Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 2012 / Notices 30283 

DATES: Comments must be submitted on 

or before June 21, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: The proposed settlement 

and additional background information 

relating to the settlement are available 

for public inspection at 1445 Ross 

Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. A 

copy of the proposed settlement may be 

obtained from Kevin Shade at 1445 Ross 

Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733 or by 

calling (214) 665–2708. Comments 

should reference the Malone Service 

Company Superfund Site, Texas City, 

Galveston County, Texas and EPA 

Docket Number 06–09–11, and should 

be addressed to Kevin Shade at the 

address listed above. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

I-Jung Chiang, Assistant Regional 

Counsel, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, 

Texas 75202–2733 or call (214) 665– 

2160. 

Dated: May 9, 2012. 

Samuel Coleman, 

Acting Regional Administrator 

[FR Doc. 2012–12361 Filed 5–21–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9674–6] 

Standards of Performance for New 

Stationary Sources, National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants, and the Stratospheric 

Ozone Protection Program: Recent 

Posting to the Applicability 

Determination Index (ADI) Database 

System of Agency Applicability 

Determinations, Alternative Monitoring 

Decisions, and Regulatory 

Interpretations 

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 the 

Stratospheric Ozone Protection 

Program. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: An 

electronic copy of each EPA response 

letter posted on the Applicability 

Determination Index (ADI) database 

system is available on the Internet 

through the Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance (OECA) Web site 

at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/ 

monitoring/programs/caa/adi.html. The 

document 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 the individual 

applicability determinations or 

monitoring decisions, refer to the 

contact person identified in the 

individual EPA response letters and 

memoranda, or in the absence of a 

contact person, refer to the author of the 

document. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The General Provisions to the NSPS 

in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

part 60 and the General Provisions to 

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 

[which includes Maximum Achievable 

Control Technology (MACT) standards] 

and section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) regulations contain no specific 

regulatory provision providing that 

sources may request applicability 

determinations, EPA also responds to 

written inquiries regarding applicability 

for the part 63 and section 111(d) 

programs. The NSPS and NESHAP also 

allow sources to seek permission to use 

monitoring or recordkeeping that are 

different from the promulgated 

requirements. See 40 CFR sections 

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 Agencyissued NSPS and NESHAP applicability 

determinations, alternative monitoring 

decisions, and regulatory 

interpretations, and posts them on the 

web-based Applicability Determination 

Index (ADI) at www.epa.gov/ 

compliance/monitoring/programs/caa/ 

adi.html. The ADI is an electronic index 

containing over three thousand EPA 

letters and memoranda pertaining to the 

applicability, monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements of the NSPS, NESHAP, 

and stratospheric ozone regulations (at 

40 CFR part 82). The letters and 

memoranda may be searched by date, 

office of issuance, subpart, citation, 

control number, or by keywords. 

Today’s notice comprises a summary 

of forty-four such documents added to 

the ADI on April 25, 2012. The subject 

and header of each letter and 

memorandum are listed in this notice, 

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 25, 2012; the applicable 

category; the subpart(s) of 40 CFR part 

60, 61, or 63 (as applicable) covered by 

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 section 

307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act. For 

example, this notice does not make an 

applicability determination for a 

particular source into a nationwide rule. 

Neither does it purport to make any 

document that was previously nonbinding into a binding document. 

ADI DETERMINATIONS UPLOADED ON APRIL 25, 2012 

Control No. Categories Subparts Title 

A110002 .................................. Asbestos NESHAP .................. M .................. Demolition of Residential Structures. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
30284 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 2012 / Notices 

ADI DETERMINATIONS UPLOADED ON APRIL 25, 2012—Continued 

Control No. Categories Subparts Title 

1000027 ................................... NSPS ....................................... Da ................ Utility Boiler Combustion Determination. 

1000028 ................................... NSPS ....................................... VVa .............. Alternative Monitoring Plan. 

1000029 ................................... NSPS ....................................... NNN ............. Alternative Monitoring Plan. 

1000030 ................................... NSPS ....................................... Ce, Ec .......... Applicability of Exemptions Under Subpart Ce. 

1000031 ................................... NSPS ....................................... WWW ........... Control System Operation and Monitoring Deadlines. 

1000032 ................................... NSPS ....................................... VVa .............. Alternative Monitoring Plan. 

1000033 ................................... NSPS ....................................... AAa .............. Alternative Monitoring Plan. 

1000034 ................................... NSPS ....................................... NNN ............. Alternative Monitoring and Performance Test Waiver Request. 

1000035 ................................... NSPS ....................................... H .................. Alternative Quality Assurance Proposal. 

1000036 ................................... NSPS ....................................... Db ................ Opacity Monitoring Alternative. 

1000037 ................................... NSPS ....................................... Db ................ Alternative Monitoring Plan. 

1000038 ................................... NSPS ....................................... WWW ........... Gas Collection and Control System Design Plan Change. 

1000039 ................................... NSPS ....................................... OOO ............. Performance Test Waiver. 

1000040 ................................... NSPS ....................................... KKKK ........... Alternative Monitoring Plan. 

1000041 ................................... NSPS ....................................... H .................. Alternative Quality Assurance Procedure. 

1000042 ................................... NSPS ....................................... LL, Y ............ Test Waivers and Reductions in Test Duration. 

1000043 ................................... NSPS ....................................... UUU ............. Performance Test Waiver. 

1000044 ................................... NSPS ....................................... BBBB, Cb, 

Eb.

Resource Recovery Facility Capacity Increase. 

M100029 .................................. MACT ...................................... RRR ............. Alternative Testing, Monitoring, and Recordkeeping Requirements. 

1000045 ................................... NSPS ....................................... J ................... Emergency Flare at Hydrogen Reformer Facility. 

1000047 ................................... NSPS ....................................... WWW ........... Effect of Permit on Design Capacity. 

1000048 ................................... NSPS ....................................... KKK .............. Alternative Monitoring. 

1000049 ................................... NSPS ....................................... DD ................ Single Source Determination for Grain Elevators. 

M100031 .................................. MACT ...................................... T ................... Alternative Monitoring Method. 

M100032 .................................. MACT ...................................... GGG ............. Time Period Adjustment for Periodic Reports. 

1000050 ................................... NSPS ....................................... A ................... Rationale for Including Labor Costs in Reconstruction under 

NSPS. 

M110001 .................................. MACT ...................................... RRRR ........... Surface Coating of Metal Furniture. 

1100002 ................................... NSPS ....................................... Db ................ Alternative Testing Frequency. 

M110002 .................................. MACT ...................................... JJJJ .............. Restricted HAP Emissions at Single Coating Line. 

1100003 ................................... NSPS ....................................... VVV .............. Coating of Paper Substrate. 

1100004 ................................... NSPS ....................................... F, GG ........... Alternative Test Frequency Requirement. 

M110003 .................................. MACT ...................................... X ................... Recycling of Lead-Containing Cathode Ray Tube Glass. 

1100006 ................................... NSPS ....................................... OOO ............. Performance Test Waiver. 

M110005 .................................. MACT ...................................... MMMM ......... Alternative Monitoring Method. 

M110006 .................................. MACT ...................................... EEE .............. Alternative Monitoring Method. 

1100007 ................................... NSPS ....................................... KKK .............. Criteria for Natural Gas Processing Plant. 

M110007 .................................. MACT ...................................... HHHHHH ..... Spray-Applied Coating Operations.

M110008 .................................. MACT ...................................... EEEE ........... Application of NESHAP standards to Tanks. 

1100008 ................................... NSPS ....................................... Dc ................. Physically Derating Boilers. 

1100009 ................................... NSPS ....................................... Db ................ Alternative Test Frequency Requirements. 

1100010 ................................... NSPS ....................................... Dc ................. Alternative Recordkeeping and Reporting. 

1100011 ................................... NSPS ....................................... J ................... Alternative Monitoring Plan. 

1100012 ................................... NSPS ....................................... J ................... Alternative Monitoring Plan. 

Abstracts 

Abstract for [A110002] 

Q: Does the EPA consider the 

residential structures in Youngstown, 

Ohio to be affected by any part of the 

Asbestos NESHAP? Additional detailed 

discussion was provided by an 

enclosure with a copy of a recent EPA 

letter to the Ohio Environmental 

Protection Agency, available under ADI 

Control Number A110001. 

A: EPA has consistently interpreted 

the Asbestos NESHAP, subpart M, as 

applying to the mass demolition of 

residential structures. While the 

regulation has a residential building 

exemption provision, EPA has 

interpreted this exemption as being 

inapplicable when numerous residential 

buildings are being demolished for 

reasons of public health, welfare, and 

safety, as part of a single project, or if 

such residences meet the definition of 

an installation. 

Abstract for [1000027] 

Q: Is a utility boiler that is capable of 

combusting more than 250 mmBtu per 

hour heat input from natural gas as well 

as landfill gas subject to NSPS subpart 

Da if it primarily burns landfill gas? 

A: Yes. The utility boiler is subject to 

NSPS subpart Da since it is capable of 

combusting more than 250 mmBtu per 

hour heat input of fossil fuel and meets 

the other applicability criteria in section 

60.40Da(a). 

Abstract for [1000028] 

Q: Does EPA approve the use of 

sensory means (i.e., visual, audible, or 

olfactory) as an acceptable alternative to 

the use of EPA Method 21 for the 

identification of leaks from equipment 

in acetic acid and/or acetic anhydride 

service for equipment subject to 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart VVa at the BAE Systems 

Ordnance Systems, Inc. facility in 

Hawkins County, Tennessee? 

A: Yes. EPA finds that the proposed 

alternative is acceptable. Monitoring 

results indicate that leaks from 

equipment in acetic acid and/or acetic 

anhydride service are more easily 

identified through sensory means than 

by using Method 21 because of the 

physical properties (i.e., high boiling 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 2012 / Notices 30285 

point, high corrosivity, and low odor 

threshold) of acetic acid and acetic 

anhydride. 

Abstract for [1000029] 

Q: Does EPA approve an alternative 

monitoring procedure (AMP) that 

consists of monitoring the inlet 

scrubbing liquid temperature, flow rate, 

and acid content in lieu of the 

requirements in section 60.663(e)(1) for 

an acid scrubber at the Eastman 

Chemical Company in Kingsport, 

Tennessee subject to NSPS subpart 

NNN? 

A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves 

the AMP request consisting of 

monitoring the inlet scrubbing liquid 

temperature and flow rate and 

identifying exceedances of these 

parameters based on a three-hour rolling 

average period, and acid content for the 

acid scrubber subject to NSPS subpart 

NNN. 

Abstract for [1000030] 

Q: Is guidance that EPA provided to 

the Department of Health and Human 

Services on the applicability of 

exemptions in NSPS subpart Ec for two 

types of units, including a unit that 

combusts both non-infectious animal 

waste and waste used in research and, 

a unit when a portion of the 

medical/infectious waste combusted 

also meets the definition of pathological 

waste, in an April 15, 1999, letter still 

valid? 

A: Yes. Since the definitions of terms 

used in the exemptions in NSPS subpart 

Ec did not change when the rule was 

revised on October 6, 2009, the 

guidance on these two units provided in 

the April 15, 1999, letter is still valid. 

Abstract for [1000031] 

Q1: Does the Pecan Row Landfill 

located in Valdosta, Georgia have 60 

days after waste has been in place for 5 

years if active, or 2 years if closed, or 

at final grade to begin monitoring and 

operating each early installed well, 

which is the deadline for installing 

wells pursuant to section 60.7(55(b) of 

40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW? 

A1: Yes. The 60 days timeline for 

installing wells is also the deadline for 

starting operational parameter 

monitoring for these wells, since 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart WWW does not require 

that monitoring be conducted prior to 

the gas collection well installation 

deadline. 

Q2: If monitoring of these wells is 

already being conducted on a monthly 

basis prior to the 5-year/2-year timeline 

and exceedances of the pressure, 

temperature, and oxygen and/or 

nitrogen concentration are measured, 

when does the Pecan Row Landfill have 

to initiate corrective action and remonitoring as prescribed in 40 CFR 

section 60.755(a)(3) and 40 CFR section 

60.755(a)(5)? 

A2: Only monitoring results obtained 

on or after the gas collection well 

installation deadline would trigger the 

requirement for corrective action under 

40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW. When 

exceedances of operating parameter 

limits in 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW 

are detected during the monitoring 

required under 40 CFR section 

60.755(a)(3) and 40 CFR section 

60.755(a)(5), a first attempt at correcting 

the exceedance must be made within 

five calendar days. 

Abstract for [1000032] 

Q: Does EPA approve the proposed 

sensory means (i.e., visual audible, or 

olfactory) in lieu of EPA Method 21 for 

the identification of leaks from 

equipment in propionic acid service, 

acetic acid/acetic anhydride service, 

diketene service, acetic acid service, and 

methyl iodide service for equipment 

subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart VVa 

at the Eastman Chemical Company in 

Kingsport, Tennessee? 

A: Yes. EPA approves the proposal for 

equipment in propionic acid service, 

acetic acid/acetic anhydride service, 

diketene service, and acetic acid service, 

sensory means (i.e., visual, audible, or 

olfactory) to identify equipment leaks 

where 40 CFR part 60, subpart VVa 

requires the use of EPA Method 21, 

because of their physical properties (i.e., 

high boiling point, high corrosivity, and 

low odor threshold). For indoor 

equipment in methyl iodide service, the 

use of a system of continuous monitors 

which was approved by EPA as 

alternative monitoring under 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart VV is acceptable as an 

alternative under 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart VVa. 

Abstract for [1000033] 

Q: Does EPA approve an alternative 

opacity monitoring proposal (AMP) 

submitted for two electric arc furnaces 

subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAa 

at Nucor Steel, Inc. in Tuscaloosa, 

Alabama? 

A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves 

the AMP request to adjust dampers in 

the direct-shell evacuation (DEC) system 

based upon the amount of visible flame 

detected in the DEC ductwork is an 

alternative to using a fixed damper 

position since emissions are likely to 

vary significantly over each 30 to 40 

minute scrap melting batch cycle. Since 

the AMP is likely to improve the 

performance of the particular Matter 

(PM) control system, it is acceptable 

provided the optical set point for the 

camera is based upon conditions during 

a performance test where compliance 

with the applicable PM and opacity 

limits is demonstrated. 

Abstract for [1000034] 

Q: Does EPA approve an alternative 

monitoring proposal (AMP) to use 

monitoring and testing provisions from 

NSPS subpart RRR at 40 CFR section 

60.703(c)(1) and (c)(2) as alternative 

monitoring for the provisions of NSPS 

subpart NNN at 40 CFR section 

60.663(c)(1) and (c)(2) and an initial 

performance test waiver requested for 

three distillation columns subject to 40 

CFR part 60, subpart NNN at the BP 

Amoco Chemical Company facility in 

Decatur, Alabama? 

A: Yes. Pursuant to 40 CFR Section 

60.13(i), EPA approves the AMP and PT 

waiver, which are consistent with 

previous EPA AMP approvals for NSPS 

subpart NNN facilities. 

Abstract for [1000035] 

Q: Does EPA approve a proposal to 

substitute quarterly cylinder gas audits 

for annual relative accuracy test audits 

on the sulfur dioxide continuous 

emission monitor (CEMS) installed at 

the convertor inlet in order to address 

safety concerns at the Lucite sulfuric 

acid plant in Memphis, Tennessee? 

A: EPA cannot make a determination 

until the necessary information listed in 

the EPA response letter is provided. 

Abstract for [1000036] 

Q: Does EPA approve an alternative 

opacity monitoring proposal (AMP) for 

rental package boilers subject to 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart Db to provide a backup 

source of steam in the event of a 

shutdown or reduced capacity at other 

boilers at the Rayoneir Performance 

Fibers, LLC facility in Fernandina 

Beach, Florida? 

A: EPA conditionally approves the 

AMP request for use of visible emission 

observations using EPA Method 9 in 

lieu of opacity monitoring for any of the 

rental package boilers provided they 

have an annual capacity factor of 10 

percent or less, which is the criteria for 

infrequent operation. 

Abstract for [1000037] 

Q: Does EPA approve an alternative 

opacity monitoring proposal (AMP) for 

a boiler at a new medium density 

fiberboard plant to monitor control 

device operating parameters for the 

scrubber located downstream of the 

boiler, instead of a continuous opacity 

monitory system (COMS) subject to 

NSPS subpart Db at the Uniboard USA, 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
30286 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 2012 / Notices 

LLC facility located in Moncure, North 

Carolina? 

A: No. EPA does not approve the 

AMP request because NSPS subpart Db 

allows a particulate matter (PM) 

continuous emission monitoring system 

to be used as an alternative to a COMS. 

Therefore, the proposal to monitor 

scrubber operating parameters in lieu of 

installing COMS is not acceptable. 

Abstract for [1000038] 

Q: Does EPA approve a proposed gas 

collection and control system (GCCS) 

design plan change, consisting of three 

potential control options, in order to 

meet the design considerations in 40 

CFR part 60, subpart WWW, for the 

Sampson County Disposal (SCD) 

Municipal Solid Waste Landfill in 

Roseboro, North Carolina? 

A: Yes. EPA approves the proposed 

GCCS design plan because it does not 

conflict with any of the design 

requirements of NSPS subpart WWW. 

The analysis provided by SCD 

demonstrates that the proposed 

approach for controlling emissions 

when new waste is placed on top of 

waste that has been in place for five 

years or more will be more effective 

than the two other potential control 

options evaluated. 

Abstract for [1000039] 

Q: Does EPA approve a waiver request 

to conduct a particulate emission test on 

the dust collector that controls 

emissions from the new crusher subject 

to 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOO at 

Industrial Materials, Incorporated? 

A: EPA conditionally approves the 

waiver of particulate concentration 

testing request for the crusher. The 

proposed waiver would be acceptable if 

no visible emissions are detected during 

any of the 240 individual readings made 

during the initial opacity performance 

test conducted on the crusher. This 

determination is based upon the opacity 

test results and the margin of 

compliance during previous testing 

conducted on the aragonite screening 

operation that uses the same type of 

control device. 

Abstract for [1000040] 

Q: Does EPA approve a proposal to 

extend a previous custom fuel 

monitoring plan to four new stationary 

gas turbines subject to 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart KKKK at BMW Manufacturing 

Company, LLC located in Spartanburg, 

South Carolina? 

A: Yes. EPA approves the proposal to 

use the existing custom fuel monitoring 

schedule for the new turbines based 

upon the low sulfur content found in 63 

fuel samples analyzed between January 

2003 and July 2009. 

Abstract for [1000041] 

Q: Does EPA approve a proposal to 

substitute quarterly cylinder gas audits 

for annual relative accuracy test audits 

(RATA) on the sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

continuous emission monitor system 

(CEMS) installed at the convertor inlet 

to address concerns regarding the high 

SO2 concentration at the convertor inlet 

for the Lucite sulfuric acid plant in 

Memphis, Tennessee? 

A: No. EPA does not approve the 

proposed alternative because it does not 

allow for a comprehensive assessment 

of the CEMS performance. Although the 

proposed alternative is not acceptable, 

the response provides details regarding 

another alternative quality assurance 

testing procedure that allows the 

company to determine the RATA of the 

convertor inlet CEMS without sampling 

the gas stream at this site, that would be 

acceptable to EPA and addresses Lucite 

concerns with high SO2 concentration at 

the convertor inlet. 

Abstract for [1000042] 

Q: Does EPA approve the Tennessee 

Department of Environment and 

Conservation’s (TDEC) request for 

authority to approve shorter visible 

emission observation times for 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart LL facilities when no 

opacity readings are above the standard 

and no more than three readings are 

equal to the standard during the first 

hour of observations and for authority to 

waive visible emission testing 

requirements if no opacity is detected 

on the exterior of the building during a 

75-minute observation period for 40 

CFR part 60, subpart LL facilities 

located inside buildings? 

A: Yes. EPA approves the request for 

authority to approve shorter VE 

observation times and to waive, 

pursuant to 40 CFR part 60.8(b)(4), the 

requirement to conduct VE testing 

inside buildings is acceptable under the 

terms outlined in TDEC’s June 29, 2009, 

request letter. This response is based on 

a previous determination for a facility 

located in Tennessee and the similarity 

between these proposals and provisions 

in NSPS subpart OOO, requiring that 

future requests be submitted to EPA for 

individual reviews will slow down 

approval without adding any value to 

the process. Therefore, the TDEC 

request for authority to process such 

requests in the future is acceptable. 

Abstract for [1000043] 

Q: Does EPA approve a proposed 

performance test waiver for two spray 

dryers in accordance with 40 CFR part 

60, subpart UUU at the Stonepeak 

Ceramics, Incorporated facility located 

in Crossville, Tennessee? 

A: Yes. EPA approves the request 

because the results of particulate matter 

(PM) testing conducted on Spray Dryer 

No. 1 and opacity observations made on 

Spray Dryers No. 1 through No. 3 

provide adequate assurance of 

compliance with the PM limit for Spray 

Dryers No. 2 and No. 3. 

Abstract for [1000044] 

Q: What NSPS regulation(s) will the 

Bay County Resource Recovery Facility 

in Panama City, Florida be subject to 

after its charging capacity is increased 

from 245 to 255 tons per day? 

A: Based upon the documentation 

provided, EPA cannot conclusively 

determine which of two potentially 

NSPS subparts applicable to large 

municipal waste combustors (i.e., 

subpart Cb applies if constructed on or 

before September 20, 1994, or subpart 

Eb applies if constructed after 

September 20, 1994, or for which 

modification or reconstruction is 

commenced after June 19, 1996), the 

facility will be subject to following the 

throughput increase. In order to 

determine whether a modification has 

occurred under NSPS and determine 

rule applicability, it will be necessary to 

determine whether the cost of the 

changes made in order to achieve the 

throughput increase constitute a capital 

expenditure. The facility would be 

subject to NSPS subpart Ec if the cost of 

the changes constitutes a capital 

expenditure, and the facility would be 

subject to NSPS subpart Cb if the cost 

of the changes does not constitute a 

capital expenditure. 

Abstract for [M100029] 

Q1: Does EPA approve Aleris 

International’s request under 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart RRR to use the weight 

into the feed hopper as the weight fed 

into the chip dryer during testing at 

IMCO Recycling of Michigan LLC 

located in Coldwater, Michigan? 

A1: Yes. EPA approves Aleris 

International’s request for determining 

the chip dryer feed/charge weight 

during testing for the hopper feeder and 

chip dryer under MACT subpart RRR 

since their existing configuration does 

not allow separate weighing of the feed/ 

charge into the chip dryer. 

Q2: Does EPA approve Aleris 

International’s request under 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart RRR to maintain 

records of the chip dryer feed weight 

using shift length recordkeeping at 

IMCO Recycling of Michigan LLC 

located in Coldwater, Michigan? 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 2012 / Notices 30287 

A2: No. EPA does not approve Aleris 

International’s request under MACT 

subpart RRR for shift length 

recordkeeping for normal operations 

The recordkeeping method to measure 

the chip dryer feed/charge weight in 

twelve-hour shift blocks during normal 

operations is appropriate for unblended 

truckloads only. 

Abstract for [1000045] 

Q: Will EPA confirm that Linde’s new 

flare located at the hydrogen reformer 

facility at the Citgo refinery in 

Romeoville, Illinois is not subject to the 

NSPS subpart J because it is an 

‘‘emergency flare?’’ 

A: No. EPA cannot confirm that 

Linde’s flare is not subject to 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart J. Linde would need to 

provide additional information, as 

indicated in the EPA response letter, 

before EPA can conclude that the gases 

released from safety relief valves during 

upsets at the plant are process gas or 

fuel gas, and if they are fuel gas, 

whether they are limited to 

extraordinary situations. 

Abstract for [1000047] 

Q: How is ‘‘design capacity’’ as 

defined in 40 CFR section 60.751, 

determined for the Marquette County 

Solid Waste Landfill in Marquette, 

Michigan? 

A: EPA has determined Marquette 

Landfill’s current design capacity must 

include the capacity of Cells 0A, 0B, 1, 

2, 3 and 4 designated under Marquette’s 

most recent operating and construction 

permits issued by the State, plus any inplace waste not accounted for in these 

permits per 40 CFR section 60.751. 

Abstract for [1000048] 

Q: Does EPA approve waivers for the 

Reference Methods for testing flare tip 

heat content and testing flare tip 

velocity for the non-assisted flare in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

KKK at the Velma Gas Plant located 

near Velma, Oklahoma? 

A: Yes. EPA accepts the use of Gas 

Processors Association Method 2261 for 

determining compliance with the 200 

BTU/cf standard at 40 CFR section 

60.18(c)(3)(ii). Based on the engineering 

analysis provided, EPA grants a 

performance test waiver under 40 CFR 

section 60.78(b)(4) for the determination 

of exit velocity under 40 CFR section 

60.18(f)(4). 

Abstract for [1000049] 

Q1: Should two grain elevators being 

operated at two different locations 

approximately 2.1 miles apart and 

owned by DeBruce Grain Inc. (DeBruce), 

in Abilene, Kansas be permitted and 

regulated as one facility under NSPS, 

and does 40 CFR part 60, subpart DD 

apply? 

A1: The Kansas Department of Health 

and Environment may reasonably use its 

discretionary permitting authority to 

find that these two facilities could be 

treated as one source for purposes of a 

NSR/PSD and Title V permitting. 

However, EPA concludes that 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart DD does not apply to 

either of the two DeBruce facilities 

because neither exceeds the 2.5 million 

bushel storage capacity threshold. 

Abstract for [M100031] 

Q: Will EPA approve modifications to 

the EPA 2009 approved alternative 

monitoring plan in accordance with 40 

CFR part 63, subpart T for two 

continuous web cleaning lines to 

address changes to the 84 inches and 60 

inches lines at the Alcoa Mill Products 

Davenport facility (Alcoa) in Bettendorf, 

Iowa? 

A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves 

revisions to the 2009 alternative 

monitoring plan to replace specific 

monitoring requirements on the 84 

inches and 60 inches lines, provided the 

conditions in the response letter are 

met. 

Abstract for [M100032] 

Q: Does EPA approve modifications to 

adjust the semiannual reporting periods 

to coincide with the facilities Title V 

and Miscellaneous Organic NESHAP 

reporting periods for Sigma-Aldrich 

Manufacturing, LLC located in St. Louis, 

Missouri in accordance with 40 CFR 

section 63.9(i)? 

A: Yes. EPA will approve reporting 

periods to allow for the submission of 

the Title V semi-annual report to be 

submitted on or before the first of April 

and October for each respective 

reporting period. 

Abstract for [1000050] 

Q: What is the rationale of including 

labor costs in the fixed capital cost 

associated with reconstruction under 

NSPS? 

A: In order to have a fair comparison 

of costs between the reconstructed 

facility and the comparable new facility, 

any labor costs associated with 

refurbishing the old parts and installing 

the new and refurbished parts of the 

reconstructed existing facility must be 

included with the cost of the 

reconstructed facility’s new 

components. Labor costs, similar to 

those associated with giving the 

reconstructed facility its new life, would 

be included in the cost of a comparable 

new facility. Adequate comparison of 

the costs on both sides of the equation 

is impossible without the inclusion of 

labor costs on the ‘‘reconstructed’’ side. 

Abstract for [M110001] 

Q: Is Connecticut (CT) Acquisitions 

LLC DBA Danver (Danver) located in 

Wallingford, CT, subject to 40 CFR part 

63, subpart RRRR if it uses only 

coatings, thinners, and cleaning 

materials that contain no organic 

hazardous air pollutants (HAP)? 

A: No. EPA determined that the 

operations at Danver currently meet the 

criteria in 40 CFR section 63.4881(c)(1), 

i.e., surface coatings that use only 

coatings, thinners, and cleaning 

materials that contain no organic HAP, 

and are currently not subject to 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart RRRR. 

Abstract for [1100002] 

Q1: Does EPA approve a request to 

seek alternative Cylinder Gas Audit 

(CGA) and Relative Accuracy Test Audit 

(RATA) frequency requirements for 

NOX, CO, and O2 in accordance with 40 

CFR part 60, Appendix F at Dalkia 

Energy Services (Dalkia) located in 

Cambridge, Massachusetts? 

A1: Yes. EPA approves Dalkia’s 

request to omit a NOX, CO, and O2 CGA 

test during any calendar quarter in 

which the unit is operated less than 168 

unit operating hours under 40 CFR 

section 60.13(i)(2). EPA also approves 

Dalkia’s request to conduct a RATA 

once every four quality assurance 

operating quarters instead of once every 

four calendar quarters (where a quality 

assurance (QA) operating quarter is 

defined as one in which the unit 

operates 168 unit operating hours or 

more). 

Q2: Does EPA approve Dalkia’s 

request to extend the annual RATA due 

date? 

A2: Yes. EPA approves the alternative 

frequency requirements for RATAs that 

allow Dalkia to follow the grace period 

provisions of 40 CFR part 75, Appendix 

B, section 2.2.4 for CGAs and 40 CFR 

part 75, Appendix B, section 2.3.3 for 

RATAs. 

Abstract for [M110002] 

Q: Does EPA consider a single coating 

line operated at InteliCoat’s facility in 

South Hadley, Massachusetts a new 

facility; and if so, can Intelicoat restrict 

hazardous air pollutant emissions to 

below major source thresholds so it is 

no longer subject to 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart JJJJ, NESHAP for paper and 

other web coating? 

A: No. EPA has determined that 

InteliCoat’s single coating line would 

remain an existing affected source 

subject to NESHAP subpart JJJJ because 

it did not obtain federally enforceable 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
30288 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 2012 / Notices 

restrictions on its potential to emit 

hazardous air pollutants by the first 

substantive compliance date of subpart 

JJJJ, i.e., December 5, 2005. This 

determination is consistent with the 

1995, ‘‘Once In Always In’’ EPA policy. 

Abstract for [1100003] 

Q: Does 40 CFR part 60, subpart VVV 

apply to a new coating line at Koch 

Membrane Systems (KMS) located in 

Wilmington, Massachusetts if the line 

coats a paper substrate? 

A: No. EPA has determined that NSPS 

subpart VVV will not apply because 

KMS coating line will not meet the 

definition of polymeric coating of 

supporting substrates. KMS applies 

polymer to a supporting web 

determined to be ‘‘paper’’ due to its 

characteristics, which is a substrate not 

regulated under this rule. 

Abstract for [1100004] 

Q: Will EPA approve alternate 

Relative Accuracy Test Audit (RATA) 

frequency requirements under 40 CFR 

part 75, Appendix B for the NOX and 

CO Continuous Emissions Monitoring 

Systems (CEMS) of the combined-cycle 

gas turbine under 40 CFR part 60, 

Appendix F, for Pawtucket Power 

Associates (PPA) located in Pawtucket, 

Rhode Island? 

A: Yes. Pursuant to 40 CFR 60.13(i)(2, 

EPA approves PPA’s request to follow 

the 40 CFR part 75, Appendix B RATA 

timing requirements for both the NOX

and CO CEMS. 

Abstract for [M110003] 

Q1: Does EPA consider a facility that 

recycles lead-containing cathode ray 

tube glass with uncontrolled lead 

emissions, almost seven times below the 

emission standard, subject to 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart X? 

A1: Yes. EPA has determined that this 

facility is subject to 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart X based on the description of 

the process and the lead emission rate. 

The process is considered to be 

recycling of ‘‘scrap lead and lead 

compounds’’ which are regulated under 

this rule. 

Abstract for [1100006] 

Q1: Will EPA approve a performance 

test (PT) waiver for installations of new 

quarry belt conveyors conveying sand 

with sufficient surface moisture, such 

that particulate matter emissions are not 

generated in accordance with 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart OOO for Unimin’s nonmetallic mineral processing facility near 

Kasota, Minnesota? 

A1: Yes. EPA approves the PT waiver 

for installations of new quarry belt 

conveyors conveying the saturated 

material mined from below the water 

table, such that there are no emissions 

greater than zero percent opacity and 

the sand contains sufficient surface 

moisture. 

Q2: Can existing Method 9 test results 

be used in lieu of future Method 9 

performance test requirements? 

A2: Yes. EPA will allow existing 

Method 9 test results to be used in lieu 

of future test requirements as long as the 

moisture content of the material on the 

conveyors remains as stated. 

Abstract for [M110005] 

Q1: Does EPA approve an alternate 

monitoring plan (AMP) to replace the 

requirement for collecting the facial 

velocity of air through all natural draft 

openings using a flow sensor, with 

measurement of static pressure within 

the duct from the permanent total 

enclosure (PTE) to the regenerative 

thermal oxidizer (RTO) in order to 

demonstrate continuous compliance 

with the PTE requirements under 40 

CFR part 63, subpart MMMM, 

Miscellaneous Metal Part MACT, at the 

YUSA Corporation in Washington Court 

House, Ohio? 

A1: Yes. EPA approves the AMP 

allowing continuous measurement of 

static pressure, and the correlation of 

these measurements with flow rate 

during a Method 204 certification test, 

in order to demonstrate that the average 

facial velocity through the natural draft 

openings of the PTE remains above 200 

feet per minute and to determine 

continuous compliance with subpart 

MMMM. 

Abstract for [M110006] 

Q1: Does EPA approve an alternative 

monitoring request to establish the ash 

feed rate operating parameter limit 

(OPL) equal to the total waste feed rate 

to the incineration system that consists 

of two kilns, a secondary combustion 

chamber (SCC), and a waste fired boiler 

(WFB), in accordance with 40 CFR part 

63, subpart EEE, at Clean Harbors El 

Dorado, LLC in El Dorado, Arkansas? 

A1: No. EPA does not approve the 

request because the facility needs to 

establish separate ash feed rate limit for 

each kiln, SCC, and WFB. 

Q2: Does EPA approve a waiver of the 

minimum combustion temperature OPL 

in the kilns? 

A2: No. EPA does not approve a 

waiver of the minimum combustion 

temperature OPL in the kiln. It has to 

establish separate minimum combustion 

temperature OPL for each kiln. 

Q3: Does EPA approve a waiver of the 

feedrate limits for the liquid waste fed 

to the kilns? 

A3: No. EPA does not approve a 

waiver of the feedrate limits for the 

liquid waste fed to the kilns, as that 

facility must establish limits on the 

maximum pumpable and total (i.e., 

pumpable and nonpumpable) hazardous 

waste feedrate for each location where 

hazardous waste is fed. 

Q4: Does EPA approve a waiver of the 

monitoring requirements for the 

minimum blowdown rate and the liquid 

level for the High Energy Scrubber 

(HES), given that the gases enter the 

HES prior to the baghouse, which is the 

primary particulate matter and metals 

removal device? 

A4: No. EPA does not approve a 

waiver of the monitoring requirements 

for the minimum blowdown rate and 

the liquid level for HES, which is 

required under 40 CFR sections 

63.1209(m)(1)(i)(B)(1) and (n)(3) to 

ensure that the solids content of the 

scrubber liquid does not exceed levels 

established during the performance test. 

Q5: Does EPA approve a waiver of the 

maximum inlet temperature OPL for the 

baghouse that is operated after a wet 

pollution control system required under 

40 CFR sections 63.1209(k)(1) and 

(n)(1)? 

A5: No. EPA does not approve a 

waiver of the maximum inlet 

temperature OPL for the baghouse, 

which must be determined on a hourly 

rolling average. 

Abstract for [1100007] 

Q1: Does the fuel gas treatment unit 

at Atlas Pipeline Mid-Continent, LLC 

Compressor Station have to sell the 

extracted natural gas liquids to be 

considered a ‘‘natural gas processing 

plant’’ in accordance with 40 CFR part 

60, subpart KKK? 

A1: No. EPA has determined that a 

facility does not have to sell liquids to 

be considered a ‘‘natural gas processing 

plant.’’ 

Q2: Does the facility have to operate 

at a specific temperature to be 

considered ‘‘engaged in the extraction of 

natural gas liquids’’? 

A2: No. EPA has determined there is 

no temperature criteria in the rule 

stating that a facility has to operate at a 

specific temperature to be considered 

‘‘engaged in the extraction of natural gas 

liquids’’. 

Abstract for [M110007] 

Q: Does EPA consider Rocky 

Mountain Reconditioning (RMR) to be 

subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

HHHHHH if it performs touch up and 

repairs that only spray-applies coatings 

with a hand-held device with a paint 

cup capacity that is equal to or less than 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 2012 / Notices 30289 

3.0 fluid ounces, and uses hand-held 

non-refillable aerosol containers? 

A: No. EPA does not consider RMR to 

be affected by 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

HHHHHH because the definition of 

‘‘spray-applied coating operations’’ 

excludes coatings applied from a handheld device with a paint cup capacity 

that is equal to or less than 3.0 fluid 

ounces, according to 40 CFR section 

63.11180. 

Abstract for [M110008] 

Q: Which tanks are subject to 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart EEEE at the Great Plains 

Synfuels Plant located in Beulah, North 

Dakota operated by Dakota Gasification 

Company (DGC), if tar oil produced at 

the facility is sold such that it no longer 

meets the exclusion to the definition of 

‘‘organic liquid’’, according to 40 CFR 

section 63.2406 for onsite fuels? 

A: EPA has determined that tanks in 

the distribution area where the tar oil is 

shipped would be subject to the 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart EEEE. EPA was unable 

to determine whether tanks and 

separators upstream of the distribution 

area, which produces tar oil, are subject 

to the 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE 

without additional information (e.g., 

tank identification, process flow 

diagrams), as described in the EPA 

response letter. 

Abstract for [1100008] 

Q1: Does EPA concur with the 

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 

that Children’s Health Care’s physical 

changes will result in derating the 

boilers in accordance with 40 CFR part 

60, subpart Dc? 

A1: Yes. EPA provides concurrence 

that the derate method proposed for the 

boilers is acceptable, because it will 

consist of a permanent physical change 

that cannot be easily undone and 

prevents boilers from operating at a 

capacity greater than the derated value, 

and would require a reduction of their 

capacity. 

Q2: Does EPA concur with the 

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 

that the derated boilers will not be 

subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc? 

A2: Yes. EPA provides concurrence 

that the derated boilers will not be 

subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db if 

the proposed procedures specified in 

the EPA response letter are followed, 

including demonstration of the 

maximum heat input capacity by 

operating the boiler at maximum 

capacity for a 24-hour period. 

Abstract for [1100009] 

Q: Does EPA approve adopting 40 

CFR part 75 quality assurance (QA) test 

schedules and grace periods as opposed 

to current schedule requirements for 

Cylinder Gas Audits (CGAs) and 

Relative Test Accuracy Audits (RATAs) 

under 40 CFR part 60, Appendix F for 

the NOX, CO, and O2 Continuous 

Emission Monitoring Systems (CEMS) at 

Mystic Station in Charlestown, MA? 

A: Yes. EPA approves Mystic Station’s 

request to omit a NOX, CO, and O2 CGA 

during any calendar quarter in which 

the unit is operated less than 168 unit 

operating hours. EPA also approves 

Mystic’s request to conduct a RATA 

once every four QA operating quarters. 

Regardless of operation, Mystic Station 

shall conduct a CGA for NOX, CO, and 

O2 at least once every four calendar 

quarters as well as a RATA at least once 

every eight calendar quarters. EPA also 

allows Mystic to follow the grace period 

provisions of 40 CFR part 75, Appendix 

B, section 2.2.4 for CGAs and 40 CFR 

part 75, Appendix B, section 2.3.3 for 

RATAs. 

Abstract for [1100010] 

Q1: Does EPA approve a plan for 

Veterans Affairs, Edith Nourse Rogers 

Memorial Hospital in Bedford, 

Massachusetts (VA Bedford) to track 

monthly natural gas and oil usage for its 

three dual-fuel boilers, as opposed to 

daily records of fuel consumption under 

40 CFR section 60.48c(g)(1)? 

A1: Yes. EPA approves a decrease in 

fuel usage recordkeeping from daily 

records to monthly records for VA 

Bedford’s three boilers conditioned on 

VA Bedford’s use of natural gas as the 

primary fuel and distillate oil with 

sulfur content no greater than 0.5 

percent. 

Q2: May VA Bedford submit annual 

reports for its three dual-fueled boilers 

as opposed to semiannual reports 

required under 40 CFR section 

60.48c(j)? 

A2: No. EPA does not approve a 

decrease in the reporting frequency 

under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc 

because the facility received four 

shipments of diesel fuel in 2007, and 

two shipments of diesel fuel in 2009. 

Therefore, because more than one 

shipment was received in each of those 

recent years, VA Bedford must continue 

to submit the required semiannual 

reports. 

Abstract for [1100011] 

Q1: Does EPA approve an alternative 

monitoring plan for a Cumene 

Depropanizer Off Gas Vent Stream 

subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart J at 

the Citgo Corpus Christi East Refinery 

located in Corpus Christi, Texas? 

A1: No. EPA finds that the alternative 

monitoring plan from March 24, 2006, is 

no longer valid since an exemption 

provided in the rule applies to the 

stream. The Cumene Depropanizer Off 

Gas is a fuel gas that meets the 

exemption requirement of 40 CFR 

section 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(C). Therefore, 

the fuel gas combustion device does not 

need to meet the monitoring 

requirements of either 40 CFR section 

60.105(a)(3) or 40 CFR section 

60.105(a)(4). 

Abstract for [1100012] 

Q1: Does EPA approve an alternative 

monitoring request for Hydrar Process 

Unit Vent Streams subject to 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart J for the Citgo Corpus 

Christi East Refinery located in Corpus 

Christi, Texas? 

A1: No. EPA does not approve the 

alternative monitoring request since the 

specified Hydrar vent stream fuels are 

fuel gases that meet the exemption 

requirement of 40 CFR section 

60.105(a)(4)(iv)(C). Therefore, the fuel 

gas combustion device does not need to 

meet the monitoring requirements of 

either 40 CFR section 60.105(a)(3) or 40 

CFR section 60.105(a)(4) for these 

specified vent streams. 

Dated: May 7, 2012. 

Lisa C. Lund, 

Director, Office of Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2012–12296 Filed 5–21–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

Federal Advisory Committee Act; 

Technological Advisory Council 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, this 

notice advises interested persons that 

the Federal Communications 

Commission’s (FCC) Technological 

Advisory Council will hold a meeting 

on Wednesday, June 27, 2012 in the 

Commission Meeting Room, from 1 p.m. 

to 4 p.m. at the Federal 

Communications Commission, 445 12th 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. 

DATES: June 27, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Walter Johnston, Chief, Electromagnetic 

Compatibility Division, 202–418–0807; 

Walter.Johnston@FCC.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FCC 

Technological Advisory Council 

proposed a new work agenda for the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES