50278 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Notices 

related regulations. Generally, SAB 

meetings are announced in the Federal 

Register, conducted in public view, and 

provide opportunities for public input 

during deliberations. All the work of the 

SAB subcommittees is performed under 

the direction of the Board. The 

chartered Board provides strategic 

advice to the EPA Administrator on a 

variety of EPA science and research 

programs and reviews and approves all 

SAB subcommittee and panel reports. 

Additional information about the SAB 

may be found at http://www.epa.gov/

sab. 

The SAB Staff Office previously 

announced (79 FR 73304–73305, 

December 10, 2014) that pursuant to 

section 12307 of the Agricultural Act of 

2014 (P.L. 133–79), the EPA is 

establishing a new agriculture-related 

standing committee of the SAB. On 

January 26, 2015, the SAB Staff Office 

announced (80 FR 2965–3966) an 

extension to the nomination period 

through March 30, 2015. The SAB 

Agricultural Science Committee will 

provide advice to the chartered SAB on 

matters referred to the Board that EPA 

and the Board, in consultation with the 

Secretary of Agriculture, determine will 

have a significant direct impact on 

farming and agriculture-related 

industries. The SAB Staff Office sought 

public nominations of experts with 

demonstrated expertise in agriculturerelated sciences, including: Agricultural 

economics, including valuation of 

ecosystem goods and services; 

agricultural chemistry; agricultural 

engineering; agronomy, including soil 

science; aquaculture science; biofuels 

engineering; biotechnology; crop and 

animal science; environmental 

chemistry; forestry; and hydrology. The 

SAB Staff Office hereby invites public 

comments on the list of candidates 

under consideration for the SAB 

Agricultural Science Committee, 

available at http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/ 

sabproduct.nsf/WebAll/

nominationcommittee?OpenDocument. 

How To Submit Comments: Any 

interested person or organization may 

submit comments to Ms. Sanzone, 

Designated Federal Officer, at the 

contact information provided above no 

later than September 9, 2015. Email is 

the preferred mode of receipt. Please be 

advised that public comments are 

subject to release under the Freedom of 

Information Act. 

Dated: August 7, 2015. 

Thomas H. Brennan, 

Deputy Director, EPA Science Advisory Board 

Staff Office. 

[FR Doc. 2015–20511 Filed 8–18–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL 9932–75–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 NESHAP part 63 

regulations [which include Maximum 

Achievable Control Technology (MACT) 

standards and/or Generally Available 

Control Technology (GACT) standards] 

and Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) contain no specific regulatory 

provision providing that sources may 

request applicability determinations, 

EPA also responds to written inquiries 

regarding applicability for the part 63 

and section 111(d) programs. The NSPS 

and NESHAP also allow sources to seek 

permission to use monitoring or 

recordkeeping that is different from the 

promulgated requirements. See 40 CFR 

60.13(i), 61.14(g), 63.8(b)(1), 63.8(f), and 

63.10(f). EPA’s written responses to 

these inquiries are commonly referred to 

as alternative monitoring decisions. 

Furthermore, EPA responds to written 

inquiries about the broad range of NSPS 

and NESHAP regulatory requirements as 

they pertain to a whole source category. 

These inquiries may pertain, for 

example, to the type of sources to which 

the regulation applies, or to the testing, 

monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting 

requirements contained in the 

regulation. EPA’s written responses to 

these inquiries are commonly referred to 

as regulatory interpretations. EPA 

currently compiles EPA-issued NSPS 

and NESHAP applicability 

determinations, alternative monitoring 

decisions, and regulatory 

interpretations, and posts them to the 

ADI on a quarterly basis. In addition, 

the ADI contains EPA-issued responses 

to requests pursuant to the stratospheric 

ozone regulations, contained in 40 CFR 

part 82. The ADI is an electronic index 

on the Internet with over 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 42 such documents added to the ADI 

on August 10, 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 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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Notices 50279 

Summary of Headers and Abstracts 

The following table identifies the 

database control number for each 

document posted on the ADI database 

system on August 10, 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 Sec. 307(b)(1). For 

example, this notice does not convert an 

applicability determination for a 

particular source into a nationwide rule. 

Neither does it purport to make a 

previously non-binding document 

binding. 

ADI DETERMINATIONS UPLOADED ON AUGUST 10, 2015 

Control No. Categories Subparts Title 

1400039 ............. NSPS ................................. JJJJ ................................... Performance Test Waiver for Reciprocating Internal Combustion 

Engines. 

1500001 ............. NSPS ................................. JJJJ ................................... Test Waiver for Stationary Spark Internal Combustion Engines. 

1500004 ............. NSPS ................................. WWW ................................ Request for Alternative Compliance Timeline for Landfill Gas Extraction Well. 

1500005 ............. NSPS ................................. WWW ................................ Request for Alternative Compliance Timeline for Landfill Gas Extraction. 

1500006 ............. NSPS ................................. Ja ....................................... Alternative Monitoring Plan Request for Flare at Refinery and 

Sulfur Plant. 

1500008 ............. NSPS ................................. CCCC, EEEE .................... Conditional Exemption for CISWI and OSWI. 

1500009 ............. NSPS ................................. CCCC ................................ Petition to Establish Proposed Operating Limits for an Incinerator. 

1500010 ............. NSPS ................................. A, Y .................................... Request for PM Performance Testing Extension under Force 

Majeure. 

1500011 ............. NSPS ................................. EEEE ................................. Rural Institutional Waste Incinerator Exemption. 

1500012 ............. NSPS ................................. EEEE ................................. Rural Incinerator Exemption Administrative Correction. 

1500013 ............. NSPS ................................. EEEE ................................. Rural Institutional Waste Incinerator Exemption Denial. 

1500015 ............. NSPS ................................. EEEE ................................. Rural Institutional Waste Incinerator Exemption. 

1500016 ............. NSPS ................................. EEEE ................................. Rural Institutional Waste Incinerator Exemption. 

1500017 ............. NSPS ................................. JJJJ ................................... Test Notice Waiver. 

1500018 ............. NSPS ................................. JJJJ ................................... Test Notice Waiver. 

1500019 ............. NSPS ................................. EEEE ................................. Rural Institutional Waste Incinerator Exemption. 

1500020 ............. NSPS ................................. Db ...................................... Request for Alternative to COM Monitoring for Wet Scrubber and 

ESP. 

1500040 ............. NSPS ................................. LL ....................................... Applicability Determination for Operations Depositing Ponded 

Fine Tailings Material as a By-Product from Historical Ore Mining and Processing Operations. 

1500041 ............. NSPS ................................. A, LLLL .............................. Alternative Monitoring Location for Wet Electrostatic Precipitator 

Effluent. 

1500042 ............. NSPS ................................. A, Da, Z ............................. Alternative Compliance Monitoring Plan for Opacity and Carbon 

Monoxide Monitoring from an electric submerged arc furnace. 

1500043 ............. NSPS ................................. Db ...................................... Alternative Testing, Monitoring, Recordkeeping and Reporting at 

Vessel Boilers. 

1500044 ............. NSPS ................................. Dc ...................................... Request for Alternative Recordkeeping and Reporting for Boilers. 

1500045 ............. NSPS ................................. Dc ...................................... Request for Alternative Recordkeeping and Reporting for Boilers. 

1500047 ............. NSPS ................................. TT ...................................... Applicability Determination for a Tubing Operation for Coating 

Metal Wire. 

1500048 ............. NSPS ................................. OOOO ............................... Applicability Determination for Pipeline Stations Storage Vessels. 

M140017 ............ MACT, Part 63 NESHAP .. DDDDD .............................. Request for Compliance Extension for Boiler MACT. 

M140018 ............ MACT, Part 63 NESHAP .. JJJJJJ ................................ Test Waiver Denial for Coal-Fired Boilers. 

M150001 ............ MACT, Part 63 NESHAP .. ZZZZ .................................. Alternative Monitoring Request for Non-Resettable Hour Meter for 

Stationary Emergency Engines. 

M150002 ............ MACT, Part 63 NESHAP .. A, JJJJJJ ........................... Compliance Extension for Area Source Coal Fired Boilers. 

M150003 ............ MACT, Part 63 NESHAP .. A, ZZZZ ............................. Compliance Extension for Area Source Reciprocating Internal 

Combustion Engines. 

M150004 ............ MACT, Part 63 NESHAP .. A, ZZZZ ............................. Compliance Extension for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engine. 

M150005 ............ MACT, Part 63 NESHAP .. A, ZZZZ ............................. Compliance Extension for Power Plant Reciprocating Internal 

Combustion Engines. 

M150006 ............ MACT, Part 63 NESHAP .. A, ZZZZ ............................. Prior Test Data Use for Initial Compliance Demonstration. 

M150007 ............ MACT, Part 63 NESHAP .. ZZZZ .................................. Applicability Determination for Reciprocating Internal Combustion 

Engines. 

M150008 ............ MACT, Part 63 NESHAP .. ZZZZ .................................. Peak Shaving Engine Redesignation to Black Start Engine. 

M150009 ............ MACT, Part 63 NESHAP .. A, JJJJJJ ........................... Area Source Boiler PM Test Waiver Request. 

M150018 ............ MACT, Part 63 NESHAP .. DDDDD, JJJJ, MMMMM, 

ZZZZ.

Part 63 Rules and Title V Operating Permit Applicability for Lamination Facility. 

M150019 ............ MACT, Part 63 NESHAP .. O ........................................ Request for Clarification of Annual Performance Test Requirement. 

M150020 ............ MACT, Part 63 NESHAP .. UUUUU .............................. Applicability Determination for Limited-Use Liquid Oil-Fired Electric Generating Units. 

M150021 ............ MACT, Part 63 NESHAP .. LLL ..................................... Applicability Determination for Cement Finish Mill. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
50280 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Notices 

ADI DETERMINATIONS UPLOADED ON AUGUST 10, 2015—Continued 

Control No. Categories Subparts Title 

Z150001 ............. Part 63 NESHAP ............... JJJJJJ ................................ Performance Test Extension and Amendment to Force Majeure. 

1500042 ............. NSPS, Part 63 NESHAP ... Y, DDDD, LLL ................... Applicability Determination under section 111, section 112, and 

section 129 for Cement Plants. 

Abstracts 

Abstract for [1400039] 

Q: Will EPA provide Matanuska 

Electric Association (MEA) a waiver 

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

initial performance testing requirement 

under NSPS Subpart JJJJ for nine of the 

ten Wartsila 18V50DF dual-fired, leanburn, 17.1 megawatt (23,250 HP), nonemergency, reciprocating internal 

combustion engines (RICE) to be 

installed at the Eklutna Generation 

Station in Eklutna, Alaska? 

A: No. EPA finds that MEA has not 

provided an adequate demonstration 

that the engines in question will meet 

the applicable standards, and therefore 

the EPA is denying MEA’s request for a 

waiver from the initial performance 

testing for its Wartsila 18V50DF 

engines. Although the manufacturer’s 

data provided indicates that we can 

expect that the Wartsila 18V50DF 

engines may be able to meet the 

applicable emissions limits in NSPS 

Subpart JJJJ (if properly installed and 

operated) conducting a performance test 

is necessary to provide adequate 

assurance that an engine is properly 

installed and operating. MEA may resubmit a request for a waiver of 

performance tests at its facility once it 

has information that is sufficient to 

demonstrate that one or more of the 

engines, after reaching their maximum 

production rate, are in compliance with 

the standard. 

Abstract for [1500001] 

Q: Will EPA approve a waiver from 

performance testing requirements 

according to 40 CFR 60.8(b)(4) for six of 

seven Waukesha units identified as 

identical and operated as compressor 

engines at ConocoPhillips Alaska 

Incorporated’s (CPAI) Beluga River Unit 

(BRU)? 

A: Based on the information provided 

by CPAI, EPA approves the performance 

test waiver for the CO and VOC 

standards, but not for the NOX standards 

for the next performance testing that is 

due for six of the seven Waukesha 

engines. EPA approves the CO and VOC 

performance testing waiver because 

CPAI has demonstrated that the engines 

are identical, they are in the same 

location, they will be operated and 

maintained in a similar manner on an 

ongoing basis, and the expected 

emissions from the engines are in 

compliance with applicable limits by a 

substantial margin. EPA denies the NOX

performance test waiver because the 

margin of compliance for NOX

emissions was not sufficient to conclude 

that untested units would be in 

compliance with the NOX standards of 

subpart JJJJ, given the high variability in 

NOX emissions. 

Abstract for [1500004] 

Q: Does EPA approve Roxana 

Landfill’s request for an alternative 

timeline of additional sixty (60) days, or 

until January 25, 2015, to bring Well 191 

located in Edwardsville, Illinois, into 

compliance with 40 CFR 

60.752(b)(2)(ii)(A)(3) under NSPS 

subpart WWW? 

A: Yes. Based on the information 

provided by Roxana, EPA approves, 

pursuant to 40 CFR 60.755(a)(3), the 

proposed alternative timeline to 

complete installation of a new vacuum 

lateral on Well 191 by January 25, 2015 

to bring the well into compliance with 

pressure requirements. Roxana site 

personnel must review investigative and 

monitoring data and closely monitor 

any field conditions that would result in 

a violation of 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

WWW. 

Abstract for [1500005] 

Q: Does EPA approve the alternative 

compliance timeline to complete a 

dewatering project for landfill gas 

extraction Well S163R2 at the Waste 

Management of Illinois, Incorporated. 

(WMIL) Settler’s Hill Recycling and 

Disposal Facility/Midway facility in 

Batavia, Illinois under 40 CFR subpart 

WWW? 

A: Yes. Based on the information 

provided by WMIL, EPA approves 

WMIL’s proposed alternative 

compliance timeline to complete a 

dewatering project on Well S163R2 by 

June 24, 2014. We understand that 

WMIL has made efforts to meet the 

regulatory deadline but was unable to 

meet it due to the nature of the work 

involved. Factors including a well depth 

of 144 feet deep and its location at the 

center of the landfill. Lack of 

infrastructure near the well to facilitate 

dewatering, no electricity near the well, 

and no means to convey liquid into the 

facility’s condensate/leachate system 

contributed to the project’s delay. 

Abstract for [1500006] 

Q. Does EPA approve the Alternative 

Monitoring Plan (AMP) request to the 

sulfur monitoring requirements under 

40 CFR 60.107a(e) of NSPS, subpart Ja, 

for the flare at the Phillips 66 Billings 

Refinery and Jupiter Sulfur Plant 

(Jupiter Sulfur) located in Billings, 

Montana? 

A. Yes. Based on the information 

provided, EPA conditionally approves 

Jupiter Sulfur’s AMP request for 

meeting the flare sulfur monitoring 

requirements. EPA finds the AMP 

acceptable since flaring does not occur 

more than four times in any 365-day 

period and it contains provisions for the 

monitoring of the rupture discs that are 

similar to, or the same as, provisions 

found in § 60.107a(g)(1)–(6) for 

monitoring the water seal at emergency 

flares. In addition, Jupiter Sulfur will 

install a flow meter meeting the 

requirements of § 60.107a(i) on the flare. 

The conditions for AMP approval 

addressing monitoring, corrective 

actions and recordkeeping requirements 

are specified in the EPA determination 

letter. 

Abstract for [1500008] 

Q: Does an incinerator that burns 

pathological waste at the Kenai 

Veterinary Hospital in Kenai, Alaska 

meet the exclusion for pathological 

waste incineration units in NSPS for 

Other Solid Waste Incineration Units 

(OSWI), 40 CFR subpart EEEE, and for 

Commercial Industrial Solid Waste 

Incineration Units (CISWI), subpart 

CCCC? 

A: Yes. The unit is exempt because it 

burns 90 percent or more by weight 

pathological, low-level radioactive, and/ 

or chemotherapeutic waste as defined in 

40 CFR 60.2977. EPA will consider the 

letter submitted by the hospital to 

constitute the notice that the unit meets 

the exclusion. Consistent with the 

regulations, records of materials burned 

must be kept to demonstrate that the 

exclusion continues to apply. 

Abstract for [1500009] 

Q: Does the EPA approve the 

operating limits proposed by Sumitomo 

Metal Mining Pogo (Pogo) for its small 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Notices 50281 

remote solid waste incinerator under 

NSPS for Commercial Industrial Solid 

Waste Incineration (CISWI) units, 

subpart CCCC at its mine facility near 

Delta Junction, Alaska? 

A: Yes. EPA accepts Pogo’s petition to 

establish operating limits for the 

incinerator under subpart CCCC. The 

petition was submitted 60 days before 

the initial performance test is scheduled 

to begin and it meets the criteria in 

paragraphs (a) through (e) of § 60.2115. 

The incinerator has no add-on control 

device and only fires propane as fuel 

with anticipated feedstocks of solid 

wastes but not hazardous wastes, which 

is consistent with 40 CFR 60.2115. Pogo 

identified the specific parameters to be 

used, including waste composition and 

charge rate, charge interval limit, and 

primary and secondary combustion 

chamber temperature and burn-time 

limits. The relationship between these 

parameters and emissions was provided 

by Pogo, and upper and/or lower values 

were proposed. Methods and 

instrumentation to measure and 

continuously monitor the operating 

parameters were presented, which 

include the installation of an electronic 

data acquisition system and the 

calculation of 5-minute rolling average 

temperatures. Compliance with the 

minimum temperature limits will be 

determined using the rolling 5-minute 

average. A rolling weight will be 

calculated with an averaging period to 

be determined based on the results of 

the initial performance test. The 

frequency and methods for recalibrating 

instruments were identified. 

Abstract for [1500010] 

Q: Does EPA approve an extension to 

the applicable performance test 

deadlines caused by a force majeure 

event in accordance with the provisions 

of 40 CFR 60.8(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), and 

(a)(4) for an affected facility located in 

Alaska, owned and operated by Clear 

Air Force Station (Clear AFS), that is 

subject to 40 CPR 60 subpart Y? 

A: No. EPA denies the extension 

request as it believes that Clear AFS 

could have taken steps to prevent the 

circumstances that led to the inability to 

perform the stack test in a safe manner. 

As stated in the supporting information 

you provided to EPA, which was 

included in a formal request submitted 

to the Alaska Department of 

Environmental Conservation (ADEC), a 

similar nearby facility (Eielson Air 

Force Base) had tested in 2011 the same 

coal at their facility under similar 

operational conditions and determined 

that the coal was explosive. The EPA 

believes that Clear AFS has an 

obligation (a general duty) to ensure a 

safe working environment under all 

conditions at all times and has 

knowledge and is aware of the nature of 

all materials under its possession. EPA 

also believes that Clear AFS neglected to 

take into safety consideration when 

making equipment purchase decisions. 

Abstract for [1500011] 

Q: Will EPA exclude the cyclonic 

burn barrel unit that Lower Kuskokwim 

School District (LKSD) intends to 

operate at the Chefornak School in 

Chefornak, Alaska from the 

requirements of 40 CFR part 60 subpart 

EEEE? 

A: Yes. EPA approves LKSD’s request. 

EPA determines that KSD’s request was 

submitted prior to initial startup of the 

unit, and that the incineration unit 

meets the criteria for exclusion from 

subpart EEEE (40 CFR 60.2887(h)(1)–(2)) 

for rural institutional waste incinerator 

units. The unit is located more than 50 

miles from the boundary of the nearest 

Metropolitan Statistical Area, and 

alternative disposal options are not 

available or are economically infeasible. 

Abstract for [1500012] 

Q1: Will EPA correct the operator and 

park name operated by and located in 

the Lake Clark National Park and 

Preserve for a previously denied 

exclusion from 40 CFR part 60 subpart 

EEEE for an incineration unit operating 

in Port Alsworth, Alaska? 

A1: Yes. EPA determination letter 

issued to the National Park Service on 

April 16, 2013 (Refer to ADI Control 

Number 1500013) applies to the 

incinerator operated by and located in 

the Lake Clark National Park and 

Preserve, and not to an incinerator being 

operated by Glacier Bay National Park 

and Preserve as erroneously stated in 

the response. 

Abstract for [1500013] 

Q: Does EPA determine that the 

institutional waste incineration unit at 

the National Park in Port Alsworth, 

Alaska can be excluded from the Part 60 

subpart EEEE requirements at 40 CFR 

60.2887(h)? 

A: No. EPA determines that the unit 

is not eligible for this exclusion because 

the application for an exclusion was not 

submitted prior to the start-up of the 

incinerator as required by 40 CFR 

60.2887(h)(1). It appears, based on the 

information provided by the Park, that 

the unit in question would meet the 

criteria of being located more than 50 

miles from the boundary of the nearest 

Metropolitan Statistical Area and that 

alternative disposal options are not 

available or are economically infeasible. 

However, subpart EEEE requires that the 

owner or operator of the incinerator unit 

must submit, before start-up, an 

application demonstrating that the unit 

meets the exclusion criteria. Refer to 

ADI Control Number 1500012 for a 

correction to the operator name for the 

unit. 

Abstract for [1500015] 

Q: Will EPA approve exempted status 

for a cyclonic burn barrel unit under 40 

CFR part 60 subpart EEEE that the 

Lower Kuskokwim School District 

(LKSD) intends to operate at the 

Atmautluak, Alaska school facility to 

incinerate dewatered sludge from the 

Atmautluak school wastewater system? 

A: Yes. EPA determines that the 

incinerator that LKSD intends to operate 

meets the criteria for exclusion for rural 

institutional waste incinerators and 

therefore is approving LKSD’s 

application for exclusion according to 

40 CFR 60.2887(h). LKSD submitted this 

request prior to initial start up of the 

incinerator as required by 40 CFR 

60.2887(h)(1). The LSKD School in 

Atmautluak is located approximately 

284 miles from the boundary of the 

Anchorage/Matanuska Susitna 

Metropolitan Statistical Area. 

Atmautluak is an isolated community 

with no road access and severely 

limited barge access. There is no legal 

and safe disposal site within 

Atmautluak. Sludge would have to be 

shipped to Washington or Oregon for 

disposal and this would be prohibitively 

expensive. 

Abstract for [1500016] 

Q: Will EPA approve exempted status 

for a cyclonic burn barrel unit under 40 

CFR part 60 subpart EEEE that the 

Lower Kuskokwim School District 

(LKSD) intends to operate at the 

Newtok, Alaska school facility to 

incinerate dewatered sludge from the 

Newtok school wastewater system? 

A: Yes. EPA determines that the 

incinerator that LKSD intends to operate 

meets the criteria for exclusion for rural 

institutional waste incinerators and 

therefore is approving LKSD’s 

application for exclusion according to 

40 CFR 60.2887(h). LKSD submitted this 

request prior to initial start up of the 

incinerator as required by 40 CFR 

60.2887(h)(1). The LSKD School in 

Newtok is located approximately 360 

miles from the boundary of the 

Anchorage/Matanuska Susitna 

Metropolitan Statistical Area. Newtok is 

an isolated community with no road 

access and severely limited barge 

access. There is no legal and safe 

disposal site within Newtok. The 

community has started a long-term 

project to move the village to a new 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
50282 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Notices 

location therefore there are no plans to 

open a permitted landfill at this current 

location. Sludge would have to be 

shipped to Washington or Oregon for 

disposal and this would be prohibitively 

expensive. 

Abstract for [1500017] 

Q: Will EPA grant a request for a 

waiver of the 30-day notification 

required prior to conducting a 

performance evaluation of a generator 

under NSPS subpart JJJJ at the Joint Base 

Elmendorf/Richardson (JBER) Landfill 

Gas Power Facility in Fairbanks, Alaska 

pursuant to 40 CFR 60.19(f)(3)? 

A: Yes. Based on information 

provided by JBER, EPA waives the 30 

day notice for performance testing 

pursuant to 40 CFR 60.l9(f)(3). JBER 

indicates that the notice is late because 

it just became aware that the State of 

Alaska has declined to be delegated 

authority to implement and enforce 

NSPS subpart JJJJ. 

Abstract for [1500018] 

Q: Will EPA grant a request for a 

waiver of the 30-day notification of 

performance evaluation requirement for 

a Guascor Model SFGM–560 

Reciprocating Internal Combustion 

Engine (RICE) at Farm Power’s new 

biogas production facility in Tillamook, 

Oregon pursuant to 40 CFR 60.19(f)(3)? 

A: Yes. Based on information 

provided by Farm Power, EPA approves 

this request pursuant to 40 CFR 

60.l9(f)(3). Farm Power indicates that 

the notice is late because it just became 

aware that the State of Oregon has 

declined to be delegated authority to 

implement and enforce NSPS subpart 

JJJJ. 

Abstract for [1500019] 

Q: Will EPA approve exempted status 

for a cyclonic burn barrel unit under 40 

CFR subpart EEEE that the Lower 

Kuskokwim School District (LKSD) 

intends to operate at the Tuntutuliak, 

Alaska school facility to incinerate 

dewatered sludge from the Tuntutuliak 

school wastewater system? 

A: Yes. EPA determines that the 

incinerator that LKSD intends to operate 

meets the criteria for exclusion for rural 

institutional waste incinerators and 

therefore is approving LKSD’s 

application for exclusion according to 

40 CFR 60.2887(h). LKSD submitted this 

request prior to initial start up of the 

incinerator as required by 40 CFR 

60.2887(h)(1). The LSKD School in 

Tuntutuliak is located approximately 

360 miles from the boundary of the 

Anchorage/Matanuska Susitna 

Metropolitan Statistical Area. 

Tuntutuliak is an isolated community 

with no road access, and severely 

limited barge access. Sludge would have 

to be shipped to Washington or Oregon 

for disposal and this would be 

prohibitively expensive. 

Abstract for [1500020] 

Q: Will EPA approve alternative 

monitoring under 40 CFR 60.13(h)(i)(1) 

of NSPS subpart Db for the multi-fuel 

Power Boiler No. 20 at the Longview 

Fibre Paper and Packaging, Incorporated 

facility in Longview, Washington? 

A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves 

alternative monitoring for the multi-fuel 

boiler to ensure compliance with the 

state PM limit since moisture from the 

controls and low stack gas temperature 

result in interference that makes a 

continuous opacity monitor (COM) 

infeasible. Longview’s boiler is already 

subject to a federally enforceable, state 

imposed, PM emission limit that is more 

stringent than NSPS subpart Db, and 

therefore, compliance with the Subpart 

Db PM limit is met. The conditions for 

approval are specified in the EPA 

determination letter. 

Abstract for [1500040] 

Q: Are the operations conducted by 

Magnetation, LLC, at their facility 

located near Keewatin, Minnesota, to 

produce an iron concentrate considered 

an affected facility and subject to the 

requirements of NSPS subpart LL? 

A: Yes. EPA determines that the 

operations conducted by Magnetation, 

LLC are considered an affected facility 

and subject to the requirements of NSPS 

subpart LL because it produces a 

metallic mineral concentrate and the 

operations meet the definition of 

metallic mineral processing plant at 40 

CFR 60.381. The definition for ‘‘metallic 

mineral concentrate’’ does not require 

that the concentration level be in excess 

of the historic source ore, and the 

finished product is higher in 

concentration than currently available, 

naturally occurring ore. The tailing 

material clearly came ‘‘from ore,’’ and 

the fact that Magnetation’s process relies 

on the previous plant having taken 

initial steps in concentrating the ore 

does not exempt your process from 

acting on material which came from ore. 

The beneficiation equipment produces a 

finished product that meets the 

definition of ‘‘metallic mineral 

concentrate.’’ Therefore, the equipment 

produces metallic mineral concentrates 

from ore. 

Abstract for [1500041] 

Q: Does EPA approve the Mattabassett 

District Water Pollution Control 

(Mattabassett) facility’s request for an 

alternative monitoring location for the 

water flow rate from the wet 

electrostatic precipitator (WESP) that is 

used to control pollution from the 

sewage sludge incinerator at the facility 

located in Cromwell, CT? 

A: Yes. EPA approves the alternative 

monitoring location for the water flow 

from the Mattabassett’s WESP unit 

under 40 CFR part 60 subpart A, section 

60.13(i)(4). 

Abstract for [1500042] 

Q1: Does EPA approve Boston 

Electrometallurgical Corporation’s 

(BEMC’s) proposed alternative 

monitoring to use a triboelectric 

detector to continuously monitor the 

relative particulate matter (PM) 

concentration of the exhaust emitted to 

the atmosphere from the submerged arc 

furnace, located at its Woburn, MA 

ferroalloy production facility, in lieu of 

a continuous opacity monitoring system 

to meet 40 CFR 60.264(b)? BEMC 

proposes to use EPA Reference Method 

9 to establish a relationship between 

opacity and the electrical signal 

provided by the triboelectric detector. 

A1: Yes. EPA approves the use of 

baghouse leak monitoring for the 

furnace meeting the requirements of 40 

CFR 60.48(o)(4)(i) through (v), as they 

relate to the use of its triboelectric 

sensor for opacity monitoring, including 

the development and submittal of a 

monitoring plan for approval. 

Q2: Does EPA approve BEMC’s 

proposed alternative to install and 

operate a continuous CO monitoring 

system (i.e., an Infrared Industries, IR– 

208 Gas Analyzer) that will sample the 

exhaust once every ten minutes in order 

to meet 40 CFR 60.263(a)? 

A2: Yes. EPA approves BEMC’s 

alternative monitoring to use the gas 

analyzer for measuring CO continuously 

in conjunction with other process 

parameters, such as temperature and 

flow, to ensure proper operating 

conditions. In addition, BEMC would 

have the flexibility to monitor CO 

periodically at other portions of the 

processes, e.g. furnace outlet. 

Abstract for [1500043] 

Q1: Does EPA approve Northeast 

Gateway Energy Bridge LLC’s (Northeast 

Gateway’s) proposed use of Method 22 

in lieu of Method 9 for opacity 

observations to comply with 40 CFR 

60.43b for each liquid natural gas 

regasification (LNGR) vessels that have 

boilers subject to NSPS subpart Db for 

the Northeast Gateway Port off the coast 

of Massachusetts? 

A1: EPA finds that Northeast 

Gateway’s request to use Method 22 is 

unnecessary because Northwest 

Gateway LLC only burns oil during 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Notices 50283 

startup and the existing NSPS includes 

a provision, 40 CFR 60.43b(g), providing 

that PM and opacity limits in that NSPS 

do not apply during periods of startup, 

shutdown, or malfunction. 

Q2: Does EPA approve Northeast 

Gateway’s proposed waiver request of 

the 30 operating day NOX performance 

test requirement in 40 CFR 60.46b(e)? 

A2: EPA is unable to grant a waiver 

at this time because Northeast Gateway 

has not yet demonstrated compliance by 

other means. However, demonstration of 

compliance with the more stringent 

Northeast Gateway air permit NOX limit 

through a performance test, combined 

with data collected with a certified NOX

monitor, may adequately demonstrate 

compliance with the Subpart Db NOX

emission limit without requiring a 

Subpart Db 30 day performance test. 

Q3: Does EPA approve Northeast 

Gateway’s proposed alternative to the 

30-day rolling average required by 40 

CFR 60.44b(i), where compliance would 

be demonstrated each calendar month, 

regardless of the number of operating 

hours that fall within a given calendar 

month? 

A3: EPA finds that the proposed 

waiver of the 30-day averaging period is 

unnecessary because the affected boilers 

at the Northeast Gateway Port are below 

250 MMBtu, and burn only natural gas 

and distillate oil. 

Q4: Does EPA approve Northeast 

Gateway’s proposal to use Method 22 in 

lieu of Method 9 for opacity 

observations under 40 CFR 60.48b? 

A4: EPA finds that Method 9 

observations will not be necessary 

under 40 CFR 60.48b since, under the 

permit, oil will be fired only during 

start-up periods. 

Q5: Does EPA approve Northeast 

Gateway’s proposal to modify the data 

requirements for NOX monitoring found 

at 40 CFR 60.48b(f)? 

A5: Yes. EPA approves Northeast 

Gateway’s proposed criteria that require 

valid NOX data for 75 percent of the 

operating hours that occur in each 

calendar month because the proposed 

data requirement will be more stringent 

than those at 40 CFR 60.48b(f). 

Q6: Does EPA approve Northeast 

Gateway’s request to waive all 

requirements under 40 CFR 60.49b(g) 

that refer to 30-day NOX averages and 

instead be calculated on a calendarmonth average basis? 

A6: No. EPA does not grant the 

request to waive the 30-day NOX

average requirement in lieu of a 

calendar month approach. EPA requires 

that when compliance must be 

demonstrated, it shall be demonstrated 

consistent with the 30-day regulatory 

requirement. Similarly, requirements for 

excess emission reports in 40 CFR 

60.48b(h) based on 30-day NOX averages 

apply. 

Q7: Does EPA approve Northeast 

Gateway’s request to perform periodic 

quality assurance (QA) testing required 

by the Part 60 appendices while vessels 

are not moored at the Northeast 

Gateway Port? 

A7: EPA will allow QA testing to be 

conducted while vessels are not moored 

at the Northeast Gateway Port if the 

testing is conducted in accordance with 

a test protocol and schedule approved 

by EPA. 

Q8: Does EPA approve Northeast 

Gateway’s proposal to perform a 

Relative Accuracy Audit (RAA) using 

three 60 minute runs in lieu of 

conducting the nine 21 minute runs of 

a RATA as required by Appendix F of 

Part 60? 

A8: No. EPA does not approve this 

request because the nine run relative 

accuracy test audits (RATA) test are 

necessary to provide a statistically 

significant data set with which to certify 

the CEMS. 

Q9: Does EPA approve Northeast 

Gateway’s request that the RATA test 

frequency be reduced to initial 

performance testing and at least once 

every 5 years thereafter as required by 

Appendix F of Part 60? 

A9: No. EPA does not approve this 

request. The RATAs must be conducted 

once every four calendar quarters, or 

upon the next visit for each vessel that 

has visited the Northeast Gateway Port 

after the previous successful RATA, if 

more than four calendar quarters have 

passed since that vessel’s last successful 

RATA. 

Q10: Does EPA approve Northeast 

Gateway’s proposal that cylinder gas 

audits (CGAs) required by Appendix F 

of Part 60 be performed once per 

calendar quarter, or upon the next visit 

of a vessel to the Northeast Gateway 

Port after the previous CGA, if more 

than one calendar quarter has passed 

since that vessel’s last visit to the 

Northeast Gateway Port? 

A10: Yes. EPA approves the proposed 

CGA schedule. 

Q11: Does EPA approve Northeast 

Gateway’s proposal to modify the 7 day 

calibration drift test requirement in 

Performance Specification 2 (‘‘PS2’’) of 

Part 60 Appendix B? 

A11: No. EPA does not approve this 

modification. However, as stated in A7 

above, EPA is willing to provide some 

flexibility in allowing the drift test to be 

conducted when the LNGRV is not 

moored at the facility. 

Q12: Does EPA approve Northeast 

Gateway’s proposal to waive the 

retrospective invalidation of data for CD 

checks exceeding four times the 

specification and instead consider the 

‘‘out of control’’ period only to apply to 

data after a CD check that exceeds four 

times the drift specification? 

A12: No. EPA does not approve this 

request for waiver. Procedure 1 in 

Appendix F of 40 CFR part 60 defines 

the out of control period as beginning 

with the completion of the fifth 

consecutive daily calibration drift check 

that exceeds twice the drift specification 

(2.5 percent of span), or with the 

completion of the last daily CD check 

preceding a CD check that exceeds four 

times the drift specification. 

Abstract for [1500044] 

Q1: Does EPA approve Phillips 

Academy’s (Phillips’) request to track 

actual monthly oil usage under 40 CFR 

60.48c(g)(1) when natural gas supplies 

are interrupted to its boilers at Phillips’ 

facility in Andover, Massachusetts? 

Phillips currently operates three dualfuel capable boilers with input 

capacities of 40.79 MMBtu/hr, which 

are subject to NSPS subpart Dc and 

other applicable Massachusetts permit 

requirements. The facility is currently 

required to maintain daily records of 

fuel consumption. 

A1: Yes. EPA conditionally approves 

a decrease in fuel usage recordkeeping 

from daily to monthly records for 

Phillips’ boilers if the facility uses 

natural gas as the primary fuel and 

distillate oil with a sulfur content no 

greater than 0.5 percent as the back-up 

fuel. 

Q2: Does EPA approve Phillips’ 

request to submit annual reports to EPA 

under 40 CFR 60.48c(j), instead of 

semiannual reports? 

A2: Yes. EPA conditionally approves 

a decrease in the reporting frequency 

under subpart Dc based on Phillips’ 

records that the facility has operated 

exclusively on natural gas for the past 

eight years, with the exception of 

limited operation on oil with a with a 

sulfur content no greater than 0.5 

percent for periodic testing and 

maintenance. If Phillips’ 30-day rolling 

average sulfur content of the fuel 

exceeds 0.5%, the facility must 

immediately resume daily fuel use 

record keeping. 

Abstract for [1500045] 

Q1: Does EPA approve the University 

of Massachusetts Lowell’s (UMASS 

Lowell’s) request to track actual 

monthly, instead of daily, oil usage 

under 40 CFR 60.48c(g)(1) when natural 

gas supplies are interrupted to its dualfuel boilers subject to NSPS subpart Dc 

at its Lowell, Massachusetts facility? 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
50284 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Notices 

A1: Yes. EPA conditionally approves 

a decrease in the reporting frequency for 

the boilers based on the facility’s 

records that UMASS Lowell’s has 

operated using natural gas as the 

primary fuel and distillate oil with a 

sulfur content no greater than 0.5 

percent as the back-up fuel. 

Q2: Does EPA approve UMASS 

Lowell’s request to submit annual 

reports under 40 CFR 60.48c(j), instead 

of on a semi-annual basis? 

A2: Yes. EPA conditionally approves 

a decrease in the reporting frequency 

under 40 CFR part 60 subpart Dc based 

on UMASS Lowell’ records that the 

facility operates almost exclusively on 

natural gas, with the exception of when 

natural gas supplies were interrupted. 

Abstract for [1500047] 

Q: Is the new tube manufacturing 

operation at Elektrisola Incorporated’s 

Boscawen, New Hampshire facility 

subject to 40 CFR part 60 subpart TT? 

A: No. Based on the information 

provided by the New Hampshire 

Department of Environmental Services 

(NHDES), EPA determines that 

Elektrisola’s new tubing operation does 

not meet the definition of metal coil 

surface coating operation in section 

60.461 because it is applying an organic 

coating to metal wire, rather than a 

metal strip. Therefore, Elektrisola’s 

operation is not subject to NSPS subpart 

TT. 

Abstract for [1500048] 

Q: Are JP Energy’s pipeline station 

storage vessels at several locations in 

Kansas subject to NSPS subpart OOOO? 

A: Yes. EPA determines that the 

storage vessels are located in the ‘‘oil 

production segment’’ and are affected 

facilities subject to NSPS subpart 

OOOO. The operations described by JP 

Energy, which transfer the oil from the 

wellhead tank loaded on a truck, and 

transported to another storage vessel 

prior to the pipeline (emphasis added), 

are transfer operations prior to the 

pipeline; as such, they are within the 

‘‘oil production segment’’ per 40 CFR 

60.5365(d) definition. Therefore, the 

storage vessels in question meet the 

criteria for storage vessels affected 

facility at 40 CFR 60.5365(e). 

Abstract for [M140017] 

Q: Will EPA approve a one-year 

compliance extension for the Power 

Boiler (PB–7) under 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart DDDDD at the RockTenn CP, 

LLC’s pulp and paperboard mill in 

Tacoma, Washington (Tacoma Mill)? 

A: No. EPA determines that although 

Tacoma Mill identified various potential 

control technology options, specific 

controls were not clearly identified, 

which is a criteria under 40 CFR 

63.6(i)(6)(i)(A) for approval of an 

extension of the compliance deadline. 

Abstract for [M140018] 

Q: Will EPA grant an initial 

performance testing waiver for Aurora 

Energy, LLC’s (Aurora) two coal fired 

boilers, Emission Units (EUs) 5 and 6, 

which are identical in design and 

manufacture to EU4, at the Chena Power 

Plant in Fairbanks, Alaska? 

A: No. Based on the information 

provided, EPA denies Aurora’s request 

for a waiver from the Part 63 subpart 

JJJJJJ initial performance testing for EUs 

5 and 6. EPA determines that 

insufficient information has been 

provided to support a conclusion that 

EUs 4, 5, and 6 are identical, and have 

been operated and maintained in a 

similar manner necessary to support a 

waiver request. The age of the boilers 

makes it less likely they may be 

identical, which appears to be the case 

for EU 6 based on the nameplate photos. 

Additionally, there has been no 

historical test data submitted to 

demonstrate low variability in 

emissions over time. The fuel, coal, has 

also not been demonstrated to have low 

variability over time. 

Abstract for [M150001] 

Q: Will EPA approve an alternative to 

the monitoring requirement for 

installation of a non-resettable hour 

meter for the approximately 74 existing 

stationary emergency engines subject to 

40 CFR part 63 subpart ZZZZ, the 

NESHAP for Stationary Reciprocating 

Internal Combustion Engines, which are 

operated by BP Exploration Alaska 

(BPXA) on the North Slope of Alaska? 

A: No. EPA determines that the 

alternative monitoring approach is not 

acceptable because the automated 

engine hour tracking system in use by 

BPXA is not sufficient on its own to 

meet the rule requirement of 40 CFR 

63.6625(f) since it is not ‘‘nonresettable.’’ Since BPXA can adjust the 

automated system hour log, it would not 

be ‘‘non-resettable’’ as required by the 

NESHAP subpart ZZZZ. 

Abstract for [M150002] 

Q: Will EPA grant a one year 

extension to the compliance deadline 

for four coal-fired boilers subject to the 

Area Source NESHAP for boilers, 

subpart JJJJJJ, located at the Pacific Air 

Forces, Eielson Air Force Based Central 

Heat and Power Plant in Eielson, 

Alaska? 

A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves 

the one year extension to the 

compliance deadline for carbon 

monoxide (CO). EPA determines that 

additional time is warranted due to the 

short construction season in Alaska, 

uncertainty regarding the final rule 

requirements due to reconsideration 

amendments, and government 

procurement procedures. Approval is 

conditioned upon Eielson complying 

with the applicable emission and 

operating limits and compliance 

demonstration procedures by March 21, 

2015; meeting interim compliance 

deadlines specified in the approval 

letter; and meeting tune-up 

requirements that are required of boilers 

below 10 MMBTU/hr during the time 

period while the compliance extension 

applies. 

Abstract for [M150003] 

Q: Will EPA grant a one year 

compliance extension to Hilcorp Alaska 

for five stationary reciprocating internal 

combustion engines (RICE) subject to 

NESHAP subpart ZZZZ, which are 

located on the Anna, Dillon, and 

Monopod Platforms in Alaska’s Cook 

Inlet region? 

A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves 

the one-year extension to the 

compliance deadline for all three 

platforms that are area sources. EPA 

determines that additional time is 

warranted because of the short 

construction season in Alaska, 

uncertainty regarding the final rule 

requirements due to reconsideration of 

the regulation, and difficulties in 

procuring the control equipment due to 

increased demand throughout the 

industry as the compliance deadline 

approaches. Approval is conditioned on 

Hilcorp complying with the applicable 

equipment standards, catalyst 

installation and compliance 

demonstration procedures by October 

19, 2014; meeting specified interim 

compliance deadlines; and complying 

with the work or management practices 

for remote stationary RICE by October 

19, 2013. 

Abstract for [M150004] 

Q: Will EPA grant a one year 

extension to the compliance deadline to 

Hilcorp Alaska for a stationary 

reciprocating internal combustion 

engine (RICE) subject to the NESHAP for 

RICE, 40 CFR part 63 subpart ZZZZ, 

which is located on the Falls Creek Pad 

in Alaska’s South Kenai region? 

A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves 

the one-year extension to the 

compliance deadline for the unit that is 

not a remote stationary RICE located at 

an area source facility. EPA determines 

that additional time is warranted 

because of the short construction season 

in Alaska, uncertainty regarding the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Notices 50285 

final rule requirements due to 

reconsideration of the regulation, and 

difficulties in procuring the control 

equipment due to increased demand 

throughout the industry as the 

compliance deadline approaches. 

Approval is conditioned upon Hilcorp 

complying with the applicable 

equipment standards, catalyst 

installation and compliance 

demonstration procedures by October 

19, 2014; meeting interim compliance 

deadlines specified in the approval 

letter; and complying with the work or 

management practices for remote 

stationary RICE by October 19, 2013. 

Abstract for [M150005] 

Q: Will EPA grant a one-year 

compliance extension for two stationary 

reciprocating internal combustion 

engines (RICE) subject to NESHAP 

subpart ZZZZ, which are located at the 

North Slope Borough (NSB) Nuiqsut 

Power Plant in Barrow, Alaska? 

A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves 

the one-year extension to the 

compliance deadline for the two 

existing gas-fired spark ignition units 

that are not remote stationary RICE and 

that operate more than 24 hours per 

calendar year at an area source facility. 

EPA determines that additional time is 

warranted because of the short 

construction season in Alaska, 

uncertainty regarding the final rule 

requirements due to reconsideration of 

the regulation, funding cycles for 

municipalities, and difficulties in 

procuring the control equipment due to 

increased demand throughout the 

industry as the compliance deadline 

approaches. Approval is conditioned on 

NSB complying with the applicable 

equipment standards, catalyst 

installation and compliance 

demonstration procedures by October 

19, 2014; meeting specified interim 

compliance deadlines; and complying 

with the work or management practices 

for remote stationary RICE by October 

19, 2013. 

Abstract for [M150006] 

Q: Will EPA accept a 2009 

performance test as the initial 

performance test to demonstrate 

compliance for a stationary 

reciprocating internal combustion 

engine (RICE) subject to the NESHAP 

subpart ZZZZ at and located at 

Washington State University (WSU) in 

Pullman, Washington? 

A: No. EPA does not approve the use 

of the 2009 performance test data to 

serve as the initial performance test for 

the RICE unit because a prior test can 

only be used if it is not older than two 

years pursuant to 40 CFR 63.6612(b)(2). 

Therefore, an initial test must be 

conducted within 180 days after the 

compliance date, by October 30, 2013. 

Abstract for [M150007] 

Q: Does EPA determine that engines 

located at the High Frequency Active 

Auroral Research Program (HAARP) 

facility near Gakona, Alaska are subject 

to the National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Stationary 

Reciprocating Internal Combustion 

Engines (RICE) at 40 CFR part 63 

subpart ZZZZ? The facility is owned by 

the Air Force and operated by Marsh 

Creek, LLC through the Office of Naval 

Research. 

A: Yes. EPA determines that the 

engines, as described, are RICE and 

therefore subject to Part 63 subpart 

ZZZZ. The engines would be required to 

meet the applicable numerical emission 

limitations detailed in Table 2d and 

applicable operating limitations in 

Table 2b of NESHAP subpart ZZZZ for 

the type of existing stationary engine 

located at area sources of HAP, as 

detailed in the EPA determination letter. 

Abstract for [M150008] 

Q: Can the Eielson Air Force Base’s 

existing compression ignition, 2-stroke, 

greater than 500 horsepower, 

Electromotive Diesel (EMD) engine 

installed in 1987 at the Base’s Central 

Heat and Power Plant be designated as 

a black start engine exclusively and 

therefore subject to the corresponding 

requirements for that type of engine if 

the EMD engine is no longer used for 

any peak shaving? 

A: Yes. EPA is responding with 

guidance to clarify that if the engine 

subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart ZZZZ 

is not being used for peak shaving after 

the May 3, 2013 compliance date for the 

engine, and the engine meets the 

definition of a black start engine, it is 

subject to the requirements under 

NESHAP subpart ZZZZ for a black start 

engine. 

Abstract for [M150009] 

Q1: Will EPA approve a like for like 

waiver from the initial and all 

subsequent particulate matter (PM) tests 

according to the provisions under 40 

CFR 63.7(e)(2)(iv) and 63.7(h) for the 

Moses Lake Industries (MLI) boiler 

located in Moses Lake, Washington? 

A1: No. EPA determines that the 

information used to estimate the 

emissions is not from a boiler unit that 

is located at the same facility as the unit 

in question. There is no assurance that 

the tested unit was operated and 

maintained in a similar manner as the 

unit in question. 

Q2: In case EPA is unable to grant the 

waiver, does EPA accept a source test 

plan and notification that MLI also 

provided in its submittal dated 

December 8th, 2011, stating that that 

they intend to conduct a PM source test 

on February 13th, 2012? 

A2: Yes. EPA accepts the previously 

submitted test plan and notification in 

question to meet the general provision 

source test requirements from section 

63.7(b) to notify EPA at least 60 days in 

advance of a source test. 

Abstract for [M150018] 

Q1: Can EPA clarify the applicability 

for the NESHAP for Major Sources: 

Industrial, Commercial and Institutional 

Boilers and Process Heaters, 40 CFR part 

63, subpart DDDDD; the NESHAP for 

Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication 

Operations, 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

MMMMM; the NESHAP for 

Reciprocating Internal Combustion 

!Engines, 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ; 

and the NESHAP for Paper and Other 

Web Coating, 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

JJJJ for Shawmut’s flexible substrate 

lamination facility located in West 

Bridgewater, MA if the facility is now 

an area source? 

A1: EPA determines that Shawmut is 

no longer subject to 40 CFR part 63 

subparts JJJJ, MMMMM, and DDDDD. 

Shawmut is no longer subject to 

NESHAP subpart JJJJ because the three 

adhesive laminators (EUI) are 

permanently decommissioned. 

Shawmut is not subject to NESHAP 

subpart MMMMM because the facility 

ceased to be a major HAP source before 

becoming subject to any substantive 

subpart MMMMM requirements. 

Shawmut is not subject to NESHAP 

subpart DDDDD for its boiler and two 

process heaters (EU3) because EPA 

allows Shawmut to become an area 

source of HAP before January 2014, the 

first substantive rule compliance date. 

Shawmut’s existing spark ignition 

engine is subject to NESHAP subpart 

ZZZZ as an area source of HAP because 

Shawmut became an area source of HAP 

before the first compliance date of 

October 19, 2013, but subpart ZZZZ 

does not require area sources of HAP to 

obtain a Title V operating permit. 

Q2: Would Shawmut facility be 

required to maintain its Title V 

operating permit because it is no longer 

a major source? 

A2: No. EPA determines that 

Shawmut is no longer subject to the 

requirements of Title V operating 

permits based on applicability of these 

NESHAP subparts as an area source. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
50286 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Notices 

Abstract for [M150019] 

Q: Can EPA clarify the annual 

performance test deadline for Covidien’s 

ethylene oxide sterilization facility 

located in North Haven, Connecticut? 

A: EPA is clarifying that after the 

initial performance test, subsequent 

annual testing pursuant 40 CFR 

63.363(b)(4)(i) must be conducted 

within 11 to 13 calendar months after 

the previous test. 

Abstract for [M150020] 

Q: Does a dual-fuel steam boiler (Unit 

1) at PSEG New Haven Harbor Station 

in New Haven, Connecticut meet the 

definition of a limited-use liquid oilfired electric generating unit in 40 CFR 

part 63 subpart UUUUU? 

A: Yes. Based on the information 

provided, EPA determines that Unit 1 at 

PSEG New Haven Harbor Station meets 

the definition of a limited-use liquid oilfired electric generating unit in 40 CFR 

part 63 subpart UUUUU. 

Abstract for [M150021] 

Q1: Will the addition of heaters to 

Dragon Products Company’s existing 

finish mill in Thomaston, Maine subject 

the finish mill to requirements for raw 

material dryers in NESHAP for Portland 

Cement Manufacturing Industry at 40 

CFR part 63 subpart LLL? 

A1: No. EPA determines that the 

Dragon Products’ finish mill is not an 

affected source under NESHAP subpart 

LLL because it is processing granulated 

slag, and is not grinding clinker or 

blending the slag with clinker. 

Q2: Will Dragon Products’ proposed 

finished material dryer be subject to 

subpart LLL? 

A2: No. Based on the information 

submitted by Dragon Products, EPA 

determines that the proposed dryer is 

not an affected source under NESHAP 

subpart LLL because the raw material 

dryer would only be used to dry slag a 

product used in concrete and not used 

to dry a material for use in the 

production of Portland cement. This 

determination is revising a previously 

issued determination on the 

applicability of NESHAP subpart to the 

dryer issued April 8, 2014. 

Abstract for [Z150001] 

Q: Will the EPA determine that an 

amendment to Aurora Energy’s 

September 26, 2014 determination is 

warranted, to provide an additional 

compliance extension for the 

performance testing deadline for three 

area source coal fired boilers (Emission 

Units (EUs) 4, 5, and 6) under NESHAP 

subpart JJJJJJ at the Chena Power Plant? 

A: Yes. EPA determines that 

extending the NESHAP subpart JJJJJJ 

performance test deadline until January 

31, 2015, will provide for time to 

complete the repair and installation and 

ensure that TG #1 is fully operational 

and enable a representative test to be 

conducted on the boilers. 

Abstract for [1500052] 

Q1: Argos requests clarification of 

which emissions standards (40 CFR part 

63 Subpart LLL—The National 

Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants for the Portland Cement 

Manufacturing Industry (PC NESHAP); 

40 CFR part 60 Subpart Y—New Source 

Performance Standards for Coal 

Preparation and Processing Plants 

(subpart Y); and 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

DDDD—‘‘Emissions Guidelines and 

Compliance Times for Commercial and 

Industrial Solid Waste Incineration 

(CISWI) Units’’ (subpart DDDD’’) apply 

to the emissions coming from the PC 

Coal Mill at the Harleyville Cement 

Plant located in Harleyville, SC, that are 

combined with the CISWI kiln 

emissions, where the CISWI kiln 

provides heat for drying the coal, before 

being emitted directly to the 

atmosphere? 

A1: Based on the information 

provided by Argos, EPA made an 

analysis of the standards that would 

apply to the Harleyville PC Coal Mill. 

EPA determines that the Harleyville PC 

Coal Mill is subject to the requirements 

of 40 CFR part 60 subpart Y, specifically 

the standards for thermal dryers at 

section 60.252(a), because the thermal 

dryer is a thermal dryer per section 

§ 60.251(r) (1) and is thus subject to the 

provisions in § 60.251, § 60.252(a), 

§ 60.255(a), and § 60.256(a). When 

emissions from the thermal dryer (i.e., 

the affected facility) at the PC coal mill 

are combined with emissions from the 

CISWI kiln subject to emissions limits 

in subpart DDDD, the emissions exiting 

from the PC Coal Mill thermal dryer are 

not exempt from the standards in 

section § 60.252(a). Neither § 60.251(j) 

nor § 60.252(c) create an exemption 

from these requirements. We do not 

believe that any difference between the 

definition of kiln under subpart DDDD 

and the PC NESHAP precludes 

application of the subpart DDDD 

standards to the waste-burning kiln 

emissions that are routed through the 

PC Coal Mill and emitted out of stack 

2. Since the kiln is an existing CISWI 

unit, the subpart DDDD standards apply 

to the emissions coming from the wasteburning kiln whether or not those 

emissions are routed to another process 

before being emitted out of stack 2. 

Q2. Is the Harleyville clinker cooler 

an affected facility under the PC 

NESHAP? 

A2. Yes. EPA determines that the 

affected facility, in part, is each clinker 

cooler at any Portland cement plant 

according to § 63.1340(b)(2) (‘‘What 

parts of my plant does this subpart 

cover?’’). Information provided by Argos 

demonstrates that the clinker cooler 

meets the definition of clinker cooler at 

§ 63.1341. Therefore, the clinker cooler 

is an affected facility under the PC 

NESHAP. 

Q3. Which emissions standards (PC 

NESHAP, subpart Y, and/or subpart 

DDDD) apply to the emissions coming 

from the Harleyvill Kiln Coal Mill that 

are combined with the CISWI kiln 

emissions, where the CISWI kiln 

provides heat for drying the coal, before 

discharging to the atmosphere after comingling with the clinker cooler 

exhaust? 

A3. Based on the description 

provided in Argos’ letter, the Harleyville 

Kiln Coal Mill is a thermal dryer within 

the meaning of 60.251(r)(1) and thus, for 

the reasons explained in response to 

question 1, above, EPA determines it is 

subject to the applicable requirements of 

subpart Y in § 60.251, § 60.252(a), 

§ 60.255(a), and § 60.256(a). Regarding 

PC NESHAP and subpart DDDD, for the 

reasons discussed in the response to 

question 1 we maintain that the 

performance standards for the emissions 

from CISWI waste burning kilns apply 

when and where they are emitted to the 

atmosphere. And, for the reasons stated 

in response to Question 2, above, we 

also believe that the clinker cooler is an 

affected facility under the PC NESHAP 

and is subject to the emissions 

standards for clinker coolers, therein. 

Application of the more stringent 

emission limits to the combined 

emissions is necessary to assure 

compliance with each applicable 

standard. 

Q4: Can the PC NESHAP 

requirements for in-line coal mills be 

applied to the PC Coal Mill and the Kiln 

Coal Mill at Harleyville, independent of 

the PC NESHAP applicability to the 

kiln? 

A4: No. Based on the construction 

date of the kiln provided by Argos, EPA 

determines that the emissions 

guidelines established under subpart 

DDDD, implemented through a state or 

federal plan (as applicable), will apply 

unless the waste-burning kiln ceases 

burning solid waste at least 6 months 

prior to the CISWI part DDDD 

compliance date. Therefore, the kiln is 

not subject to the PC NESHAP and 

instead it is subject to subpart DDDD. 

Coal mills are not subject to the 

requirements of the PC NESHAP if the 

kiln is not a PC NESHAP kiln affected 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Notices 50287 

facility in accordance with section 

§ 63.1340(b)(1). 

Q5: If the PC NESHAP requirements 

for the kiln (which includes the coal 

mills) are not applicable, are the 

emissions from the Harleyville coal 

mills only subject to the subpart Y 

concentration and opacity standards? 

A5: No. The kiln emissions are routed 

through the coal mills so the subpart 

DDDD requirements will apply to the 

emissions exiting the coal mills, in 

addition to the subpart Y requirements. 

Q6: Do the requirements of Subpart 

DDDD apply to the Harleyville CISWI 

kiln emissions routed through the inline coal mills (i.e. the PC Coal Mill and 

the Kiln Coal Mill) associated with the 

waste burning kiln at the mills that were 

in place prior to April 2008? 

A6: Yes. Any re-routing or 

commingling of CISWI kiln emissions 

must not result in uncontrolled 

emissions directly to the atmosphere. 

We interpret subpart DDDD (or NSPS 

CCCC, when applicable) to continue to 

apply to all of the CISWI waste-burning 

kiln emissions, even if those emissions 

are routed through an in-line coal mill 

or other device prior to exhaust to the 

atmosphere. Therefore, regardless of the 

disposition of in-line coal mills as part 

of the waste burning kiln, the subpart 

DDDD standards applicable to wasteburning kilns apply to the emissions of 

the Harleyville kiln when and where 

they are emitted to the atmosphere. 

Q7. Which emissions standards 

(subpart Y, PC NESHAP and/or subpart 

DDDD) apply to the emissions from 

stack 2 at the Roberta Cement Plant 

located in Calera, Alabama, when the 

CISWI waste-burning kiln emissions are 

routed through the coal mill and used 

to provide heat for drying of the coal 

before being emitted to the atmosphere? 

A7: Based on the information 

provided by Argos, EPA determines that 

the Roberta coal mill is a thermal dryer 

within the meaning of § 60.251(r)(1) and 

is subject to the provisions in § 60.251, 

§ 60.252(a), § 60.255(a), and § 60.256(a) 

of subpart Y. 

Q8: Which emissions standards apply 

to the emissions from stack 1 at the 

Roberta Cement Plant located in Calera, 

Alabama, wherein the clinker cooler 

emissions are combined with the kiln 

emissions and sent to the raw mill to 

provide heat for drying before being 

emitted to the atmosphere? 

A9: Argos’s letter acknowledges that 

the Roberta in-line kiln/raw mill is a 

subpart DDDD affected facility. Also, for 

the same reasons as discussed in the 

response to Question 2 for Harleyville 

Cement Plant, the Roberta clinker cooler 

is an affected facility under the PC 

NESHAP. Argos must either comply 

with the most stringent standard 

applicable to the various emissions 

streams or establish a mechanism to 

apportion emissions to the various 

operations and seek an alternative 

methodology for determining 

compliance under section 60.8(b). 

Dated: July 10, 2015. 

Edward J. Messina, 

Director, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media 

Programs Division, Office of Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2015–20514 Filed 8–18–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2006–0955; FRL–9930–59] 

Product Cancellation Order for Certain 

Pesticide Registrations 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA’s 

order for cancellation of certain 

pesticide products, identified in Table 

1, Unit II, which were voluntarily 

deleted by the registrant and accepted 

by the Agency, pursuant to the Federal 

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide 

Act (FIFRA). This cancellation order 

follows a March 13, 2013 Federal 

Register, Notice of Receipt of Request 

from the registrant listed in Table 2 of 

Unit II to voluntarily cancel these 

product registrations. In the March 13, 

2013 Notice, EPA indicated that it 

would issue an order implementing the 

cancellation of the subject products, 

unless the Agency received substantive 

comments within the 30-day comment 

period that would merit its further 

review of these requests, or unless the 

registrant withdrew their request. The 

Agency did not receive any comments 

on the notice. Further, the registrant did 

not withdraw their request. 

Accordingly, EPA hereby issues in this 

notice a cancellation order granting the 

requested cancellations. Any 

distribution, sale, or use of the products 

subject to this cancellation order is 

permitted only in accordance with the 

terms of this order, including any 

existing stocks provisions. 

DATES: The cancellations are effective 

August 19, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Caitlin Newcamp, Pesticide ReEvaluation Division (7508P), Office of 

Pesticide Programs, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; 

telephone number: (703) 347–0325; 

email address: newcamp.caitlin@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

This action is directed to the public 

in general, and may be of interest to a 

wide range of stakeholders including 

environmental, human health, and 

agricultural advocates; the chemical 

industry; pesticide users; and members 

of the public interested in the sale, 

distribution, or use of pesticides. Since 

others also may be interested, the 

Agency has not attempted to describe all 

the specific entities that may be affected 

by this action. 

B. How can I get copies of this document 

and other related information? 

The docket for this action, identified 

by docket identification (ID) number 

EPA–HQ–OPP–2006–0955, is available 

at http://www.regulations.gov or at the 

Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory 

Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William 

Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 

20460–0001. The Public Reading Room 

is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the OPP 

Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review 

the visitor instructions and additional 

information about the docket available 

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

II. What action is the Agency taking? 

This notice announces the 

cancellation, as requested by the 

registrant, of products registered under 

FIFRA section 3 (7 U.S.C. 136a). These 

registrations are listed in sequence by 

registration number in Table 1 of this 

unit. 

TABLE 1—PRODUCT CANCELLATIONS

EPA Registration No. Product name Chemical name 

8845–39 .................................................... Rid-A-Rat and Mouse Killer ....................................................................................... Warfarin. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES