22176 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Notices 

time on the specified comment date. 

Protests may be considered, but 

intervention is necessary to become a 

party to the proceeding. 

eFiling is encouraged. More detailed 

information relating to filing 

requirements, interventions, protests, 

service, and qualifying facilities filings 

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

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

other information, call (866) 208–3676 

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

Dated: April 15, 2015. 

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2015–09178 Filed 4–20–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. ER15–1463–000] 

Triton Energy, Inc.; Supplemental 

Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate 

Filing Includes Request for Blanket 

Section 204 Authorization 

This is a supplemental notice in the 

above-referenced proceeding, of Triton 

Energy, Inc.’s application for marketbased rate authority, with an 

accompanying rate schedule, noting that 

such application includes a request for 

blanket authorization, under 18 CFR 

part 34, of future issuances of securities 

and assumptions of liability. 

Any person desiring to intervene or to 

protest should file with the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 

First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, 

in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 

of the Commission’s Rules of Practice 

and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 

385.214). Anyone filing a motion to 

intervene or protest must serve a copy 

of that document on the Applicant. 

Notice is hereby given that the 

deadline for filing protests with regard 

to the applicant’s request for blanket 

authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of 

future issuances of securities and 

assumptions of liability is May 4, 2015. 

The Commission encourages 

electronic submission of protests and 

interventions in lieu of paper, using the 

FERC Online links at http://

www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic 

service, persons with Internet access 

who will eFile a document and/or be 

listed as a contact for an intervenor 

must create and validate an 

eRegistration account using the 

eRegistration link. Select the eFiling 

link to log on and submit the 

intervention or protests. 

Persons unable to file electronically 

should submit an original and 5 copies 

of the intervention or protest to the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 

888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 

20426. 

The filings in the above-referenced 

proceeding(s) are accessible in the 

Commission’s eLibrary system by 

clicking on the appropriate link in the 

above list. They are also available for 

review in the Commission’s Public 

Reference Room in Washington, DC. 

There is an eSubscription link on the 

Web site that enables subscribers to 

receive email notification when a 

document is added to a subscribed 

docket(s). For assistance with any FERC 

Online service, please email 

FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov. or call 

(866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call 

(202) 502–8659. 

Dated: April 14, 2015. 

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2015–09044 Filed 4–20–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9926–65–OECA] 

Applicability Determination Index (ADI) 

Database System Recent Posting: 

Applicability Determinations, 

Alternative Monitoring Decisions, and 

Regulatory Interpretations Pertaining 

to Standards of Performance for New 

Stationary Sources, National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants, and the Stratospheric 

Ozone Protection Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of availability. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces 

applicability determinations, alternative 

monitoring decisions, and regulatory 

interpretations that EPA has made 

under the New Source Performance 

Standards (NSPS); the National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants (NESHAP); and/or the 

Stratospheric Ozone Protection 

Program. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: An 

electronic copy of each complete 

document posted on the Applicability 

Determination Index (ADI) database 

system is available on the Internet 

through the Resources and Guidance 

Documents for Compliance Assistance 

page of the Clean Air Act Compliance 

Monitoring Web site under ‘‘Air’’ at: 

http://www2.epa.gov/compliance/

resources-and-guidance-documentscompliance-assistance. The letters and 

memoranda on the ADI may be located 

by control number, date, author, 

subpart, or subject search. For questions 

about the ADI or this notice, contact 

Maria Malave at EPA by phone at: (202) 

564–7027, or by email at: 

malave.maria@epa.gov. For technical 

questions about individual applicability 

determinations or monitoring decisions, 

refer to the contact person identified in 

the individual documents, or in the 

absence of a contact person, refer to the 

author of the document. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The General Provisions of the NSPS 

in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

part 60 and the General Provisions of 

the NESHAP in 40 CFR part 61 provide 

that a source owner or operator may 

request a determination of whether 

certain intended actions constitute the 

commencement of construction, 

reconstruction, or modification. EPA’s 

written responses to these inquiries are 

commonly referred to as applicability 

determinations. See 40 CFR 60.5 and 

61.06. Although the part 63 NESHAP 

regulations [which include Maximum 

Achievable Control Technology (MACT) 

and/or Generally Available Control 

Technology (GACT)standards] and 

§ 111(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

contain no specific regulatory provision 

providing that sources may request 

applicability determinations, EPA also 

responds to written inquiries regarding 

applicability for the part 63 and § 111(d) 

programs. The NSPS and NESHAP also 

allow sources to seek permission to use 

monitoring or recordkeeping that is 

different from the promulgated 

requirements. See 40 CFR 60.13(i), 

61.14(g), 63.8(b)(1), 63.8(f), and 63.10(f). 

EPA’s written responses to these 

inquiries are commonly referred to as 

alternative monitoring decisions. 

Furthermore, EPA responds to written 

inquiries about the broad range of NSPS 

and NESHAP regulatory requirements as 

they pertain to a whole source category. 

These inquiries may pertain, for 

example, to the type of sources to which 

the regulation applies, or to the testing, 

monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting 

requirements contained in the 

regulation. EPA’s written responses to 

these inquiries are commonly referred to 

as regulatory interpretations. 

EPA currently compiles EPA-issued 

NSPS and NESHAP applicability 

determinations, alternative monitoring 

decisions, and regulatory 

interpretations, and posts them to the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Notices 22177 

ADI. In addition, the ADI contains EPAissued responses to requests pursuant to 

the stratospheric ozone regulations, 

contained in 40 CFR part 82. The ADI 

is an electronic index on the Internet 

with over one thousand EPA letters and 

memoranda pertaining to the 

applicability, monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements of the NSPS, NESHAP, 

and stratospheric ozone regulations. 

Users can search for letters and 

memoranda by date, office of issuance, 

subpart, citation, control number, or by 

string word searches. 

Today’s notice comprises a summary 

of 56 such documents added to the ADI 

on April 7, 2015. This notice lists the 

subject and header of each letter and 

memorandum, as well as a brief abstract 

of the letter or memorandum. Complete 

copies of these documents may be 

obtained from the ADI through the 

OECA Web site at: www.epa.gov/

compliance/monitoring/programs/caa/

adi.html. 

Summary of Headers and Abstracts 

The following table identifies the 

database control number for each 

document posted on the ADI database 

system on April 7, 2015; the applicable 

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

of 40 CFR part 60, 61, or 63 (as 

applicable) addressed in the document; 

and the title of the document, which 

provides a brief description of the 

subject matter. 

We have also included an abstract of 

each document identified with its 

control number after the table. These 

abstracts are provided solely to alert the 

public to possible items of interest and 

are not intended as substitutes for the 

full text of the documents. This notice 

does not change the status of any 

document with respect to whether it is 

‘‘of nationwide scope or effect’’ for 

purposes of CAA § 307(b)(1). For 

example, this notice does not convert an 

applicability determination for a 

particular source into a nationwide rule. 

Neither does it purport to make a 

previously non-binding document 

binding. 

ADI DETERMINATIONS UPLOADED ON APRIL 7, 2015 

Control Number Categories Subparts Title 

M110015 ................ MACT, PART 63 

NESHAP, NSPS.

CC, G, Kb ............. Rule Interpretation on Raw Data Definition and Retention for Storage Vessels. 

1400038 ................. NSPS .................... OOO ...................... Applicability of Rule to Gypsum Handling Equipment at a Power Plant with 

Fuel Gas Desulfurization Units. 

1100018 ................. NSPS .................... J ............................ Alternative Monitoring Plan for Low Sulfur Bearing Fuel Gas Stream. 

Z140006 ................. MACT, Part 63 

NESHAP.

YYYYY .................. Performance Test Waiver Request for EAF Secondary Dust Collection System. 

M120012 ................ MACT, PART 63 

NESHAP.

FFFF ..................... Alternative Monitoring Plan For Grab Sampling in Lieu of Continuous Monitoring of Caustic Scrubbers. 

Z120001 ................. Part 61 NESHAP .. J, V ........................ Applicability Determination for NESHAP Subparts J and V Benzene Fugitive 

Equipment Leaks. 

M120015 ................ MACT, PART 63 

NESHAP, NSPS.

J, UUU .................. Alternate Work Practice—SRU Sulfur Pit Bypass Lines. 

Z140005 ................. Part 63 NESHAP .. WWWWWW .......... Applicability Determination for Research and Development Unit under 

NESHAP Subpart WWWWWW. 

M120018 ................ MACT, PART 63 

NESHAP, NSPS.

J, UUU .................. Alternative Monitoring in Lieu of COMS for Regenerators. 

M120020 ................ MACT, PART 63 

NESHAP.

NNNNN ................. Alternative Monitoring for Caustic Scrubber Parametric Monitoring. 

1200038 ................. NSPS .................... D ............................ Stack COMS Relocation Determined By Equivalency Testing. 

M120021 ................ MACT, PART 63 

NESHAP.

G, H ....................... Approval of a Common Report Schedule—MACT Subparts G and H. 

1200039 ................. NSPS .................... J ............................ Alternative Monitoring for Hydrocracker Feed Surge Drum Vent Stream. 

1200040 ................. NSPS .................... J ............................ Alternative Monitoring for NHT Feed Surge Drum Off—Gas Vent Stream. 

1200041 ................. NSPS .................... J ............................ Alternative Hydrogen Sulfide Monitoring for Oleflex Reactor Vent Stream. 

1200042 ................. NSPS .................... J ............................ Alternative Hydrogen Sulfide Monitoring for Truck Loading, Storage Tank and 

Well Vent Gas Streams. 

1200046 ................. NSPS .................... JJJJ ....................... Single-Point Testing In Place of Method 1 or 1A—Engine Emission Testing. 

1200062 ................. NSPS .................... KKK, Kb ................ Applicability of NSPS Subparts Kb and KKK for a Vapor Recovery Unit and 

Storage Tanks. 

M120027 ................ MACT, PART 63 

NESHAP.

JJJ ......................... Timing Issues in Determining MACT and Title V Applicability. 

M120029 ................ MACT, PART 63 

NESHAP.

S ............................ Approval of an Alternative Monitoring Frequency under the Pulp and Paper 

MACT. 

1200087 ................. NSPS .................... Db .......................... Revision to NSPS Method of Determining Compliance for Combined Effluent 

NOX CEMS. 

Z140004 ................. MACT, PART 63 

NESHAP.

ZZZZ ..................... Exemption for Emergency Engines at Commercial Area Sources from RICE 

NESHAP—Regulatory Interpretation. 

1400016 ................. NSPS .................... EEEE, FFFF .......... Applicability Determination for Commercially Operated Contraband Incinerator. 

1400019 ................. NSPS .................... WWW .................... Guidance on Alternative Compliance Timeline Requests for Landfill. 

A140003 ................ Asbestos ............... M ........................... Applicability of the Asbestos NESHAP as it Applies to Concrete Bridges. 

M140006 ................ MACT, PART 63 

NESHAP.

A, MMMM .............. Continuing Requirements when Surface Coating Operations no Longer Meets 

Affected Source Criteria. 

M140008 ................ MACT, PART 63 

NESHAP.

CC, G .................... Interpretation of Required Tank Inspection Frequency. 

1400021 ................. NSPS .................... Dc, Ja .................... NOx Requirements for Boilers. 

M140009 ................ MACT, PART 63 

NESHAP.

ZZZZ ..................... Disapproval of an Engine De-Rate Proposal. 

M140010 ................ MACT, PART 63 

NESHAP.

ZZZZ ..................... Approval of an Engine De-rate Proposal. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
22178 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Notices 

ADI DETERMINATIONS UPLOADED ON APRIL 7, 2015—Continued 

Control Number Categories Subparts Title 

M140011 ................ MACT, PART 63 

NESHAP, NSPS.

IIII, ZZZZ ............... Applicability to a Non-stationary Engine Relocated For Use as a Stationary 

Engine. 

M140012 ................ PART 63 NESHAP A, JJJJJJ ............... Determination of Force Majeure. 

M140013 ................ PART 63 NESHAP JJJJJJ ................... Regulatory Interpretation of Tune-up Requirements for Spreader Stoker Boiler. 

M140014 ................ PART 63 NESHAP JJJJJJ ................... Compliance Extension for Replacement Energy Source. 

Z140007 ................. Part 63 NESHAP .. BBBBBBB, 

VVVVVV.

Rule Applicability to HAP-Containing Mixing Operations to Produce AcrylicBased Stucco. 

A140004 ................ Asbestos ............... M ........................... Small Residence Exemption. 

A140005 ................ Asbestos ............... M ........................... Interim Method of Determination of Asbestos in Bulk Insulation Samples and 

Transmission Electron Microscopy. 

M140016 ................ MACT, PART 63 

NESHAP.

DDDDD ................. Categorization and applicability of a Boiler using natural gas and tire derived 

fuel. 

1400022 ................. NSPS .................... J ............................ NSPS Fuel Gas Definition and Alternative Monitoring of Marine Vessel Loading Vapors. 

1400023 ................. NSPS .................... J ............................ Conditional CEMS Exemption Approval for Low Sulfur Combustion of Off-gas 

Vent Stream. 

1400024 ................. NSPS .................... J ............................ CEMS Exemption in Lieu of Alternative Monitoring for Combustion of Commercial Grade Natural Gas and Refinery Fuel Gas. 

1400025 ................. NSPS .................... KKK ....................... Regulatory Interpretation for Gas Plant Propane Refrigeration System. 

1400026 ................. NSPS .................... OOOO ................... Applicability Determination for Reciprocating Compressors. 

1400027 ................. MACT, PART 63 

NESHAP, NSPS.

J, UUU .................. Alternative Monitoring Plan for Wet Gas Scrubber on a Fluidized Catalytic 

Cracking Unit. 

1400028 ................. NSPS .................... NNN, RRR ............ Alternative Monitoring and Waiver of Testing Request for Distillation Vent Gas 

to Process Heaters. 

1400029 ................. NSPS .................... Ja .......................... Request for Alternative Monitoring of Condensate Splitter Flare. 

1400030 ................. NSPS .................... Ja .......................... Alternative Monitoring Plan for Oxygen in Boiler Stack Emissions. 

1400031 ................. NSPS .................... J, Ja ...................... Alternative Hydrogen Sulfide Monitoring in Tank Degassing Vapors Combusted in Portable Thermal Oxidizers. 

1400032 ................. NSPS .................... OOOO ................... Regulatory Interpretation—Submission of Photographs For Natural Gas Well 

Completion Annual Reports. 

1400033 ................. NSPS .................... J, Ja ...................... Alternative Hydrogen Sulfide Monitoring in Tank Degassing Vapors Combusted in Portable Thermal Oxidizers. 

1400034 ................. NSPS .................... A, D ....................... Regulatory Interpretation—Demonstrating Continuous Compliance and Reporting Excess Emissions for NSPS and Title V. 

1400035 ................. NSPS .................... Ec .......................... Alternative Operating Parameters for a Wet Gas Scrubber Followed By Carbon Adsorber and Cartridge Filter at an HMIWI. 

1400036 ................. NSPS .................... Db .......................... Alternative Monitoring Plan for Fuel Analysis from Subpart Db Boiler. 

1400037 ................. NSPS .................... J ............................ Conditional CEMS Exemption Approval for Low Sulfur Combustion of Off-gas 

Vent Stream. 

1100017 ................. NSPS .................... J ............................ Alternative Monitoring of Opacity for a Wet Gas Scrubber. 

Abstracts 

Abstract for [M110015] 

Q1: What is EPA interpretation of raw 

data, in reference to 40 CFR 63.654 and 

40 CFR 60.115b and the storage vessel 

recordkeeping provisions in NSPS 

subpart Kb, and Part 63 NESHAP 

subparts G and CC? 

A1: EPA indicated to the Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality 

Region 14 that although the phrase ‘‘raw 

data’’ does not have a regulatory 

definition, EPA has issued guidance on 

this subject to deal with air pollution 

measurement systems and the quality 

assurance procedures associated with 

such systems. In general, raw data is 

data that is captured and recorded on 

field data sheets during a measurement 

of some sort, such as sampling of 

emissions or testing of control 

equipment. 

Q2: May a source, after transferring 

data from field data sheets into an 

electronic database, dispose of the field 

data sheets? 

A2: No. Original field data sheets 

must be preserved whenever any sort of 

emissions sampling or equipment 

testing, such as measuring seal gaps in 

a storage tank, is performed. 

Transferring raw data into a database 

can introduce additional error in data 

transcription and entry. 

Abstract for [1400038] 

Q1: Is gypsum handling equipment at 

the Dominion Chesterfield Power 

Station in Chester, Virginia, subject to 

NSPS subpart OOO for Nonmetallic 

Mineral Processing Plants? Dominion 

acknowledges that a limestone crushing 

process at Chesterfield is subject to 

subpart OOO. 

A1: Yes. The gypsum handling 

equipment is also subject to NSPS 

subpart OOO. The facility meets the 

definition of a nonmetallic mineral 

processing plant, and each affected 

facility at Chesterfield is subject to 

subpart OOO, including the belt 

conveyors used to transfer gypsum to 

storage sheds or loading docks. 

Q2: Must the crushing or grinding of 

gypsum take place in the ‘‘production 

line’’ to be subject to subpart OOO? 

A2: No. The definition of production 

line does not require that every affected 

facility be part of a production line with 

crushing or grinding. If crushing or 

grinding of a nonmetallic mineral 

occurs anywhere at the facility, then 

each affected facility is subject 

regardless of its location within the 

plant. 

Q3: Are there other power plants with 

flue gas desulfurization units where the 

gypsum handling equipment is subject 

to subpart OOO? 

A3: Yes. Based on a brief review of 

similar permits, EPA found at least three 

such power plants with permits where 

subpart OOO was applied to the gypsum 

handling equipment. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Notices 22179 

Abstract for [1100018] 

Q: Does EPA approve the 

ConocoPhillips Sweeny, Texas Refinery 

Alternate Monitoring Plan (AMP) under 

NSPS subpart J? Conoco claims an 

exemption per 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv) 

because Flare #7 receives fuel gas waste 

from catalytic reforming units. 

A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves 

ConocoPhillips’s AMP. Conditional 

approval of alternative monitoring 

parameters is granted based on a 

requirement that the flare receive low 

sulfur/sulfide bearing streams waste fuel 

gas only from catalytic reformers. Any 

significant increase in the sulfur/sulfide 

concentration detected in the stream 

would initiate continuous monitoring 

under 40 CFR 60.105(a)(3) or (4). 

Introduction of other streams that are 

not from catalytic reformers require 

application of another AMP. 

Abstract for [Z140006] 

Q1: Does EPA approve of a waiver in 

the number of performance test 

sampling locations required to comply 

with particulate stack sampling 

requirements under 40 CFR part 63 

subpart YYYYY for the electric arc 

furnace at ArcelorMittal’s LaPlace, 

Louisiana facility? 

A1: No. Based on the information 

provided, EPA could not approve the 

request to sample only three of the six 

emission points. Without the results of 

a previous performance test which 

included results for all six emission 

points, EPA could not confirm that 

emissions from three of the emission 

points might be representative of all six. 

Additionally, EPA reserves the right to 

determine which emission points 

should be sampled. 

Q2: Can the 60-day testing 

notification requirement be waived, 

allowing ArcelorMittal a 30-day 

notification period? 

A2: Yes. Based on the timing of 

ArcelorMittal’s testing waiver request 

and the testing schedule, EPA is 

allowing a reduced testing notification 

timeframe. EPA asked that ArcelorMittal 

provide the Louisiana Department of 

Environmental Quality (DEQ) a written 

notice at least ten (10) days prior to the 

intended testing dates in order that DEQ 

be afforded the opportunity to observe 

the testing. 

Abstract for [M120012] 

Q: Does EPA approve the Alternative 

Monitoring Plan (AMP) for monitoring 

the caustic strength of scrubber effluent 

by a grab sample monitoring system, in 

lieu of continuously measuring caustic 

strength, under MACT subpart FFFF for 

the miscellaneous organic chemical 

manufacturing process units and caustic 

scrubbers controlling Group 1 Process 

Vents at the Dow Chemical plant in La 

Porte, Texas? 

A: Yes. EPA approves the AMP based 

on the information provided. The plan 

to monitor scrubber caustic strength by 

grab sampling, in lieu of continuously 

measuring caustic strength, is 

technically acceptable. Subpart FFFF 

requires that the scrubbers be monitored 

continuously either via continuous pH 

measurement and recording as specified 

in 40 CFR 63.994(c)(1)(i) and 

63.998(a)(2)(ii)(D), or via continuously 

monitoring and recording the caustic 

strength of the effluent. Use of a 

continuous pH meter or caustic strength 

analyzer may be unreliable due to 

fouling. The AMP includes frequent 

grab sampling to monitor caustic 

strength based on a worst case loading 

scenario. 

Abstract for [Z120001] 

Q: Is an inter-plant pipeline which 

transports liquids that are at least 10 

percent benzene by weight between two 

major source facilities, each belonging 

to Equistar Chemicals in Alvin, Texas, 

subject to part 61 NESHAP subparts J 

and V? 

A: Yes. An inter-plant pipeline that 

transports benzene liquids is an 

emission source that is in benzene 

service according to 40 CFR 61.110 and 

61.111, regardless of whether or not the 

pipeline is defined as a discrete process 

unit. 40 CFR 61.110(a) includes valves, 

connectors or systems in benzene 

service, regardless of their location, and 

subpart V applies as the leak detection 

provision for subpart J, per 40 CFR 

61.111. 

Abstract for [M120015] 

Q: Does EPA approve an alternate 

work practice for monitoring hydrogen 

sulfide (H2S) at bypass lines associated 

with sulfur recovery unit (SRU) sulfur 

pits, which are subject to both MACT 

subpart UUU and NSPS subpart J, and 

the terms of a Consent Decree (CD), at 

the Flint Hills Resources Corpus Christi, 

Texas East and West refineries? 

A: No. EPA does not approve the 

alternate work practice because it would 

be in direct conflict with both the rule 

and the intent of the CD, and would 

result in non-compliance. The SRUs and 

sulfur pits are subject to a CD that 

requires sulfur pit emissions to be 

continuously monitored and counted 

toward SRU total emissions for 

compliance demonstration with the 

NSPS subpart J limit for sulfur dioxide 

(SO2). Since the alternative work 

practice proposed by Flint Hills did not 

include continuous monitoring per 40 

CFR 60.104(a)(2), the data necessary to 

comply with the portion of the CD 

requiring aggregation of sulfur pit 

emissions for compliance demonstration 

with the NSPS subpart J SO2 limit 

would not be collected. 

Abstract for [Z140005] 

Q: Does EPA approve an exemption 

from NESHAP subpart WWWWWW 

under the definition of research and 

development for the electroplating and 

surface finishing facility at Los Alamos 

National Laboratory in New Mexico? 

A: Yes. Based on a review of 40 CFR 

63.11505(d)(2) and the definition of a 

research and development process unit 

at 40 CFR 63.11511, EPA determines 

that the facility meets the definition and 

is not subject to NESHAP subpart 

WWWWWW. 

Abstract for [M120018] 

Q: Will EPA approve Motiva 

Enterprises’ (Motiva) Alternative 

Monitoring Plan (AMP) under 40 CFR 

60.8 and 60.13(i)(3) for monitoring wet 

gas scrubbers (WGS) on a refinery Fluid 

Catalytic Cracking Unit (FCCU), in lieu 

of a Continuous Opacity Monitoring 

System (COMS), due to moisture 

interference on opacity readings in the 

stack, to demonstrate compliance with 

the opacity limit under 40 CFR 

60.102(a)(2) and requirements of MACT 

subpart UUU at Motiva’s Port Arthur, 

Texas refinery? 

A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves 

Motiva’s AMP. A performance test is 

necessary to establish Operating 

Parameter Limits (OPLs) and other 

operating and monitoring conditions 

required for demonstrating compliance 

with NSPS subpart J, MACT subpart 

UUU and the Consent Decree for each 

WGS. The EPA response letter specifies 

the operating conditions, operating 

parameters, test notice deadlines, and 

notification content that are conditions 

of the approval. Interim OPLs are 

provided. 

Abstract for [M120020] 

Q: Does EPA approve the Alternative 

Monitoring Plan (AMP) for parametric 

monitoring on caustic scrubbers used to 

control hydrochloric acid emissions 

from storage tanks, loading, and process 

vents under 40 CFR part 63 subpart 

NNNNN at the Rubicon facility in 

Geismar, Louisiana? 

A: Yes. Based on the information 

provided in Rubicon’s request, EPA 

conditionally approves the AMP. A 

minimum pH operating parameter limit 

(OPL), and a minimum recirculating 

liquid flow rate, pursuant to 40 CFR 

63.9020(e)(1)(i), must be established 

during a performance test conducted 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
22180 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Notices 

under worst case emissions operating 

scenario. The scrubbers’ effectiveness in 

meeting subpart NNNNN emission 

standards during normal operations will 

be ensured by continuous monitoring of 

the two OPLs. 

Abstract for [1200038] 

Q1: Can equivalency testing be 

approved to relocate the flue gas 

continuous opacity monitoring system 

(COMS) on the stack outlet of a wet gas 

scrubber (WGS) covered under NSPS 

subpart D at the Texas Municipal Power 

Agency (TMPA) Gibbons Creek Electric 

Steam Generating Station Unit 1? 

A1: Yes. 40 CFR part 60 Appendix B 

Performance Specification 1 (PS 1) 

Section 8.1 (2)(i) and (ii) specify 

measurement location and light beam 

path requirements for COMS. If the 

proposed alternate COMS locations do 

not meet these requirements, 

equivalency testing must be conducted 

in accordance with PS 1 Section 8.1 

(2)(iii) for each possible alternative 

location. Based on the test proposal, 

EPA approves the request for 

conducting preliminary equivalency 

testing only, with a 60-day notification 

provided to the State authority. 

Q2: What if there are separate ducts 

that split the vent stream gas flow? 

A2: Relocation and the preliminary 

equivalency testing must include the 

use of two COMS units in order to 

provide opacity readings representative 

of total emissions. 

Q3: What must the facility do to 

obtain subsequent approval for 

permanent relocation of the stack 

COMS? 

A3: TMPA must provide the data and 

operating information from the 

preliminary equivalency testing for the 

alternative location ultimately selected, 

in accordance with the applicable 

performance test reporting requirements 

of NSPS subparts A and D. In 

accordance with PS 1 Section 8.1 

(2)(iii), the average opacity value 

measured at each temporary COMS at 

the selected alternate location must be 

within +/¥ 10 percent of the average 

opacity value measured at the existing 

flue gas stack COMS, and the difference 

between any two average opacity values 

must be less than 2 percent opacity 

(absolute value). 

Abstract for [M120021] 

Q: Does EPA approve a common 

schedule for submitting periodic reports 

under the Hazardous Organic part 63 

NESHAP, subparts G and H, at the 

Union Carbide Texas City, Texas 

facility? 

A: Yes. EPA approves the common 

schedule provided the reporting 

requirement of 40 CFR 63.152(c)(1) is 

satisfied, which only allows a 60-day lag 

between the end of the reporting period 

and the due date of a periodic report. 

EPA reviewed the requirements of 40 

CFR 63.10(a)(6) and 63.9(i), and 

concurred that the proposed reporting 

schedule satisfies the requirements of 40 

CFR 63.152(c)(1). 

Abstract for [1200039] 

Q: Does EPA approve an Alternative 

Monitoring Plan (AMP) for monitoring 

hydrogen sulfide (H2S) for a refinery 

hydrocracker feed surge drum off-gas 

vent stream combusted at four 

hydrocracker heaters at the Valero 

Refining Corpus Christi, Texas West 

refinery? 

A: Yes. EPA approves Valero’s AMP 

based on the description of the process 

vent streams, the design of the vent gas 

controls, and the H2S monitoring data 

furnished. The approval specifies 

operating parameter limits for total 

sulfur and temperature. Valero must 

follow the seven step process detailed in 

the Valero consent decree appendix on 

Alternative Monitoring Plans for NSPS 

subpart J Refinery Fuel Gas. 

Abstract for [1200040] 

Q: Does EPA approve an Alternative 

Monitoring Plan (AMP) for monitoring 

hydrogen sulfide (H2S) for a refinery 

process feed surge drum off-gas vent 

stream combusted at a charge heater 

under NSPS subpart J at the Valero 

Refining Corpus Christi, Texas West 

refinery? 

A: Yes. EPA approves Valero’s AMP 

based on the description of the process 

vent stream, the design of the vent gas 

controls, and the H2S monitoring data 

furnished. The approval specifies 

operating parameter limits for total 

sulfur and temperature. Valero must 

follow the seven step process detailed in 

the Valero consent decree appendix on 

Alternative Monitoring Plans for NSPS 

subpart J Refinery Fuel Gas. 

Abstract for [1200041] 

Q: Does EPA approve an alternative 

monitoring request for monitoring 

hydrogen sulfide (H2S) the No. 4 vent 

stream at the Valero Refining West Plant 

in Corpus Christi, Texas? The request 

involves vent streams from the Oleflex 

Reactor Lock Hopper Engager off-gas 

vent stream combusted at the Oleflex 

Interheater. 

A: Yes. EPA approves Valero’s 

alternative monitoring request based on 

the description of the process vent 

stream, the design of the vent gas 

controls, and the H2S monitoring data 

furnished. There will be no points 

where sour gas can be introduced into 

the vent gas stream. The effluent is to be 

sampled and tested daily. Valero must 

follow the seven step process 

(Alternative Monitoring Plans for NSPS 

subpart J Refinery Fuel Gas) in the 

consent decree for the No. 4 vent 

stream. 

Abstract for [1200042] 

Q: Does EPA approve an Alternative 

Monitoring Plan (AMP) for monitoring 

hydrogen sulfide (H2S) of vent gases 

from the control of diesel and jet fuel 

truck loading, toluene and reformate 

storage tanks, and groundwater recovery 

wells at the Valero Refining Corpus 

Christi, Texas East refinery? The vent 

streams are combusted at the truck rack 

thermal oxidizer enclosed vapor 

combustor. 

A: Yes. EPA approves Valero’s AMP 

based on the description of the process 

vent stream, the design of the vent gas 

controls, and the H2S monitoring data 

furnished. Valero must follow the seven 

step process detailed in the Alternative 

Monitoring Plans for NSPS subpart J 

Refinery Fuel Gas appendix of Valero’s 

consent decree. The approval specifies 

an H2S operating limit from each of the 

emission sources (e.g., loading, tanks, 

wells) covered by the AMP. 

Abstract for [1200046] 

Q: Does EPA approve single-point 

testing in place of Method 1 or 1A for 

required testing of engine emissions 

under 40 CFR part 60 subpart JJJJ, for 

the ConocoPhillips Lake Pelto 

Compressor Barge, located offshore in 

southern Louisiana? 

A: Yes. EPA approves ConocoPhillips’ 

single-point testing, since the engines 

are located over water, and are difficult 

to test due to limited space. 

Abstract for [1200062] 

Q1: Is the installation of a backup 

vapor recovery unit (BU–VRU) to 

capture emissions from a glycol 

dehydrator unit, which includes a 

compressor, at the Marathon Petroleum 

Indian Basin Gas Plant near Carlsbad, 

New Mexico, considered a modification 

of an affected facility and thus subject 

to NSPS subpart KKK? 

A1: Based on the information 

provided by the Air Quality Bureau of 

the New Mexico Environment 

Department (AQB–NMED), EPA 

determines that the installation of the 

BU–VRU compressor at the Indian Basin 

Gas Plant is subject to NSPS subpart 

KKK. The compressor is an affected 

facility under NSPS subpart KKK that 

was constructed after the applicability 

date and is presumed to be in VOC or 

wet gas service. The pollution control 

device exemption in 40 CFR 60.14(e) of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Notices 22181 

the General Provisions is superseded by 

40 CFR 60.630 and therefore does not 

apply. In addition, the NSPS subpart 

KKK does not include exemptions for 

compressor emergency operations or 

operating less than 500 hours per year. 

With respect to whether the other 

affected facility, which includes all 

other equipment (except compressors), 

that are part of the glycol dehydrator 

process unit, EPA cannot make a 

modification determination since there 

is no information on emission increases 

or decreases available. 

Q2: Are the two storage tanks at the 

Indian Basin Gas Plant subject to NSPS 

subpart Kb, or are they exempt under 

the custody transfer exemption in 40 

CFR 60.110b(d)(4)? 

A2: Based on the information 

provided by AQB–NMED, EPA 

determines that the storage tanks are 

subject to NSPS subpart Kb. The Indian 

Basin Gas Plant is not part of the 

producing operation and its tanks are 

after the point of custody transfer as 

defined at 40 CFR 60.111(b). Therefore, 

the tanks do not qualify for the ‘‘prior 

to custody transfer’’ exemption in 40 

CFR 60.110b(d)(4). 

Abstract for [M120027] 

Q1: Does EPA agree with the 

determinations of the Portsmouth Local 

Air Agency and the Southeast District 

Office of the Ohio EPA that the America 

Styrenics Hanging Rock and Marietta, 

Ohio facilities are subject to the MACT 

if they changed processes after the 

compliance date such that their 

potential emissions are well below the 

HAP major source thresholds? 

A1: Yes. Based on the information 

provided by the Portsmouth Local Air 

Agency, EPA determines that the 

facilities are still subject to the major 

source MACT standard because it is 

EPA’s position that any source that is a 

major source of HAP on the first 

substantive compliance date of an 

applicable NESHAP will remain subject 

to that NESHAP regardless of the level 

of the source’s subsequent emissions. 

Q2: Are these facilities still subject to 

Title V if their HAP emissions potential 

was the only criteria that made them 

subject to Title V requirements? 

A2: Yes. Because the facilities are 

subject to a major source MACT 

standard, they are also subject to Title 

V permitting requirements under 

Section 502(a) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 

7661a(a). 

Abstract for [M120029] 

Q: Does EPA approve an alternative 

monitoring frequency for inspections of 

once per month rather than every 30 

days under the Pulp and Paper MACT 

for Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation 

in Coshocton, Ohio? 

A: Yes. EPA approves this minor 

modification to the monitoring 

frequency under 40 CFR 63.8(b)(i) 

provided that the monitoring events are 

at least 21 days apart. 

Abstract for [1200087] 

Q: Does EPA approve a request to use 

a subtractive method for the NOx 

compliance determination and use of a 

temporary Continuous Emission 

Monitoring System (CEMs) for the 

initial performance test for a NSPS 

subpart Db affected facility at Valero 

Refining’s Ethanol Plant in 

Bloomingburg, Ohio? The proposed 

method uses combined emissions from 

this subpart Db facility and another 

affected facility as determined by a 

Continuous Emission Monitoring 

System (CEMS), and subtracts the 

emissions from the other facility as read 

by a separate CEMS. 

A: Yes. EPA approves the subtractive 

compliance determination approach 

under 40 CFR 60.8(b) authority for the 

initial performance testing. This request 

was necessary because, while the NSPS 

allows for the location of a CEMS in a 

stack serving multiple affected sources 

for the purpose of demonstration of 

continuous compliance, no such 

allowance is made for the initial 

performance testing requirement. 

Abstract for [Z140004] 

Q1: Are emergency engines located at 

commercial sources that are used for 

telecommunications purposes exempt 

from the Reciprocating Internal 

Combustion Engines (RICE) NESHAP 

regulations at 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

ZZZZ? 

A1: Yes. The requirements at 40 CFR 

part 63.6590(b)(3) state that emergency 

engines located at area sources that are 

classified as commercial, institutional or 

residential emergency stationary RICE 

are not subject to the requirements at 40 

CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ. 

Q2: Are emergency engines used by 

telecommunication facilities that are 

installed and located on industrial 

property also exempt? 

A2: The applicability of the RICE 

NESHAP is dependent on whether the 

commercial or industrial operation has 

common control over the emergency 

engine. If the industrial facility has 

control, the engine could be subject to 

the RICE NESHAP. 

Abstract for [1400016] 

Q1: Is Kippur Corporation’s (Kippur) 

dual chamber, commercial incinerator 

which thermally destroys contraband 

for U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

in El Paso, Texas subject to regulation 

as an ‘‘other solid waste incineration’’ 

(OSWI) unit under 40 CFR part 60 

subparts EEEE and FFFF? 

A1: Yes. Based on the information 

submitted by Kippur, EPA determines 

that the contraband incinerator is an 

OSWI unit subject to either NSPS 

subpart EEEE or subpart FFFF. In 

addition, the incinerator would not be 

subject to subpart EEEE because an air 

pollution abatement equipment is not 

considered part of an OSWI unit. 

Therefore, the increased feed rate 

caused by the higher air flow volume 

resulting from the addition of a second 

baghouse on the OSWI unit does not 

constitute a modification of the 

incinerator under NSPS subpart EEEE. 

Based on this and additional 

supplemental information Kippur 

provided, the OSWI Unit is therefore 

subject to NSPS subpart FFFF since 

subpart EEEE applicability was not 

trigger with the OSWI unit changes 

consistent with 40 CFR 60.2992. 

Q2: Does EPA approve a petition for 

approval of operating parameter limits 

(OPLs) in lieu of installing a wet 

scrubber to comply with emission 

limitations? 

A2: No. In a separate September 12, 

2012 letter, EPA disapproved the 

petition because specific information 

was lacking for final approval. 

Therefore, Kippur must comply with the 

appropriate NSPS subpart FFFF 

requirements. 

Abstract for [1400019] 

Q1: The Cornerstone Environmental 

Group, LLC. on behalf of American 

Disposal Services of Illinois, which 

owns the Livingston Landfill, requests a 

clarification as to whether the 

Alternative Compliance Timeline (ACT) 

requests are due 15 days after an initial 

exceedance is identified through 

required monitoring activities, pursuant 

to the requirements in 40 CFR 

60.755(a)(3) and (a)(s). 

A1: EPA indicates that 40 CFR 60.755 

requires landfill owner/operators to 

repair the cause of an exceedance 

within 15 days, or expand the gas 

collection system within 120 days. In 

the event that the landfill owner or 

operator, despite its best efforts, is 

unable to make the necessary repairs to 

resolve the exceedance within 15 days, 

and it believes that an expansion of gas 

collection is unwarranted, the landfill 

owner or operator may submit for 

approval an ACT request for correcting 

the as soon as possible (i.e., as soon as 

it knows that it will not be able to 

correct the exceedance in 15 days and 

it is unwarranted to expand the gas 

collection system) to avoid being in 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
22182 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Notices 

violation of the rule and communicate 

the reasons for the exceedance, results 

of the investigation, and schedule for 

corrective action. 

Q2: Are ACT requests necessary if the 

owner/operator chooses to expand the 

gas collection system and is unable to 

complete the expansion project within 

120 days? 

A2: Yes. The landfill owner or 

operator may submit an ACT request as 

soon as it determines that it cannot meet 

the 120 day deadline to avoid being in 

violation of the rule. See above response 

under A1. 

Q3: What information is included in 

an ACT request? 

A3: EPA’s response describes a 

number of items that should be 

included, at a minimum. The request 

must promptly identify the problem, be 

very detailed, and contain substantial 

reasons beyond the control of the 

facility owner or operator why the 

exceedances could not and cannot be 

completed within the prescribed time 

frame allowed in the rule. 

Q4: If a facility makes repairs to a well 

to restore the well field to its original 

designed capacity, or replaces the well 

in-kind, does that constitute an 

expansion of the gas collection system 

(thereby causing the 120-day deadline to 

be applicable)? 

A4: No. An expansion of the gas 

collection system consists of an increase 

beyond the original design capacity. 

Abstract for [A140003] 

Q1: Are bridges considered regulated 

structures under the asbestos NESHAP? 

A1: Yes. In a response to the 

California Air Resource Board, EPA 

indicated that a bridge is a structure 

within the definition of a facility. As 

discussed in the October 1990 

Background Information Document for 

Asbestos, it is prudent not to exclude 

structures such as bridges. 

Q2: Is a thorough inspection of a 

bridge for the presence of asbestos, 

including Category I and Category II, 

required under the asbestos NESHAP? 

A2: Yes. Under 40 CFR 61.145(a), a 

thorough inspection of any facility is 

required before demolition or 

renovation to identify friable asbestos, 

Category I and Category II nonfriable 

asbestos-containing material (ACM) and 

Category I and Category II nonfriable 

ACM that are not friable at the time of 

the inspection but will be made friable 

due to the demolition or renovation. 

Q3: Is bridge concrete Category I, or 

is it Category II nonfriable ACM? 

A3: Bridge concrete is not listed as 

Category I nonfriable ACM. According 

to 40 CFR 61.141, Bridge concrete is 

considered Category II nonfriable ACM 

if it contains more than 1 percent 

asbestos that, when dry, cannot be 

crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to 

powder by hand pressure. 

Q4: Must bridge concrete be sampled 

for the presence of asbestos before 

demolition? 

A4: The bridge concrete must be 

thoroughly inspected. See 40 CFR 

61.145(a). Sampling is done to 

determine whether the material is ACM 

or not. The amount of ACM that is or 

will be made friable during the 

demolition factors into whether asbestos 

NESHAP requirements apply. 

Q5: If the bridge concrete was never 

tested for the presence of asbestos before 

demolition and now the concrete is 

going to be crushed and recycled, must 

the concrete be tested for asbestos before 

crushing and recycling? 

A5: The concrete at a demolition 

operation regulated by 40 CFR 61.145 

must be thoroughly inspected before the 

demolition operation to determine 

whether the material is ACM. The 

recycling could be considered part of 

the demolition operation and require 

the owner/operator to sample to 

determine whether the concrete is ACM. 

The results will determine whether the 

concrete can continue to be recycled or 

must be managed and disposed of as 

regulated ACM. 

Abstract for [M140006] 

Q: Does K&K Ironworks in Chicago, 

Illinois remain subject to 40 CFR part 63 

subpart MMMM given that they no 

longer use the quantity of coatings 

required by 40 CFR 63.3881(b) for an 

affected source to be covered by Subpart 

MMMM, and they meet the criteria 

established at 40 CFR 63.3881(c)(1) to be 

excluded from coverage of subpart 

MMMM? 

A: Although K&K Ironworks of 

Chicago operations no longer fall under 

the types of activities subject to Subpart 

MMMM, there may be requirements of 

subpart MMMM and 40 CFR part 63 

subpart A that did not immediately 

terminate when the company 

discontinued the use of coatings that 

contain HAPs. For example, the records 

retention and recordkeeping 

requirements at 40 CFR 63.3931(b) and 

63.10(b)(3) are continuing obligations, 

that were triggered when the company 

used xylene. 

Abstract for [M140008] 

Q: Frontier Refining requested an 

applicability determination regarding 

the timing of tank inspections to meet 

the annual tank inspection requirements 

under NESHAP subpart G for the Holly 

Frontier facility in Wyoming. Can the 

annual inspection requirement be 

accomplished within an 11–13 month 

window from the prior inspection? 

A: Yes. If a regulation does not 

specifically state what is meant by the 

‘‘once per’’ (timeframe), the EPA 

interprets the timeframe to mean at 

some point within the timeframe and at 

a reasonable interval between events. 

See, for example, 40 CFR 

63.100(k)(9)(iii). A once per month 

obligation means sometime within the 

month, but not the last day of one 

month and the first day of the next 

month, because that is not a reasonable 

time interval. For annual requirements, 

a reasonable interval between events 

would be between 11 and 13 months. 

Abstract for [1400021] 

Q: Does EPA agree that Calumet 

Superior’s two steam generating boilers 

located at its petroleum refinery in 

Superior, Wisconsin, and which are fuel 

gas combustion devices (FGCDs) 

affected facilities under NSPS subpart 

Ja, do not meet the definition of a 

process heaters under NSPS subpart Ja, 

and therefore are not subject to the 

emission limits, performance testing, 

monitoring and excess emission 

reporting requirements for NOx located 

at 40 CFR 60.102a(g)(2), 60.104a(i), 

60.107a(c), 60.107a(d) and 60.102a(i)? 

A: Yes. EPA agrees that Calumet 

Superior’s boilers meet the definition of 

FGCDs and do not meet the definition 

of process heaters under NSPS subpart 

Ja. Therefore, the boilers are not subject 

to any NOx requirements under NSPS 

subpart Ja. However, to the extent that 

the boilers are affected facilities under 

the Standards of Performance for Small 

Industrial-Commercial-Institutional 

Steam Generating Units, NSPS subpart 

Dc, they may be subject to NOx 

requirements. 

Abstract for [M140009] 

Q: May Benson Woodworking in 

Walpole, New Hampshire de-rate its 

Caterpillar 3306 Generator Set from its 

current capacity of greater than 300 

brake horsepower hour (bhp) to less 

than 300 bhp by cutting the existing 

factory governor seal, resetting the 

loading screws to the lower output 

specification, and then resealing the 

governor with wire and a dealer specific 

lead stamp, to comply with the 

Reciprocating Internal Combustion 

Engines (RICE) NESHAP regulations at 

40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ? 

A: No. The de-rate method proposal is 

not approvable by EPA. The proposed 

method of de-rating the engine is not 

permanent in nature. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Notices 22183 

Abstract for [M140010] 

Q: Can the following physical changes 

to Benson Woodworking’s Walpole, 

New Hampshire Caterpillar 3306 

Generator Set, including: removal of the 

current 400 amp circuit breaker and 

associated frame; destruction of the 400 

amp frame; and, fabrication and 

installation of a new frame to hold a 

smaller 250 amp circuit that would 

prevent the engine output from 

exceeding 299 bhp, result in a de-rating 

of engine’s capacity to less than 300 

bhp? 

A: Yes. Based on the physical changes 

that Benson has proposed, EPA 

approves the de-rating of the unit to less 

than 300 bhp given the permanent 

nature of the physical changes to the 

unit. 

Abstract for [M140011] 

Q: Does the NSPS for Stationary 

Compression Ignition Internal 

Combustion Engines, subpart IIII apply 

to an existing marine propulsion engine 

manufactured March 22, 1999 (EU ID#4) 

that the Alaska Village Electric 

Cooperative (AVEC) is planning to 

relocate as a non-stationary engine at its 

existing power plant in Emmonak, 

Alaska? 

A: No. The EU ID#4 engine is not 

subject to NSPS subpart IIII because it 

was manufactured prior to April 1, 

2006, and commenced construction 

prior to July 11, 2005. The conversion 

of an existing non-stationary engine to 

use as an engine at a stationary source 

is not ‘‘commencement of construction’’ 

that would trigger new source status 

under this rule. However, the EU ID#4 

existing engine would be subject to the 

NESHAP for Stationary Reciprocating 

Internal Combustion Engines (RICE), 40 

CFR part 63 subpart ZZZZ when it is 

operated as a stationary source. 

Abstract for [M140012] 

Q1: Did a force majeure event, as 

defined in 40 CFR part 63 subpart A, 

occur at the Chena Power Plant in 

Fairbanks, Alaska? 

A1: Yes. EPA determines that on 

April 28, 2014, a force majeure event 

occurred at the Chena Power Plant in 

Fairbanks, Alaska, when a mechanical 

failure of one of the facility’s turbine 

generator rendered it inoperable. 

Q2: Is a 60 day extension of the 

performance test deadline under 

NESHAP subpart JJJJJJ appropriate? 

A2: Yes. The turbine generator, which 

is subject to a testing deadline, is 

needed for representative operation of 

the boiler when the load from winter 

district heating is not there to draw 

steam from the boiler. In 60 days 

(November 17, 2014) the load from 

winter district heating will be sufficient. 

Considering the time estimated to repair 

the turbine generator, it is reasonable to 

extend the deadline for the boiler 

compliance testing by 60 days. 

Abstract for [M140013] 

Q: Can EPA provide further guidance 

on how to conduct tune-ups under 40 

CFR 63.11223(b), which is Condition 4 

of the previously EPA approved oneyear compliance deadline extension for 

the Eielson Air Force Base’s Central 

Heat and Power Plant in Alaska? The 

four existing coal fired boilers subject to 

the compliance extension are of the 

spreader stoker/traveling grate design 

and do not have burners. 

A: Yes. EPA amends the previous 

approval of the compliance extension to 

provide further guidance on Condition 4 

of the approval, as detailed in the EPA 

response letter. EPA provides guidance 

on how to meet the requirements of 40 

CFR 63.11223(b) when burners are not 

present. Some requirements of 40 CFR 

63.11223(b) do not apply, while others 

requirements, such as adjusting the airto-fuel ratio, and measurement of 

oxygen and carbon monoxide are still 

required to be performed. 

Abstract for [M140014] 

Q: Does EPA approve a one-year 

compliance extension to meet the 

NESHAP for Area Sources: Industrial, 

Commercial and Institutional Boilers, 

subpart JJJJJJ, for three existing coalfired boilers (that operate as back-ups) 

located at the Brigham Young 

University in Idaho (BYU-Idaho)? The 

coal-fired boilers will be demolished 

and replaced with a new energy plant 

that will be fueled with natural gas. 

A: EPA conditionally approves an 

extension until December 31, 2014, to 

operate three coal-fired boilers in their 

backup capacity without the installation 

of controls that would otherwise be 

required to meet the NESHAP subpart 

JJJJJ. The compliance deadline is 

extended because BYU-Idaho is 

constructing a natural gas source of 

energy generation as a replacement 

source of energy to meet requirements of 

the CAA standard. The approval is 

conditional on BYU-Idaho 

implementing: (1) interim compliance 

deadlines for the construction of the 

natural gas replacement energy; and (2) 

tune-ups specified in 40 CFR 63.11214 

for existing coal-fired boilers with a heat 

input capacity of less than 10 MM BTU/ 

hr that do not meet the definition of 

limited-use boiler, or an oxygen trim 

system that maintains an optimum airto-fuel ratio. 

Abstract for [Z140007] 

Q: Which area source NESHAP 

regulation applies to the operations at 

the BASF Corporation Facility in 

Lancaster, Texas (Lancaster site)? The 

NESHAP regulations to evaluate 

include: NESHAP subpart BBBBBBB 

applicable to Chemical Preparations 

Industry area source category; NESHAP 

subpart VVVVVV applicable to the 

Chemical Manufacturing Source 

Category; and NESHAP subpart 

CCCCCCC applicable to Paints and 

Allied Products Manufacturing. 

A: EPA finds that the NESHAP 

subpart BBBBBBB is applicable because 

the operations at the Lancaster site are 

mixing-type processes, which are 

typical of the Chemical Preparations 

Source Category. EPA understands the 

Lancaster Site produces architectural 

coatings, primarily acrylic latex-based 

stucco that contains aggregate, primarily 

sand. The Lancaster Site mixes latex 

dispersions produced off-site with 

aggregate and other additives to produce 

acrylic-based stucco. 

Abstract for [A140004] 

Q: Does EPA agree with the City of 

Sarasota, Florida that the demolition of 

a single-family residential building 

acquired by the city is not subject to the 

asbestos NESHAP subpart M due to the 

small residence exemption? 

A: Yes. Based on facts presented in 

the Memorandum of Law from Sarasota 

and the definition of facility in the 

asbestos NESHAP, EPA determines the 

building meets the conditions of a small 

residential building (a building 

containing four or fewer dwelling units) 

and is not subject to the asbestos 

NESHAP regulation. The house was not 

used for any institutional, commercial, 

public, or industrial purpose prior to the 

demolition. It is not part of an 

installation, nor part of any public or 

private project. 

Abstract for [A140005] 

Q: Does EPA approve the 

Transmission Electron Microscopy test 

procedure in place of the point counting 

procedure used to make a determination 

of the presence of asbestos in bulk 

materials, as required under the asbestos 

NESHAP? 

A: In a response to Masek Consulting 

Services, EPA indicates that the current 

asbestos regulation requires point 

counting after evaluating the sample by 

Polarized Light Microscopy. The owner/ 

operator may choose to use 

Transmission Electron Microscopy only 

after analyzing the sample by Polarized 

Light Microscopy and point counting. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
22184 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Notices 

Abstract for [M140016] 

Q: Does EPA agree that the Boise 

DeRidder Mill No. l Bark Boiler in 

DeRidder, Louisiana is a biomass hybrid 

suspension grate boiler under NESHAP 

subpart DDDDD? 

A: Yes. EPA agrees that the boiler is 

subject to NESHAP subpart DDDDD. 

The Bark Boiler has characteristics that 

are consistent with the definition of 

hybrid suspension grate boiler at 40 CFR 

63.7575. However, natural gas and tire 

derived fuel are also present as potential 

fuels in the boiler. Therefore, the facility 

must keep records to demonstrate that 

the annual average moisture content is 

at or above the 40 percent moisture 

limit, as required in the rule. 

Abstract for [1400022] 

Q: Does EPA approve the alternative 

monitoring plan (AMP) for product 

vapors from marine vessel loading 

operations which are inherently low in 

sulfur content, and are combusted in the 

Marine Vapor Recovery (MVR) Flare 

No.3, under NSPS 40 CFR 60 subpart J 

for the Chalmette Refining’s Chalmette, 

Louisiana refinery? 

A: EPA determines that the AMP is no 

longer necessary since the definition of 

fuel gas has been modified under the 

September 12, 2012 amendment to 

subpart J (77 Federal Register 56463). 

The marine vessel loading vapor stream 

does not meet the definition of a fuel 

gas, as defined at 40 CFR 60.101(d). 

Therefore, MVR Flare No.3 does not 

need to meet the continuous monitoring 

requirements of either 40 CFR 

60.105(a)(3) or 60.105(a)(4). 

Abstract for [1400023] 

Q: Can an exemption from monitoring 

be approved for a fuel gas stream that 

is low in sulfur content under NSPS 

subpart J, for the off-gas vent stream 

from the Gasoline Desulfurization Unit 

Selective Hydrogenation Unit Surge 

Drum Vent that is routed to the North 

Flare at the Marathon Oil facility in 

Garyville, Louisiana? 

A: Yes. Based on Marathon’s 

description of the process vent streams, 

the design of the vent gas controls, and 

the H2S monitoring data furnished, EPA 

conditionally approves the exemption. 

EPA finds that, when controlled as 

delineated in the response letter, the 

vent gas stream combusted is inherently 

low in sulfur, according to 40 CFR 

60.105(a)(4)(iv)(D), and does not need to 

meet the continuous monitoring 

requirements of 40 CFR 60.105(a)(3) or 

60.105(a)(4). EPA included the facility’s 

proposed operating parameter limits, 

which the facility must continue to 

monitor, as part of the conditional 

approval. 

Abstract for [1400024] 

Q: Can an exemption in lieu of 

Alternative Monitoring Plan be 

approved for a fuel gas stream that is 

low in sulfur under NSPS 40 CFR 60 

subpart J at the ExxonMobil refinery in 

Baytown, Texas? The refinery proposes 

to combust commercial grade natural 

gas as a supplemental fuel, in 

combination with refinery fuel gas vent 

streams. 

A: Yes. Based on ExxonMobil’s 

description of the process vent streams, 

the design of the vent gas controls, and 

the H2S monitoring data furnished, EPA 

conditionally approves the exemption. 

EPA finds that the mixture of nonmonitored commercial natural gas and 

refinery fuel vent gas stream combusted 

is inherently low in sulfur, according to 

40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(D), when used 

and controlled as described in the EPA 

response letter. EPA included the 

facility’s proposed operating parameter 

limits, which the facility must continue 

to monitor, as part of the conditional 

approval. Therefore, the fuel gas 

combustion devices listed in the request 

do not need to meet the continuous 

monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 

60.105(a)(3) or 60.105(a)(4). 

Abstract for [1400025] 

Q: Is the propane refrigeration system 

used at the Enbridge Nine Mile Gas 

Plant in Dewey County, Oklahoma 

subject to the requirements of NSPS 40 

CFR 60 subpart KKK? 

A: Yes. EPA determines that propane 

system is subject to NSPS KKK based 

upon the information the company 

provided. The propane refrigeration 

system is a process unit that can also 

operate independently if supplied with 

sufficient feed. The propane 

refrigeration system is ‘‘equipment’’ 

under 40 CFR 60.631 because it consists 

of valves, connectors, and compressors 

in VOC service. These components are 

in light liquid VOC service because they 

contain or contact propane, which 

constitutes at least 97 percent by weight 

of content of the refrigeration system, 

and the propane is a liquid within the 

operating conditions of the refrigeration 

system. 

Abstract for [1400026] 

Q: Are two natural gas reciprocating 

compressors which were transferred 

from a ‘‘laydown’’ yard to the 

Fayetteville Gathering Hattieville 

Compressor Station, located in 

Hattieville, Arkansas, affected facilities 

subject to the requirements of NSPS 

subpart OOOO? 

A: No. Relocation, by itself, does not 

trigger NSPS applicability through 

modification. Based upon the fact that 

the company commenced construction 

of the two compressors on a continuous 

basis prior to the effective date of NSPS 

subpart OOOO, nor were they modified, 

these units are not affected facilities 

under the subpart. EPA clarified in final 

rule preamble to NSPS OOOO that 

relocation does not subject a source to 

new source standards. Additionally, the 

General Provisions to Part 60 contain 

similar language, that relocation or 

change in ownership, by itself, is not a 

modification. 

Abstract for [1400027] 

Q1: Does EPA provide final approval 

of an Alternative Monitoring Plan 

(AMP) for parametric monitoring in lieu 

of a continuous opacity monitor for a 

Wet Gas Scrubber (WGS) on a Fluidized 

Catalytic Cracking Unit (FCCU) at Holly 

Refining & Marketing in Tulsa, 

Oklahoma (Holly) under NSPS 40 CFR 

60, subpart J, and NESHAP 40 CFR 63, 

subpart UUU, based on submittal of test 

results? 

A1: Yes. EPA grants final approval of 

Holly’s AMP request. Holly conducted a 

performance test and submitted 

additional data pertaining to a prior, 

conditionally approved AMP. EPA 

reviewed the performance test results 

and found the data supportive for 

establishing final OPLs for the WGS, 

which included minimum Liquid-to-Gas 

Ratios, based on 3-hour, hourly rolling 

averages, for operation of the WGS with 

one or two nozzles. 

Abstract for [1400028] 

Q: May the Ineos Chocolate Bayou 

facility in Alvin, Texas, which is subject 

to both 40 CFR part 60, Standards of 

Performance for Volatile Organic 

Compound (VOC) Emissions from 

Synthetic Organic Chemical 

Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) 

Distillation Operations (NSPS subpart 

NNN) and Reactor Processes (NSPS 

subpart RRR) use the monitoring and 

testing provisions in NSPS subpart RRR 

in lieu of NSPS subpart NNN for the 

process heaters? 

A: Yes. EPA approves the request for 

meeting Subpart RRR in lieu of NSPS 

subpart NNN requirements for testing, 

monitoring, and recordkeeping for use 

of process heaters as control devices for 

compliance with the standards of both 

subparts. This would require monitoring 

of small vent and drain valves utilized 

for maintenance events during 

maintenance in accordance with NSPS 

subpart RRR since they act as bypass 

valves. In addition, the schematic 

required by 40 CFR 60.705(s) is required 

with the initial report and must be 

maintained on site to ensure that the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Notices 22185 

affected vent streams are being routed to 

appropriate control devices without 

bypass. 

Abstract for [1400029] 

Q1: Does EPA agree with Kinder 

Morgan that the Condensate Splitter 

Flare located at the Galena Park 

Condensate Processing Facility in Harris 

County, Texas is subject to NSPS 

subpart Ja? 

A1: No. EPA is unable to verify 

applicability of NSPS subpart Ja because 

sufficient information about the facility 

or the operations and processes vented 

to the flare were not provided. 

Q2: Does EPA approve an Alternative 

Monitoring Plan (AMP) request for the 

Condensate Splitter Flare? 

A2: No. Kinder Morgan did not 

furnish sufficient detail about vent 

streams routed to the flare, or 

adequately describe the specific refinery 

process that would produce low sulfur 

content vent streams. Assuming the vent 

streams are fuel gas streams subject to 

NSPS subpart Ja, we cannot approve any 

AMP that seeks to circumvent a specific 

emissions monitoring requirement for 

affected facility operations. Under 

NSPS, new facilities must be 

constructed in such a manner that 

monitors are installed to demonstrate 

initial compliance and ensure ongoing 

compliance until such time that an 

exemption can be met. Furthermore, 

applications for exemptions to a rule 

must provide sufficient data at the time 

of the request in order to be evaluated 

for approval. 

Abstract for [1400030] 

Q1: Does EPA approve the 

HollyFrontier Companies’ request for 

approval of an Alternative Monitoring 

Plan (AMP) for monitoring oxygen in 

the stack, in lieu of parametric 

monitoring to substitute for a 

Continuous Emissions Monitoring 

System, for the hydrocracker reboiler at 

Navajo Refining’s Artesia, New Mexico 

refinery (Navajo), to comply with the 

NOX and oxygen standards in NSPS, 40 

CFR part 60 subpart Ja? 

A1: Yes. EPA determines that 

Navajo’s AMP that combines monitoring 

oxygen in the stack along with other 

specific process monitoring parameters 

is acceptable based on the limited usage 

of refinery fuel gas and the information 

submitted, including the performance 

test results. Navajo sampled the fuel gas 

at the reboiler to demonstrate that the 

stream is 100 percent purchased natural 

gas. Also, to improve the efficiency of 

the heater, Navajo installed new burner 

tips to better combust the purchased 

natural gas. As a result, NOX and O2

emissions were reduced, as verified by 

a performance test. 

Abstract for [1400031] 

Q: Does EPA approve an Alternative 

Monitoring Plan (AMP) for PSC 

Industrial to conduct monitoring of H2S 

emissions at various locations in EPA 

Region 6, in lieu of installing a 

continuous emission monitoring system 

(CEMS), when performing tank 

degassing and other similar operations 

controlled by portable, temporary 

thermal oxidizers, at refineries that are 

subject to NSPS 40 CFR 60 subparts J or 

Ja? 

A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves 

PSC Industrial’s AMP request. Based on 

the description of the process, the vent 

gas streams, the design of the vent gas 

controls, and the H2S monitoring data 

furnished, EPA finds that it is 

impractical to require monitoring via an 

H2S CEMS as specified by NSPS 

subparts J and Ja for the specific 

portable and temporary combustion 

device use. EPA included operating 

parameter limits (OPLs) and data which 

the refineries must furnish as part of the 

conditional approval. This conditional 

approval applies to this company’s 

refineries in EPA Region 6 only. EPA’s 

conditional approval should also be 

referenced and appropriately 

incorporated into PSC Industrial’s new 

source review permit in each state 

where degassing operations at refineries 

will occur, to ensure federal 

enforceability. 

Abstract for [1400032] 

Q: Can Samson Exploration, Houston, 

Texas submit hard copy photographs 

with the required GIS and date stamp 

data printed below each photograph in 

streamlined annual reports required 

under 40 CFR 60.5420(b)(2) of NSPS 

subpart OOOO? 

A: Yes. The inclusion of such types of 

submissions in annual reports is 

acceptable. There is no regulatory 

prohibition against submitting hard 

copies which have the date and GIS 

coordinates printed beneath each 

photograph, provided that the proximity 

of each photograph and its associated 

data ensures clear correlation. EPA 

further clarified that, in conjunction 

with the self-certification statement 

required under 40 CFR 60.5420(b)(1)(iv), 

a statement should be included that 

digital images of the photographs for 

each well completion are retained, such 

that the digital image files contain 

embedded date stamps and geographic 

coordinate stamps to link the 

photographs with the specific well 

completion operations. 

Abstract for [1400033] 

Q: Can EPA approve an Alternative 

Monitoring Plan (AMP) for Tristar 

Global Energy Solutions Company 

(Tristar) to conduct monitoring of 

hydrogen sulfide (H2S) emissions, in 

lieu of installing a continuous emission 

monitoring system, when performing 

tank degassing and other similar 

operations controlled by portable, 

temporary thermal oxidizers, at 

refineries at various locations that are 

subject to NSPS subparts J or Ja? 

A: Yes. Based on the description of 

the process, the vent gas streams, the 

design of the vent gas controls, and the 

H2S monitoring data furnished, EPA 

conditionally approves the AMP 

request. EPA included operating 

parameter limits and data which the 

refineries must furnish as part of the 

conditional approval. This conditional 

approval applies to Tristar’s degreasing 

operations at refineries in EPA Region 6 

only. 

Abstract for [1400034] 

Q1: Does EPA agree with Western 

Farmers Electric Cooperative (WFEC) 

that excess emission for the Hugo 

Generating Station, Choctaw County, 

Oklahoma coal-fired boiler, an ‘‘affected 

facility’’ under NSPS for Fossil Fuel 

Fired Steam Generators, subpart D, 

would only be reported for certain 

periods of operational status such as 

when the boiler is firing fuel for the 

purpose of generating electricity? 

A1: No. EPA disagreed that reporting 

of excess emissions should be limited to 

certain periods of boiler operational 

status. EPA reiterated that the NSPS 

requires reporting of all periods of 

excess emissions, including those 

temporary occurrences that may result 

in a particular emission standard being 

exceeded. Required recordkeeping and 

reporting should be viewed, along with 

O&M and SSM protocols, as a 

company’s substantiation of acting in 

good faith to demonstrate compliance 

with emission limitations, standards, 

and work practice standards at all times. 

EPA believes that WFEC has 

misinterpreted certain monitoring, 

recordkeeping and reporting provisions 

in the NSPS and MACT standards that 

a combustion source must meet for 

continuous compliance demonstration, 

which we explained in the Regulatory 

Interpretation enclosure of the EPA 

response. 

Abstract for [1400035] 

Q: Does EPA approve the alternative 

monitoring Operating Parameter Limits 

(OPLs) under NSPS subpart Ec, for a 

pollution control system on a new 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
22186 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Notices 

medical waste incinerator which 

consists of a wet gas scrubber (WGS) 

followed by a carbon adsorber and 

cartridge filter, located at the University 

of Texas Medical Branch (UTMBG) in 

Galveston, Texas? 

A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves 

Hydro-Environmental Technologies 

petition on behalf UTMBG for an AMP. 

As part of the conditional approval, 

performance testing must be conducted 

to demonstrate compliance and 

establish OPL values for the WGS, 

carbon adsorber and cartridge filter. 

Final approval of the AMP will be based 

on the OPLs established and other 

provisions that may be deemed 

necessary from our evaluation of the test 

results. 

Abstract for [1400036] 

Q: Will EPA approve the Fuel 

Analysis Plan for monitoring total sulfur 

content of fuels in lieu of SO2 emissions 

monitoring under NSPS subpart Db for 

Industrial-Commercial Institutional 

Steam Generating Units for which 

construction, reconstruction, or 

modification commenced after June 19, 

1984, at the No. 6 Power Boiler in 

Westvaco, Texas L.P. facility 

(Westvaco)? 

A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves 

Westvaco’s Fuel Analysis Plan, as 

delineated within the response letter. 40 

CFR 60.45b(k) allows compliance to be 

demonstrated by a fuel based 

compliance alternative. The plan 

ensures that data will be collected to 

demonstrate that the average percentage 

sulfur concentration in the wood fuel, 

plus three standard deviations, will not 

result in a combined fuel mixture that 

will exceed the sulfur emission limit. 

Westvaco will continue to obtain and 

maintain fuel receipts for the other 

combusted fuels. 

Abstract for [1400037] 

Q: Can an exemption from monitoring 

be approved for a fuel gas stream that 

is low in sulfur content, under NSPS 

subpart J, for the off-gas vent stream 

from the Merox Off-gas Knockout Pot in 

the Alky Stripper Reboiler Heater, at the 

Valero Refining Meraux facility in 

Meraux, Louisiana? 

A: Yes. Based on the description of 

the process vent streams, the design of 

the vent gas controls, and the H2S 

monitoring data furnished, EPA 

conditionally approves the exemption 

in light of changes made to NSPS 

subpart J on June 24, 2008 (73 Federal 

Register 35866). EPA finds that, when 

used and controlled as described in the 

response letter, the vent gas stream 

combusted is inherently low in sulfur 

according to 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(D) 

and therefore, the fuel gas combustion 

device does not need to meet the 

continuous monitoring requirements of 

40 CFR 60.105(a)(3) or 60.105(a)(4) for 

the Merox Off-gas Knockout Pot fuel gas 

stream. Valero Meraux is required to 

monitor and control the relevant process 

parameters, as summarized in the 

Enclosure, as a condition of this 

exemption approval. 

Abstract for [1100017] 

Q: Can alternative monitoring be 

approved in lieu of a Continuous 

Opacity Monitoring System (COMS) 

since the moisture in the Fluid Catalytic 

Cracking Unit exhaust from the wet gas 

scrubber (WGS) will interfere with the 

ability of the COMS to take accurate 

opacity readings due to water 

interference for the Conoco Phillips 

Sweeny, Texas Refinery? 

A: Yes. EPA approves the alternative 

monitoring based on information 

provided by Conoco, including a stack 

test report and three proposed operating 

parameters limits (OPLs) for the wet gas 

scrubber. The OPLs address nozzle 

pressure, pressure drop, and liquid to 

gas ratio. 

Dated: April 13, 2015. 

Lisa Lund, 

Director, Office of Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2015–09242 Filed 4–20–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 

Formations of, Acquisitions by, and 

Mergers of Bank Holding Companies 

The companies listed in this notice 

have applied to the Board for approval, 

pursuant to the Bank Holding Company 

Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) 

(BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 

225), and all other applicable statutes 

and regulations to become a bank 

holding company and/or to acquire the 

assets or the ownership of, control of, or 

the power to vote shares of a bank or 

bank holding company and all of the 

banks and nonbanking companies 

owned by the bank holding company, 

including the companies listed below. 

The applications listed below, as well 

as other related filings required by the 

Board, are available for immediate 

inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank 

indicated. The applications will also be 

available for inspection at the offices of 

the Board of Governors. Interested 

persons may express their views in 

writing on the standards enumerated in 

the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the 

proposal also involves the acquisition of 

a nonbanking company, the review also 

includes whether the acquisition of the 

nonbanking company complies with the 

standards in section 4 of the BHC Act 

(12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise 

noted, nonbanking activities will be 

conducted throughout the United States. 

Unless otherwise noted, comments 

regarding each of these applications 

must be received at the Reserve Bank 

indicated or the offices of the Board of 

Governors not later than May 15, 2015. 

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago 

(Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice 

President) 230 South LaSalle Street, 

Chicago, Illinois 60690–1414: 

1. Wintrust Financial Corporation, 

Rosemont, Illinois; to acquire North 

Bank, Chicago, Illinois. 

B. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas 

(Robert L. Triplett III, Senior Vice 

President) 2200 North Pearl Street, 

Dallas, Texas 75201–2272: 

1. First Financial Bankshares, Inc., 

Abilene, Texas; to merge with FBC 

Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly 

acquire First Bank, National 

Association, both in Conroe, Texas. 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System, April 15, 2015. 

Michael J. Lewandowski, 

Associate Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. 2015–09021 Filed 4–20–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6210–01–P 

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Announcement of Board 

Approval Under Delegated Authority 

and Submission to OMB 

AGENCY: Board of Governors of the 

Federal Reserve System. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the 

final approval of proposed information 

collection by the Board of Governors of 

the Federal Reserve System (Board) 

under OMB delegated authority, as per 

OMB Regulations on Controlling 

Paperwork Burdens on the Public. 

Board-approved collections of 

information are incorporated into the 

official OMB inventory of currently 

approved collections of information. 

Copies of the Paperwork Reduction Act 

Submission, supporting statements and 

approved collection of information 

instrument(s) are placed into OMB’s 

public docket files. The Federal Reserve 

may not conduct or sponsor, and the 

respondent is not required to respond 

to, an information collection that has 

been extended, revised, or implemented 

on or after October 1, 1995, unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Federal Reserve Board Acting Clearance 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES