approve under this 

AMP an alternative to the excess 

emissions criteria of NSPS Subpart BB, 

whereby excess emissions occur when 

the 6-minute average opacity measured 

by this COMS is greater than 20 percent 

and that a violation occurs when 

opacity exceeds 20 percent for one 

percent or more of the operating time in 

a semi-annual period? 

A2: Yes. Based on the excess 

emissions criteria furnished by IP, the 

EPA agrees that these are the conditions 

where excess emissions will occur. 

Abstract for [M200003] 

Q: Does EPA approve use of an 

alternative monitoring plan (AMP) for 

New-Indy Catawba, LLC (New-Indy) to 

reduce the frequency of conducting leak 

detection and repair monitoring of any 

closed vent system, fixed roof cover, or 

enclosure that is characterized as unsafe 

or difficult to monitor at New-Indy’s 

paper mill in Catawba, South Carolina 

that is subject to NESHAP subpart S? 

A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves 

use of an AMP if the owner or operator 

determines that personnel performing 

the inspections and monitoring would 

be exposed to an imminent or potential 

danger, or if the equipment could not be 

inspected without elevating the 

inspection or monitoring personnel 

more than two meters above a support 

surface. In lieu of the current 30-day 

visual inspections of closed vent system 

components and pulping condensate 

closed-collection system and annual 

inspections to verify there are no 

detectable emissions from closed vent 

system components and condensate 

storage tanks, the AMP requires 

monitoring or inspections to be 

conducted at least once every five years, 

or more frequently if possible. New-Indy 

must submit a site-specific monitoring 

and inspection plan that identifies the 

equipment that are classified as unsafe 

or difficult to monitor and are therefore 

subject to the AMP, which we 

understand includes 0.4 percent of the 

leak detection and repair (LDAR) 

inspection points subject to Subpart S, 

including an explanation of why the 

component is unsafe to monitor or 

inspect and a description of how the 

equipment will be monitored or 

inspected during safe-to-monitor or safeto-inspect periods, as described in 40 

CFR 63.148(i)(1) and (2). 

Abstract for [M200004] 

Q: Does EPA determine that operation 

of boilers SR4 and SR6 at the GSP 

Schiller LLC Station in Portsmouth, 

New Hampshire (GSP) to produce 

auxiliary steam (i.e., not producing 

electricity) qualifies as a startup 

operation under NESHAP subpart 

UUUUU? 

A: No. EPA determines that units SR4 

and SR6 are not operating under startup 

conditions while burning residual fuel 

oil to produce auxiliary steam. For units 

SR4 and SR6, ‘‘startup’’ (as defined in 

subpart UUUUU) ends when steam is 

generated for any purpose, such as 

burning residual fuel oil to heat on-site 

residual fuel oil tanks or burning 

bituminous coal to generate electricity 

for sale. 

Abstract for [M200005] 

Q: Does EPA determine that the 

lithium ion battery manufacturing 

process at LG Chem Michigan (Holland) 

in Holland, Michigan is subject to 

NESHAP subpart VVVVVV? 

A: No. Based on the information that 

was provided, EPA determines that the 

lithium ion battery manufacturing 

process is an area source subject to 

NESHAP subpart CCCCCCC. In 

accordance with 40 CFR 63.11607, 

Holland’s description of their cathode 

mixing line meets the definition of 

‘‘paint and allied product 

manufacturing,’’ the cathode slurry 

mixture produced by Holland meets the 

definition of ‘‘paints and allied 

products,’’ and the nickel used in the 

process meets the definition of 

‘‘material containing hazardous air 

pollutant (HAP).’’ 

Abstract for [M200006] 

Q: Does EPA approve an Alternative 

Monitoring Plan (AMP) for mercury (Hg) 

and chlorine (Cl) compliance testing to 

supplement the fuel types that result in 

worst-case Hg and Cl emissions (i.e., 

wood and tire-derived fuel (TDF)) with 

No. 6 fuel oil in order to reach 

maximum operating load during the 

performance test, but remove the heat 

input of the No. 6 fuel oil when 

calculating the maximum Hg and Cl 

concentrations on a lb/MMBtu basis as 

required in 40 CFR 63.7530(b)(1), for the 

No. 2 Combination Boiler at New-Indy 

Catawba, LLC (New-Indy’s) paper mill 

in Catawba, South Carolina that is 

subject to NESHAP subpart DDDDD? 

A: Yes. Based on New-Indy’s 

description of the process, equations for 

demonstrating compliance, and plans to 

maintain records of fuel usage following 

the performance test according to 40 

CFR 63.7540(a)(2), EPA approves the 

AMP for New-Indy’s No. 2 Combination 

Boiler only. The proposed calculations 

will conservatively represent the highest 

input amounts of Cl and Hg during the 

compliance testing while firing bark, 

TDF. and No. 6 fuel oil because they 

account for the emissions resulting from 

the combustion of No. 6 fuel oil without 

providing credit for the heat input 

associated with No. 6 fuel oil. 

Abstract for [M200007] 

Q: Does EPA determine that a thermal 

chip dryer operated at 660 degrees 

Fahrenheit in order to remove water 

from aluminum shreds containing paint 

is not an affected source under NESHAP 

subpart RRR at Matalco (US), Inc.’s 

(Matalco’s) secondary aluminum 

production facility in Lordstown, Ohio? 

A: No. Based on the information 

provided, EPA determines that the 

thermal chip dryer operated in the 

proposed manner would be an affected 

source under NESHAP subpart RRR, 

consistent with the operations of a 

‘‘scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/ 

decoating kiln’’ as defined under 

subpart RRR and according to the record 

of subpart RRR. Further, Matalco does 

not sufficiently address the temperature 

level that would assure no emissions of 

hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), to 

support their belief that no hydrocarbon 

or dioxins/furans emissions would be 

produced while operating the dryer at 

660 degrees Fahrenheit. During periods 

when the thermal chip dryer is 

processing aluminum shreds containing 

paint at or near 660 °F, the dryer must 

comply with the major source 

requirements in subpart RRR for a scrap 

dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln. 

Abstract for [M200008] 

Q: Does EPA approve an alternative 

plan (AMP) to establish the fan 

amperage operating limits for the Ducon 

scrubbers installed on the smelt 

dissolving tanks subject to NESHAP 

subpart MM at International Paper 

Company’s Kraft pulp mill in Bogalusa, 

Louisiana (Bogalusa Mill) as the 

midpoint between the no-load amperage 

value and the lowest of the 1-hour 

average fan amperage values determined 

during compliance testing? 

A: Yes. Based on the information 

provided, EPA conditionally approves 

the AMP for Bogalusa Mill. EPA agrees 

that fluctuations in fan amperage for a 

constant speed fan are a function of 

atmospheric conditions, rather than of 

scrubber performance; therefore, setting 

the fan amperage limit at the lowest 1- 

hour average fan amperage value based 

on compliance testing in accordance 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES
10580 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Notices 

with 40 CFR 63.864(j)(5)(i)(A) could 

cause reporting of deviations that do not 

represent exceedances of the applicable 

emission limits. The AMP conditions 

applicable to each of Bogalusa Mill’s 

scrubbers are specified in the EPA 

response letter. 

Abstract for [M200009] 

Q: Does EPA approve an alternative 

monitoring plan (AMP) to establish the 

fan amperage operating limits for the 

Ducon scrubbers installed on the smelt 

dissolving tanks subject to NESHAP 

subpart MM at International Paper 

Company’s Kraft pulp mill in Mansfield, 

Louisiana (Mansfield Mill) as the 

midpoint between the no-load amperage 

value and the lowest of the 1-hour 

average fan amperage values determined 

during compliance testing? 

A: Yes. Based on the information 

provided, EPA conditionally approves 

the AMP for Mansfield Mill. EPA agrees 

that fluctuations in fan amperage for a 

constant speed fan are a function of 

atmospheric conditions, rather than of 

scrubber performance; therefore, setting 

the fan amperage limit at the lowest 1- 

hour average fan amperage value based 

on compliance testing in accordance 

with 40 CFR 63.864(j)(5)(i)(A) could 

cause reporting of deviations that do not 

represent exceedances of the applicable 

emission limits. The AMP conditions 

applicable to each of Mansfield Mill’s 

scrubbers are specified in the EPA 

response letter. 

Abstract for [M200015] 

Q: Does EPA agree with the American 

Petroleum Institute (API) that the 

Petroleum Refinery MACT Subpart CC, 

paragraphs 63.670 (d) and (e) mean that 

the NHVcz requirements only apply 

starting with the block that contains the 

15th minute of a flare event and do not 

apply to the previous 15-minute block 

during which the event started which 

would not include more than a fraction 

of flow in that period? 

A: Yes. The MACT CC regulation, 

paragraphs 63.670 (d) and (e) both state 

that the source must comply with 

applicable limits of combustion zone 

heat content and velocity when 

regulated materials are routed to the 

flare for at least 15 minutes. Therefore, 

the limits apply starting with the 15- 

minute block that includes a full 15 

minutes of the flaring event. EPA 

recognizes that compliance with limits 

during the first 15-minute block of a 

flaring event could be problematic, at 

least for meeting the NHVcz minimum 

because if the release is of low BTU gas, 

a source might not have time to adjust 

supplement natural gas and/or adjust 

steam or air to correct the NHVcz, 

especially if the event starts late in the 

15-minute block. 

Abstract for [Z190001] 

Q: Does EPA approve an alternative 

monitoring plan (AMP) to conduct 

performance testing at the highest 

achievable engine load and demonstrate 

continuous compliance via pressure 

differential (i.e. pressure drop) 

measurements across the catalyst at plus 

or minus 10 percent of the highest 

achievable engine load established 

during the performance test, for twentyfour of Red Cedar Gathering Company’s 

(Red Cedar’s) stationary reciprocating 

internal combustion engines installed at 

five compressor stations (i.e., Midway, 

Ponderosa, Spring Creek, Sambrito, and 

Trail Canyon) located on the Southern 

Ute Indian Reservation in Colorado 

subject to NESHAP subpart ZZZZ? 

A: Yes. Based on information 

provided by Red Cedar regarding 

declining field conditions that 

necessitate engine operation at lower 

loads, EPA conditionally approves the 

AMP for the twenty-four engines 

identified in Table 1 of the EPA 

response letter. For each of the twentyfour engines, Red Cedar must maintain 

records on a daily basis of the engine 

load, and if an engine load increases or 

decreases by 10 percent from the highest 

achievable engine load during the 

performance test, Red Cedar must re-test 

and re-establish the baseline pressure 

drop across the catalyst. 

Abstract for [Z200002] 

Q: Does EPA approve an alternative 

monitoring plan (AMP) to establish the 

fan amperage operating limits for the 

Ducon UW–4 scrubbers installed on the 

smelt dissolving tanks subject to 

NESHAP subpart MM at GeorgiaPacific’s Kraft pulp mill in Cedar 

Springs, Georgia (Cedar Springs Mill) as 

the midpoint between the no-load 

amperage value and the lowest of the 1- 

hour average fan amperage values 

determined during compliance testing? 

A: Yes. Based on the information 

provided, EPA conditionally approves 

the AMP for Cedar Springs Mill. EPA 

agrees that fluctuations in amperage for 

a constant speed fan are a function of 

atmospheric conditions, rather than of 

scrubber performance; therefore, setting 

the fan amperage limit at the lowest 1- 

hour average fan amperage value based 

on compliance testing in accordance 

with 40 CFR 63.864(j)(5)(i)(A) could 

cause reporting of deviations that do not 

represent exceedances of the applicable 

emission limits. The AMP conditions 

for each of Cedar Springs Mill’s 

scrubbers are specified in the EPA 

response letter. 

Abstract for [Z200003] 

Q: Does EPA approve an alternative 

monitoring plan (AMP) during periods 

of annual regenerative thermal oxidizer 

(RTO) shut down for maintenance and 

production curtailment for Group 2 

asphalt storage tanks at CertainTeed’s 

asphalt roofing manufacturing facility in 

Shakopee, Minnesota subject to 

NESHAP subpart LLLLL, to use a digital 

camera opacity technique (DCOT) or 

conduct EPA Method 9 and 22 testing 

on mist eliminators in lieu of parametric 

monitoring of mist eliminators or 

regenerative thermal oxidizers (RTOs)? 

A: Yes. Based on the information 

provided, EPA conditionally approves 

an AMP for Group 2 asphalt storage 

tanks 1 through 6 and 11 (hereafter 

referred to as ‘‘AMP tanks’’) for periods 

up to 1,000 hours of RTO shutdown due 

to maintenance outage or production 

curtailment (where only AMP tanks are 

in operation) if no parametric 

monitoring is conducted on the mist 

eliminator; otherwise, CertainTeed must 

use a mist eliminator in series with an 

RTO and monitor RTO operating 

parameters to comply with the 

particulate matter standards in subpart 

LLLLL for the AMP tanks. Specifically, 

for RTO shutdown periods up to 750 

hours, CertainTeed must use EPA 

Method 9 and/or EPA Method 22; and 

for RTO shutdown periods between 751 

and 1,000 hours, CertainTeed must use 

the DCOT method outlined in Section 

9.2 of the ASTM D7520–2016. 

Alternatively, CertainTeed may use the 

DCOT method for an entire shutdown 

period up to 1,000 hours. If DCOT is 

used, CertainTeed must monitor once a 

shift or twice daily for a continuous 6- 

minute period and retain records for 5 

years of the date, start time, end time, 

operator’s name, and results for the 

readings and pictures. Otherwise, 

CertainTeed must conduct a six-minute 

Method 9 reading on the first day of 

shutdown and for each subsequent day 

a six-minute Method 9 or 22 reading 

once a shift or twice during daylight 

hours, and retain the original copies of 

the Method 9 and/or Method 22 sheets 

for 5 years. Any readings indicating 

emissions above the zero-opacity 

standard must be reported as deviations. 

The number of hours of RTO shutdown 

time must be tracked on a 12-month 

rolling sum. Further, during RTO 

shutdown periods, there may be no 

loading or unloading of AMP tanks, and 

the temperature of AMP tanks may not 

exceed 450 degrees Fahrenheit. 

Abstract for [Z200004] 

Q: Does EPA determine that frit 

production processes owned by Prince 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Notices 10581 

Minerals, LLC (Prince) in Leesburg, 

Alabama meet the applicability criteria 

of NESHAP subparts BBBBBBB, 

CCCCCCC, and/or VVVVVV? 

A: Based on the information provided, 

EPA determines that Prince’s frit 

production processes meet the 

applicability criteria of subpart 

CCCCCCC and do not meet the 

applicability criteria for subparts 

BBBBBBB and VVVVVV. Subpart 

CCCCCCC is applicable to Prince’s 

facility because the subpart lists NAICS 

code 3255 and defines ‘‘paints and 

allied products manufacturing’’ as the 

production of paints and allied products 

(e.g., coatings) intended to ‘‘leave a 

dried film of solid material on a 

substrate,’’ and the subpart defines 

‘‘material containing HAP’’ as including 

any material containing nickel in 

amounts greater than 0.1 percent by 

weight. Subpart BBBBBBB defines 

‘‘chemical preparation’’ as being 

manufactured in a process described by 

the NAICS code 325998, so subpart 

BBBBBBB is not applicable. Subpart 

VVVVVV includes an applicability 

exclusion for sources subject to Subpart 

CCCCCCC, so subpart VVVVVV is not 

applicable. 

Abstract for [Z200005] 

Q: Does EPA approve an alternative 

monitoring plan (AMP) for six 

reciprocating internal combustion 

engines (RICEs) operating at less than 

100 percent maximum load during 

compliance testing at Kinder Morgan 

Natural Gas Pipeline’s Houston Central 

Gas Plant in Sheridan, Texas subject to 

NESHAP subpart ZZZZ? 

A: Yes. Based on the information 

provided, EPA conditionally approves 

an AMP to conduct performance testing 

for engines COMP–1, COMP–35, and 

COMP–13C at a maximum engine load 

of 85 percent with subsequent 

monitoring required at 85 percent plus 

or minus 10 percent load, and for 

engines COMP–349, COMP–350, and 

COMP–8 at a maximum engine load of 

90 percent with subsequent monitoring 

required at 90 percent plus or minus 10 

percent load. EPA agrees that these six 

RICEs cannot operate at 100 percent 

plus or minus 10 percent operational 

load during compliance testing as 

specified in 40 CFR 63.6620(b)(2) due to 

site-specific operations. If operations 

change such that the maximum load of 

the engines exceeds these alternative 

lower maximum loads, the AMP will 

become null and void and retesting at 

the higher engine load will be required 

to demonstrate compliance with subpart 

ZZZZ. 

John Dombrowski, 

Deputy Director, Office of Compliance, Office 

of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. 

[FR Doc. 2021–03489 Filed 2–19–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

Sunshine Act Meetings 

TIME AND DATE: Thursday, February 25, 

2021 at 10:00 a.m. 

PLACE: Virtual hearing. Note: Because of 

the covid-19 pandemic, we will conduct 

the hearing virtually. If you would like 

to access the hearing, see the 

instructions below. 

STATUS: This hearing will be open to the 

public. To access the virtual hearing, go 

to the commission’s website 

www.fec.gov and click on the banner to 

be taken to the hearing page. 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Repayment 

Hearing: Jill Stein for President. 

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Judith Ingram, Press Officer. Telephone: 

(202) 694–1220. 

Authority: Government in the Sunshine 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b. 

Laura E. Sinram, 

Acting Secretary and Clerk of the 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2021–03692 Filed 2–18–21; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6715–01–P 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

Sunshine Act Meetings 

TIME AND DATE: Thursday, February 25, 

2021 following the conclusion of the 

repayment hearing. 

PLACE: Virtual meeting. Note: Because of 

the covid-19 pandemic, we will conduct 

the open meeting virtually. If you would 

like to access the meeting, see the 

instructions below. 

STATUS: This meeting will be open to the 

public. To access the virtual meeting, go 

to the commission’s website 

www.fec.gov and click on the banner to 

be taken to the meeting page. 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Draft Advisory Opinion 2021–02: Full 

Employment Now-Political Action 

Committee (FEC–PAC) 

Draft Advisory Opinion 2021–03: 

National Republican Senatorial 

Committee (NRSC) and National 

Republican Congressional Committee 

(NRCC) 

Audit Division Recommendation 

Memorandum on Dr. Raul Ruiz for 

Congress (A19–03) 

Management and Administrative 

Matters 

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Judith Ingram, Press Officer. Telephone: 

(202) 694–1220. 

Authority: Government in the Sunshine 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b 

Laura E. Sinram, 

Acting Secretary and Clerk of the 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2021–03694 Filed 2–18–21; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6715–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Food and Drug Administration 

[Docket No. FDA–2020–N–1652] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Submission for Office of 

Management and Budget Review; 

Comment Request; Dispute Resolution 

Procedures for Science-Based 

Decisions on Products by the Center 

for Veterinary Medicine 

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, 

HHS. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA, Agency, or we) is 

announcing that a proposed collection 

of information has been submitted to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review and clearance under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

DATES: Submit written comments 

(including recommendations) on the 

collection of information by March 24, 

2021. 

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on 

the information collection are received, 

OMB recommends that written 

comments be submitted to https://

www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. 

Find this particular information 

collection by selecting ‘‘Currently under 

Review—Open for Public Comments’’ or 

by using the search function. The OMB 

control number for this information 

collection is 0910–0566. Also include 

the FDA docket number found in 

brackets in the heading of this 

document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ila 

S. Mizrachi, Office of Operations, Food 

and Drug Administration, Three White 

Flint North, 10A–12M, 11601 

Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 

20852, 301–796–7726, PRAStaff@

fda.hhs.gov. 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES