Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Notices 17697 

in person or online via a webinar on 

lessons learned after the release of the 

June 2015 Recommendations for Public 

Water Systems to Manage Cyanotoxins 

in Drinking Water. The agency plans to 

use this information to inform 

development of additional tools to 

support states and/or utilities. The EPA 

seeks to engage with stakeholders on 

information the agency can provide to 

support states and public water systems 

in addressing cyanotoxin public health 

concerns in drinking water. 

DATES: The public meeting will be held 

on April 29, 2016, from 9:15 a.m. to 

12:30 p.m., Central Standard Time. 

Registration and check-in begins at 8:45 

a.m. Persons wishing to attend the 

meeting in person or online via webinar 

must register by April 28, 2016, as 

described in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section. 

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be 

held at 77 West Jackson Blvd., Chicago, 

Illinois, Lake Michigan conference room 

on the 12th floor. All attendees must 

show government-issued photo 

identification (e.g., a driver’s license) 

when signing in. Please arrive at least 15 

minutes early to allow time to clear 

security. This meeting will also be 

simultaneously broadcast as a webinar, 

available on the Internet. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Members of the public who wish to 

receive further information about the 

public meeting or have questions about 

this notice should contact Hannah 

Holsinger at (202) 564–0403 or 

holsinger.hannah@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

a. How may I participate in this 

meeting/webinar? Persons wishing to 

attend the meeting in person or online 

via the webinar must register in advance 

no later than 5:00 p.m., Eastern Daylight 

Savings Time, on April 28, 2016. To 

register, go online to: https://

www.eventbrite.com/e/us-epa-publicmeeting-managing-cyanotoxins-indrinking-water-tickets22748127261?utm_term=eventurl_text. 

Teleconferencing will be available for 

individuals participating via the 

webinar. The number of seats and 

webinar connections available for the 

meeting is limited and will be available 

on a first-come, first-served basis. Early 

registration is encouraged to ensure 

proper accommodations. The EPA will 

do its best to include all those interested 

in either meeting in person or via the 

webinar. 

b. How can I get a copy of the 

meeting/webinar materials? Prior to the 

public meeting, a link to the meeting 

materials will be sent by email to the 

registered attendees; copies will also be 

available for attendees at the meeting. 

For persons unable to attend the 

meeting, please contact Katie Foreman 

at foreman.katherine@epa.gov to request 

meeting materials. 

c. Special Accommodations: 

Individuals with disabilities who wish 

to attend the meeting in person can 

request special accommodations by 

contacting Hannah Holsinger at 

holsinger.hannah@epa.gov no later than 

April 22, 2016. 

II. Background 

Cyanobacteria are naturally occurring 

organisms similar to algae. These 

organisms can occur in fresh water and 

may rapidly multiply causing ‘‘blooms’’ 

under favorable conditions. Conditions 

that enhance bloom formation and 

persistence include light intensity and 

duration, nutrient availability (such as 

nitrogen and phosphorus), water 

temperature, pH and water column 

stability. Some blooms produce 

cyanotoxins such as microcystin, 

cylindrospermopsin and anatoxin-a, 

which can be a health concern. For 

additional background information on 

cyanotoxins in drinking water, please go 

to: http://www2.epa.gov/sites/

production/files/2014-08/documents/

cyanobacteria_factsheet.pdf. 

The EPA released health advisories in 

June 2015 for two cyanotoxins: 

Microcystin and cylindrospermopsin. In 

June 2015, the EPA also released 

recommendations for public water 

systems on managing risks from 

cyanotoxins in drinking water. For 

additional background information on 

the health advisories and 

recommendations, please go to: http://

www.epa.gov/nutrient-policy-data/

guidelines-and-recommendations. The 

EPA’s goal for this meeting is to obtain 

information on state, utility and public 

experiences in managing risks from 

cyanotoxins in drinking water. The EPA 

is seeking to get input on lessons 

learned after the release of the June 2015 

recommendations document, 

Recommendations for Public Water 

Systems to Manage Cyanotoxins in 

Drinking Water. The EPA plans to use 

this information to develop additional 

tools or make modifications to the 

current recommendations document. 

Dated: March 24, 2016. 

Rebecca Clark, 

Acting Director, Office of Ground Water and 

Drinking Water. 

[FR Doc. 2016–07173 Filed 3–29–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9944–39–OA] 

Applicability Determination Index (ADI) 

Data System Recent Posting: Agency 

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 the Environmental 

Protection Agency (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) data 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: https://

www2.epa.gov/compliance/resourcesand-guidance-documents-complianceassistance. The letters and memoranda 

on the ADI may be located by date, 

office of issuance, subpart, citation, 

control number, or by string word 

searches. 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, 

monitoring decisions or regulatory 

interpretations, 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, 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
17698 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Notices 

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 regular 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 a data system on the 

Internet with over three 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 66 such documents added to the ADI 

on March 22, 2016. 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: 

https://www2.epa.gov/compliance/

resources-and-guidance-documentscompliance-assistance. 

Summary of Headers and Abstracts 

The following table identifies the 

control number for each document 

posted on the ADI data system on March 

22, 2016; 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 section 307(b)(1) For 

example, this notice does not convert an 

applicability determination for a 

particular source into a nationwide rule. 

Neither does it purport to make a 

previously non-binding document 

binding. 

ADI DETERMINATIONS UPLOADED ON MARCH 22, 2016 

Control No. Categories Subparts Title 

1500021 ....................... NSPS .......................... J .................................. Change to Alternative Sulfur Mon itoring Plan for Flare System. 

1500022 ....................... NSPS .......................... J .................................. Alternative to Hydrogen Sulfide Monitoring for Flare System. 

1500023 ....................... NSPS .......................... EEEE .......................... Applicability Determination for a Rur al Institutional Waste Incinerator. 

1500024 ....................... NSPS .......................... DD .............................. Regulatory Interpretation for Grain Elevators with Expanded Capacity. 

1500025 ....................... NSPS .......................... AAAA .......................... Applicability Determination for a Sma ll Municipal Waste Combustor. 

1500026 ....................... NSPS .......................... Y ................................. NSPS Source Test Plan Approval. 

1500027 ....................... NSPS .......................... A, DD .......................... Performance Test Waivers for New Des ign and Identical Units at 

Grain Elevators. 

1500028 ....................... NSPS .......................... A, JJJJ ........................ Test Waiver for Identical Biogas-fue led Generators. 

1500029 ....................... NSPS .......................... A, JJJJ ........................ 30-Day Advance Test Notice Waiver fo r Generators. 

1500030 ....................... NSPS .......................... CCCC, EEEE ............. Applicability Determination for Incinerator Burning MSW or RDF. 

1500031 ....................... NSPS .......................... Dc ............................... Applicability Determination for Bo iler De-rating. 

1500033 ....................... NSPS .......................... KKKK .......................... Request for Performance Test Waiver a t Combustion Turbine. 

1500034 ....................... NSPS .......................... Ec ............................... Alternative Monitoring of Waste Co mbusted. 

1500035 ....................... NSPS .......................... CCCC ......................... Applicability Determination for Incine rator Burning MSW or RDF. 

1500036 ....................... NSPS .......................... GG .............................. Monitoring at Turbines During Non-O perational Periods. 

1500038 ....................... NSPS .......................... A, JJJJ ........................ 30-Day Advance Test Notice Waiver fo r Generators. 

1500039 ....................... NSPS .......................... Cb, Eb ........................ Carbon Feed Rate Monitoring Waiver Re quest. 

1500049 ....................... NSPS .......................... KKKK .......................... Performance Test Waiver for Identical Turbines. 

1500051 ....................... NSPS .......................... J, Ja ............................ Alternative Monitoring Plan for Ta nk Degassing and Vapor Control 

Projects at Petroleum Refineries. 

1500054 ....................... NSPS .......................... NNN ............................ Alternative Monitoring for an Absorb er on a Distillation Unit. 

1500056 ....................... NSPS .......................... OOO ........................... Applicability Determination for Nonme tallic Mineral Processing Loading Station Enclosed in a Building. 

1500057 ....................... NSPS .......................... Ce, Ec ........................ Alternative Monitoring for Wet Scrubb er at a Waste Incinerator. 

1500058 ....................... NSPS .......................... J .................................. Alternative Monitoring for Wet G as Scrubber In Lieu of COMS at an 

FCCU. 

1500059 ....................... NSPS .......................... IIII ............................... Emergency Generator Applicabilit y with Respect to Readiness Testing and Commissioning. 

1500060 ....................... MACT, NESHAP, 

NSPS.

IIII, ZZZZ .................... Regulatory Interpretation of NSPS and NESHAP Emergency Internal 

Combustion Engine Provisions. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Notices 17699 

ADI DETERMINATIONS UPLOADED ON MARCH 22, 2016—Continued 

Control No. Categories Subparts Title 

1500062 ....................... NSPS .......................... Ja ................................ Alternative Monitoring of Hydroge n Sulfide and TRS in Sour Gas 

Routed to Flares. 

1500063 ....................... NSPS .......................... J .................................. Alternative Monitoring Plan for Wet Gas Scrubber at a Refinery. 

1500064 ....................... NSPS .......................... OOOO ........................ Alternate Reporting Schedule for Gas Pl ant. 

1500065 ....................... NSPS .......................... JJJJ ............................ Applicability Determination and Tes ting Waiver Request for Spark 

Ignition Engines. 

1500066 ....................... NSPS .......................... JJJJ ............................ Alternative Testing for Spark Ignit ion Engines. 

1500067 ....................... NSPS .......................... IIII ............................... Alternative Test Method Request for Compression Ignition Engines 

Switching to Biodiesel. 

1500068 ....................... NSPS .......................... J, Ja ............................ Alternative Monitoring of Hydrogen Sulfide from Portable Thermal 

Oxidizers at Multiple Refineries. 

1500069 ....................... NSPS .......................... JJJJ ............................ Alternative Test Method to Cutter A nalyzers for Emissions from an 

Internal Combustion Engine. 

1500071 ....................... NSPS .......................... JJJJ ............................ Alternative Test Method for Non-met hane Organic Emissions from 

Stationary Spark Ignition Combustion Engines. 

1500072 ....................... NSPS .......................... J .................................. Alternative Monitoring Plan for Hydrogen Sulfide Content of Refinery 

Fuel Gas. 

1500073 ....................... MACT, NSPS ............. ZZZZ, JJJJ ................. Alternative Test Method for Non-methane Organic Emissions from 

Stationary Spark Ignition Combustion Engines. 

1500074 ....................... NSPS .......................... Ec ............................... Deadline for Initial Compliance Te sting of a Waste Incinerator. 

1600004 ....................... NSPS .......................... DD .............................. Clarification of the Definition of Permanent Storage Facilities. 

A150001 ...................... Asbestos ..................... M ................................ Standard Practice for Comprehensive Building Asbestos Surveys. 

C150001 ...................... CFC ............................ C ................................. Regulatory Interpretation of Evap orator Coil Leak Repair Requirement. 

M150010 ...................... MACT, NESHAP, 

NSPS.

A, PPPPPP, KK ......... Request for Opacity Test Waiver. 

M150011 ...................... MACT, NSPS ............. ZZZZ, IIII .................... Applicability of Emergency and Certified Engi nes to NSPS and 

NESHAP. 

M150012 ...................... MACT ......................... ZZZZ ........................... Applicability Determination for Nonroa d versus Stationary Engine. 

M150013 ...................... MACT, NESHAP ........ HHHHHH .................... Applicability Determination for Vehicle Undercoating . 

M150015 ...................... MACT, NESHAP ........ A, PPPPPP ................ Alternative Visible Emission Monitoring at a Lead Aci d Battery Plant. 

M150016 ...................... MACT, NESHAP ........ MMMMMM, YY .......... Applicability of Tire Reclamation Facility to Carbon Black Production 

NESHAP. 

M150017 ...................... MACT, NESHAP ........ HHHHHH .................... Regulatory Interpretation of Applicability of Truck Bed Lining Operations to Area Source NESHAP for Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating. 

M150023 ...................... MACT ......................... LLL ............................. Alternative Monitoring for Particulat e Matter on a Common Stack at 

a Portland Cement Plant. 

M150024 ...................... MACT ......................... S ................................. Alternative Averaging Time for Inle t Flow Monitoring as a Surrogate 

for Methanol Destruction at a Pulp and Paper Facility. 

M150025 ...................... MACT ......................... ZZZZ ........................... Alternative Load Level for Pressure Dr op Measurement at Internal 

Combustion Engines. 

M150026 ...................... MACT, NSPS ............. ZZZZ, IIII .................... Applicability Determination for Internal Comb ustion Engine to NSPS 

and NESHAP. 

M150027 ...................... MACT ......................... ZZZZ ........................... Applicability Determination for Remote Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engine. 

M150028 ...................... MACT ......................... DDDD, DDDDD .......... Applicability Determination for Rotary Gasifiers as Process Heaters 

to the Boiler MACT. 

M150029 ...................... MACT ......................... ZZZZ ........................... Performance Test Waiver for Reciprocat ing Internal Combustion Engines. 

M150030 ...................... MACT ......................... DDDDD ...................... Applicability Determination for a Hybrid S uspension Grate Biomass 

Boiler under the Boiler MACT. 

M150031 ...................... MACT ......................... JJJJJJ ......................... Applicability Determination for Electr ic Generating Units under the 

Boiler Area Source NESHAP. 

M150034 ...................... MACT ......................... ZZZZ ........................... Applicability Determination for Backup Power Generator under RICE 

NESHAP. 

M150036 ...................... MACT, NESHAP ........ A ................................. 60-day Advance Test Notice Waiver. 

Z150002 ...................... NESHAP ..................... N ................................. Applicability Determination for Manuf acture of Colored Art Glass. 

Z150004 ...................... MACT, NESHAP, 

NSPS.

ZZZZ, Db, IIII, JJJJ .... Applicability Determination for Offshore Gas Port Emission Units. 

Z150005 ...................... MACT, NESHAP ........ ZZZZ ........................... Applicability Determination for Emergency Stati onary Internal Combustion Engines at an Institutional Facility. 

Z150006 ...................... MACT, NESHAP ........ ZZZZ ........................... Regulatory Interpretation on Minimizing Engine Idle Time for Internal 

Combustion Engines. 

Z150009 ...................... MACT, NESHAP ........ ZZZZ ........................... Regulatory Interpretation of Emergency Generato r Provisions under 

NESHAP Subpart ZZZZ. 

Z150010 ...................... MACT, NESHAP ........ ZZZZ ........................... Regulatory Interpretation on Rule Applicability to Stationary Engines. 

Z150011 ...................... MACT, NESHAP ........ ZZZZ ........................... Applicability Determination for Emergency Engin es to RICE 

NESHAP. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
17700 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Notices 

Abstracts 

Abstract for [1500021] 

Q: Will EPA approve a change to the 

previously approved March 22, 2011 

alternative monitoring plan (AMP) for 

Shell Oil Products Puget Sound 

Refinery (PSR) in Anacortes, 

Washington? 

A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves 

Shell’s revision to the PSR 2011 AMP. 

For the monitoring of H2S, PSR is 

requesting to monitor as required by 

NSPS subpart J, rather than the 

alternative monitoring method that was 

specified in the 2011 AMP. PSR 

requests that certain portions of the 

approved AMP stay in place to maintain 

approval of an alternative means for 

demonstrating compliance for three 

interconnected flares. The conditions 

that must be satisfied to allow PSR to 

rely on the AMP instead of utilizing an 

H2S continuous monitoring system 

according to subpart J are stated in the 

EPA approval letter. 

Abstract for [1500022] 

Q: Will EPA approve an alternative 

monitoring plan (AMP) for the Shell Oil 

Anacortes, Washington facility to 

install, maintain, and operate a total 

sulfur continuous monitoring system 

(CMS) as an alternative to a hydrogen 

sulfide (H2S) CMS, and to use sulfur 

data collected at the east flare to 

represent the sulfur content at the north 

and south flares? 

A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves 

Shell’s AMP for utilizing a H2S CMS. 

The conditions to allow Shell to rely on 

the AMP instead of utilizing an H2S 

CMS are stated in the EPA is approval 

letter. 

Abstract for [1500023] 

Q: Will EPA grant approval of 

exempted status under 40 CFR 

60.2887(h) of the NSPS subpart EEEE as 

a rural institutional waste incinerator 

for an incineration unit that Glacier Bay 

National Park and Preserve (the Park) in 

Alaska intends to purchase and install? 

A: Yes. EPA determines that the 

proposed incinerator meets the 

exclusion for rural institutional waste 

incinerators because the unit is located 

more than 50 miles from the boundary 

of the nearest Metropolitan Statistical 

Area, alternative disposal options are 

not available or are economically 

infeasible, and the Park has submitted 

this request prior to initial startup of the 

incinerator. 

Abstract for [1500024] 

Q: Are all on-site units at Kalama 

Export located in Kalama, Washington 

that were constructed after August 3, 

1978, subject to NSPS subpart DD for 

Grain Elevators when applicability is 

triggered due to expanded capacity? 

A: No. In its response to the 

Southwest Clean Air Agency in 

Vancouver, Washington, EPA explains 

that the rule applies to each individual 

affected facility at a grain elevator. 

Therefore, only the units that are 

constructed, modified, or reconstructed 

when and after the NSPS is triggered 

because of expanded capacity become 

subject to the rule. 

Abstract for [1500025] 

Q1: Does NSPS subpart AAAA for 

Small Municipal Waste Combustion 

(MWC) Units apply to gas combustion 

turbine that combust a small amount of 

non-condensable hydrocarbon gases, 

which is located at the Green Power 

facility in Pasco, Washington? 

A1: Yes. In a response to the 

Washington State Department of 

Ecology and the counsel to the source, 

EPA indicates that the NSPS subpart 

AAAA applies to the gas combustion 

turbine it is considered to be within the 

MWC unit boundaries and based on the 

capacity of the MWC. Based on the 

MWC definition at 40 CFR 60.1465, the 

catalytic pressure-less depolymerization process (CDP) begins the 

MWC since it is used to convert 

municipal solid waste into synthetic 

liquid petroleum fuel, which includes a 

small amount of non-condensable 

hydrocarbon gases. Since the noncondensable hydrocarbon gas generated 

by the CDP is combusted in the turbine, 

the compressor section and combustor 

section of the turbine at the facility are 

within the MWC boundaries. In 

addition, it is determine that the 

combustion capacity of the MWC, 

which would not include the capacity 

attributable to the flare since it is a 

control device, is within the applicable 

range of subpart AAAA. Furthermore, 

the Green Power operation does not 

combust landfill gases and the landfill 

gas exemption, therefore, is not 

applicable. 

Q2: Does NSPS subpart AAAA apply 

to the Green Power CDP if it operates in 

anaerobic environment, exposed only to 

inert gases, due to explosion hazard? 

A2: No. EPA determines that the 

Green Power CDP would not be subject 

to Subpart AAAA due to the absence of 

combustion if the plant is constructed 

such that there is no combustion of the 

synthetic fuel product. 

Q3: Does NSPS subpart AAAA apply 

to the Green Power proposed Algae 

Production Alternative whereby the 

non-condensable hydrocarbon gases 

produced in the reactor are routed to a 

biological treatment unit as a nutrient in 

the production of algae which would 

subsequently be harvested and 

reintroduced as a feedstock for the CDP 

process? 

A3: No. EPA determines that in this 

scenario Subpart AAAA would not 

apply due to the absence of combustion. 

Abstract for [1500026] 

Q: Will EPA approve a source test 

plan submitted by Eielson Air Force 

Base in Alaska for a particulate matter 

source test on six bin vent filters for a 

new mechanical coal tipper subject to 

NSPS subpart Y? 

A: Yes. EPA approves the Eielson 

source test plan under subpart Y. 

Eielson has incorporated the guidance 

received by EPA regarding the proper 

location for a testing port installation to 

address issues with inadequate duct 

diameter sizing for that bin into the 

source test plan. 

Abstract for [1500027] 

Q1: Will EPA, in consideration of 

difficulty in applying existing methods 

to new technology, waive the Method 5 

and a portion of the Method 9 readings 

for three ship loader bustle filters at 

EGT Development, LLC’s (EGT’s) Export 

Elevator facility at Port of Longview, 

Washington? 

A1: Yes. EPA grants EGT the waiver 

for the Method 5 reading required under 

the initial performance and for a portion 

of the required Method 9 readings for 

the three bustle filters for several 

reasons. There are technical difficulties 

that arise in performing the test methods 

with the new loading spout dust control 

system design. Specifically, technical 

issues arise with conducting the Method 

5 test where the loading spout dust 

control system has been moved to the 

bottom of the ship loader spout, and 

with conducting a Method 9 opacity 

reading while the loading spout is 

within the hold of the ship loading 

grain. These technical issues combined 

with the anticipated significant margin 

of compliance, the testing of other units 

with identical filter media at the same 

facility, and the opacity readings that 

can be performed justifies the waiver 

approval. 

Q2: Will EPA approve a waiver of 

initial performance testing for certain 

Donaldson bin vent CPV design 

PowerCore Filters (CPV filters) that EGT 

plans to install at this facility when they 

are in a group of identical units? 

A2: Yes. EPA waives the initial 

Method 5 performance test for certain 

CPV filters as outlined in the EPA 

approval letter. NSPS emission test 

results with Duraplex filter media show 

maximum emissions are an order of 

magnitude lower than the 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Notices 17701 

manufacturer’s guarantee (0.002 grains/ 

dscf), and two orders of magnitude 

lower than the 0.01 grains/dscf NSPS 

limit. Furthermore, the local air 

permitting authority will be requiring 

additional testing on a reasonable 

schedule and there will be a rotation of 

testing within a group, so that a 

different unit within the group is tested 

each time for any future performance 

tests. This applies to a total of 14 NSPS 

test units, which represents a group of 

identical units where that group is 

unique, has a unique air volume and 

aspirates a conveyor or facility with a 

unique conveying capacity. 

Abstract for [1500028] 

Q: Will EPA waive the requirement 

for Cargill Environmental Finance 

(Cargill) to performance test at two 

biogas-fueled generators under NSPS 

subpart JJJJ based on the test results of 

an identical (third) biogas-fueled 

generator at the Dry Creek Dairy in 

Hanson, Idaho? 

A: Yes. EPA waives the Cargill 

performance test for the three generators 

that are located at the same facility, 

produced by the same manufacture, 

have the same model number, rated 

capacity, operating specifications, and 

are maintained in a similar manner. 

There is a substantial margin of 

compliance documented by the prior 

performance test results that were 

submitted. 

Abstract for [1500029] 

Q: Will EPA waive the requirement of 

40 CFR 60.8(d) to provide notification 

30 days in advance of a performance test 

for recently installed biogas-fueled 

generators at Big Sky West in Gooding, 

Idaho due to winter weather conditions 

and the pending holidays? 

A: Yes. EPA waives the requirement 

to provide notification 30 days in 

advance of a performance test pursuant 

to the provisions at 40 CFR 60.19(f)(3) 

to implement it early in December due 

to weather conditions and the pending 

Holidays. EPA requests that you provide 

the exact testing date, a copy of the full 

testing protocol, and the results of the 

test once completed to the regulatory 

agencies. 

Abstract for [1500030] 

Q: Does EPA determine that Shell 

Offshore’s incineration unit located on 

the Discoverer Drill vessel, operated in 

the Chukchi Sea is exempted from the 

requirements of 40 CFR part 60 subpart 

CCCC for Commercial and Industrial 

Solid Waste Incineration Units pursuant 

to the exemption provided in 40 CFR 

60.2020(c)(2)? 

A: Yes. Based on the information 

provided, EPA determines that Shell’s 

incinerator qualifies for the exemption 

in 40 CFR 60.2020(c)(2) for units under 

a certain capacity that burn greater than 

30 percent municipal solid waste or 

refuse-derived fuel, provided that Shell 

keeps the records required to 

demonstrate that it continues to qualify 

for the exemption on an ongoing basis. 

Abstract for [1500031] 

Q: Does EPA determine that physical 

changes made to two boilers subject to 

NSPS subpart Dc owned and operated 

by Yakama Forest Products (YFP) at the 

Large Log Complex have de-rated the 

boilers’ heat input capacity? 

A: Yes. Based on the test data 

submitted following the physical 

changes of replacing the burners on 

each boiler, EPA determines that boilers 

No. 3 and 4 have been permanently derated to a heat input capacity below 30 

MM BTU/hr. YFP must ensure that oil 

pressure at the burners meets the 

conditions of this determination to 

remain consistent with the conditions 

during the source test that was the basis 

for this determination. 

Abstract for [1500033] 

Q: Will EPA approve Northwest 

Pipeline’s request for an extension of 

the deadline to conduct a performance 

test required by 40 CFR 60.4340(a) in 

NSPS subpart KKKK for a turbine 

located at the Chehalis Compressor 

Station? 

A: No. EPA determines that an 

applicable basis for waiving the testing 

requirement has not been identified. 

According to 40 CFR 60.4340(a), testing 

can be performed once every two years 

when emissions are less than 75 percent 

of the emission limit. Therefore, 

Northwest Pipeline must perform 

annual performance tests in accordance 

with § 60.4400. 

Abstract for [1500034] 

Q: Will EPA approve an alternative 

monitoring procedure (AMP)for 

monitoring the amount of waste 

combusted in the Northstar incinerator 

to demonstrate that the incinerator 

qualifies for the co-fired combustor 

exemption under 40 CFR part 60 

subpart Ec for Hospital Medical 

Infectious Waste (HMIW) Incinerators 

located at BP Exploration Alaska’s 

(BPXA’s) Northstar Development 

Facility in the Beaufort Sea? 

A: No. EPA denies the AMP because 

use of the proposed method to weigh 

only the HMIW incinerated, instead of 

weighing both the HMIW and the nonHMIW, will not assure compliance with 

BPXA’s claim that the incinerator meets 

the exemption for co-fired combustors 

under 40 CFR part 60 subpart Ec, as 

well as the exemption for ‘‘municipal 

waste combustion units’’ in 40 CFR 

62.14525(c)(2). 

Abstract for [1500035] 

Q: Does EPA determine that 

Andarko’s incineration unit located at 

various drilling locations within the 

Gubik and Chandler Prospects in Alaska 

is exempted from the requirements of 40 

CFR part 60 subpart CCCC pursuant to 

the provisions at 40 CFR 60.2020(c)(2)? 

A: Yes. Based on the information 

provided, EPA determines that 

Andarko’s incinerator qualifies for the 

exemption in 40 CFR 60.2020(c)(2) for 

units under a certain capacity that burn 

greater than 30 percent municipal solid 

waste or refuse-derived fuel. Andarko 

must keep the records required to 

demonstrate that it continues to qualify 

for the exemption on an ongoing basis. 

Abstract for [1500036] 

Q: Is fuel sampling required for two 

turbines owned by Black Hills 

Corporation that monitor under NSPS 

subpart GG custom fuel monitoring 

schedules for semi-annual periods in 

which the turbines have not operated 

for the entire semi-annual period? The 

turbines are located at the Glenns Ferry 

Cogeneration Partners and Rupert 

Cogeneration Partners facilities in 

Idaho. 

A: No. EPA determines that fuel 

sampling required by a custom fuel 

monitoring schedule is not required for 

semi-annual periods in which the 

turbine has not operated for the entire 

semi-annual period. Sampling must be 

done upon re-startup. 

Abstract for [1500038] 

Q: Will EPA waive the requirement in 

40 CFR 60.8(d) for Cargill to provide a 

notification 30 days in advance of a 

performance test for the recently 

installed biogas-fueled generators at Dry 

Creek Dairy in Hansen, Idaho? 

A: Yes. EPA waives the requirement 

to provide notification 30 days in 

advance of a performance test pursuant 

to the provisions at 40 CFR 60.19(f)(3). 

The source identified a date on which 

testing would be conducted. 

Abstract for [1500039] 

Q: Will EPA grant a waiver to Covanta 

Marion, Incorporated (CMI) in Brooks, 

Oregon, for the municipal waste 

combustor (MWC) unit load level 

limitations, under 40 CFR 60.53b(b)(2), 

for the two weeks preceding, and during 

the annual dioxin/furan and mercury 

performance tests for the purpose of 

evaluating system performance? 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
17702 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Notices 

A: Yes. For the purpose of evaluating 

system performance, EPA waives the 

MWC load limit for the two week period 

preceding, and during the annual 

dioxin/furan and mercury performance 

test. 

Abstract for [1500049] 

Q: Will EPA provide a waiver 

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

initial and subsequent performance 

testing requirement under NSPS subpart 

KKKK for three identical Solar Saturn 

T–1301 turbines operating under the 

same conditions on the same platform 

in the Cook Inlet at XTO Energy’s Kenai, 

Alaska facility? 

A: Yes. EPA grants the request to 

expand the November 9, 2011 waiver to 

Solar Saturn T–1301 turbine, serial 

number SDR–105092 under the 

condition that a different turbine will be 

tested each year on a three year rotation. 

If any tests exceeds 50 percent of the 

NOx emission limits, all turbines will be 

required to conduct performance tests. 

Abstract for [1500051] 

Q: Can EPA approve an Alternative 

Monitoring Plan (AMP) for Envent 

Corporation to conduct monitoring of 

hydrogen sulfide (H2S) emissions, in 

lieu of installing a continuous emission 

monitoring system when performing 

tank degassing and other similar 

operations controlled by portable, 

temporary thermal oxidizers, at 

refineries in Region 6 States that are 

subject to NSPS subparts J or Ja? 

A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves 

the AMP based on the description of the 

process, the vent gas streams, the design 

of the vent gas controls, and the H2S 

monitoring data furnished. EPA 

specifies the proposed operating 

parameter limits and data which the 

refineries must furnish as part of the 

conditional approval. The approved 

AMP applies only to similar degassing 

operations conducted by ENVENT at 

refineries in EPA Region 6. 

Abstract for [1500054] 

Q: Is the alternative monitoring plan 

(AMP) submitted to the Tennessee 

Department of Environment and 

Conservation (TDEC) for the distillation 

unit in Source B–99A–2 at the Eastman 

Chemical Company (Eastman) facility in 

Kingsport, Tennessee acceptable? 

A: Yes. Based upon the information 

provided in the AMP by Eastman, EPA 

determines that the AMP is acceptable 

since the proposed monitoring 

parameters (water flow rate, propionic 

acid flow rate, and propionic acid inlet 

temperature) will provide adequate 

assurance of compliance. We agree that 

three of the parameters that the 

company would be required to monitor 

under NSPS subpart NNN (propionic 

acid specific gravity, water specific 

gravity, and water temperature) will not 

be useful indicators of absorber 

performance for the source in question. 

For ongoing compliance demonstration, 

EPA also provides guidance on how to 

define excess emissions in terms of the 

alternative monitoring parameters. 

Abstract for [1500056] 

Q1: Does a silo or frame structure 

enclosing a railcar loading station at 

three separate Hi-Crush Proppant 

nonmetallic mineral processing plants 

located in Augusta, Independence, and 

Blair, Wisconsin meet the definition of 

a ‘‘building’’ under NSPS subpart OOO? 

A1: Yes. Based on Hi-Crush’s 

representation that the enclosed railcar 

loading stations are housed in structures 

with roofs, EPA concludes that these 

structures would meet the definition of 

‘‘building’’ in NSPS subpart OOO. 

Q2: Would the openings of those 

buildings be considered a ‘‘vent’’? 

A2: No. The building openings have 

no mechanically induced air flow for 

the purpose of exhausting from a 

building. 

Q3: Since these railcar loading 

stations are contained in a building, 

would the applicable particulate matter 

standard only be that fugitive emissions 

from the building openings must not 

exceed 7 percent opacity? 

A3: Yes. One emission limit option 

for an enclosed railcar loading station 

that is itself enclosed in a building is to 

restrict fugitive emissions from the 

building openings (except for vents as 

defined in 40 CFR 60.671) to 7 percent 

opacity, per section 60.672(e)(1). 

Abstract for [1500057] 

Q: Does EPA approve a waiver from 

the 40 part 60 subpart Ec requirement to 

monitor the minimum pressure drop 

across a wet scrubber that control 

emissions of acid gases (i.e., HCl) and is 

part of the emission control system for 

the Stericycle hospital/medical/

infectious waste incineration (HMIWI) 

unit in Apopka, Florida? The Stericycle 

HMIWI unit is equipped with a dry 

scrubber followed by a fabric filter and 

a wet scrubber and with a selective 

noncatalytic reduction system. All other 

applicable parameter monitoring 

requirements are proposed to be met by 

the facility. 

A: Yes. EPA approves the waiver 

request since the removal of acid gases 

is not dependent on the monitoring of 

wet scrubber minimum pressure drop 

and all other applicable monitoring 

parameters for the control system will 

be met. Monitoring of the other wet 

scrubber monitoring parameters 

identified in Table 3 of subpart Ec (i.e., 

the minimum scrubber liquor flow rate 

and the minimum scrubber liquor pH) 

will indicate if the scrubber is working 

properly. Further, compliance with the 

PM emission limit is achieved without 

the use of the wet scrubber based on 

information. 

Abstract for [1500058] 

Q: May an Alternative Monitoring 

Plan (AMP) be conditionally approved 

for parametric monitoring in lieu of a 

continuous opacity monitoring system 

(COMS) for a Wet Gas Scrubber (WGS) 

on a Fluidized Catalytic Cracking Unit 

(FCCU) subject to NSPS subpart J, at the 

Phillips 66 Company Alliance Refinery 

in Belle Chasse, Louisiana? 

A: Yes. Based on the information 

provided, EPA approves the AMP for 

the proposed operating parameters 

conditioned on the source conducting a 

performance test that demonstrates 

compliance and that establishes the 

operating parameter limits (OPLs) for 

the WGS. EPA approves the two 

proposed operating parameters, 

including the 1) minimum Liquid-toGas (L/G) Ratio on a 3-hour rolling 

average basis; and, 2) minimum slurry 

liquid circulation pump discharge 

pressure on a 3-hour rolling average 

basis. The OPLs are to be recalculated 

based on the average of three runs, 

provided the average PM emissions for 

the three runs meet the PM emissions 

limit of the rule in pounds per 

kilopounds of coke processed. 

Abstract for [1500059] 

Q: Is Capitol One National 

Association required to petition the 

Administrator under 40 CFR 60.4211(e) 

for approval to exceed the 100 hour 

readiness testing limit for emergency 

generators testing for commissioning 

purposes under subpart IIII for internal 

compression engines during the initial 

onsite commissioning process of its Data 

Center in Chester, Virginia? 

A: No. A petition is not necessary or 

appropriate. When a new greenfield 

source is under construction, subpart 

IIII allows emergency generators to be 

used as needed to complete the 

construction process, so long as Capitol 

One abides by the 100 hours limitation 

when the Data Center is in commercial 

operation. 

Abstract for [1500060] 

Q: Portland General Electric Company 

(PGE) seeks verification that the 

emergency diesel-fired emergency 

generators at its Carver Readiness Center 

in Clackamas, Oregon, run for 50 of 100 

hours total use to supply power, 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Notices 17703 

allowed under NSPS subpart IIII and 

NESHAP subpart ZZZZ, can be part of 

its Dispatchable Standby Generation 

(DSG) program. 

A: 40 CFR 60.4211 and 63.6640 

authorize limited non-emergency use of 

diesel engines that are classified and 

regulated as emergency engines. EPA 

determines that the language in 40 CFR 

63.6640 of subpart ZZZZ regarding 

emergency engines dispatched under a 

financial arrangement with another 

entity was not intended to prohibit 

utilities from dispatching engines that 

they own and operate under the 50-hour 

non-emergency operation option 

provided. 

Abstract for [1500062] 

Q: Does EPA approve revisions to the 

Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for 

monitoring hydrogen sulfide (H2S) 

concentration and determining the total 

reduced sulfur (TRS) concentration in 

the sour gas routed to flares at the Lion 

Oil Company El Dorado (Lion Oil), 

Arkansas Refinery, which are subject to 

NSPS subpart Ja? 

A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves 

Lion Oil’s revised AMP, which 

supersedes previous approvals to 

expand use of the approved AMP for 

determining TRS under NSPS subpart 

Ja, and that includes additional 

operating parameters, clarifications on 

sampling locations, and test protocol 

specifications. 

Abstract for [1500063] 

Q: Does EPA approve a revision to an 

Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) that 

has been conditionally approved for the 

wet gas scrubber (WGS) on a Fluidized 

Catalytic Cracking Unit (FCCU) at 

Marathon Petroleum’s refinery in Texas 

City, Texas subject to NSPS Part 60 

subpart J, be resubmitted for approval of 

a revision based on an additional 

operation mode at reduced charge rate? 

A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves 

the revision to the EPA-approved AMP 

based on the additional information 

provided by Marathon to add an 

additional mode of operation. The 

condition for approval requires 

Marathon to conduct performance 

testing to demonstrate compliance and 

to establish the operating parameter 

limits (OPLs) for the WGS at the 

additional FCCU reduced charge rate, as 

established in the EPA response letter. 

Abstract for [1500064] 

Q: Does EPA approve alternate 

semiannual reporting periods under 

section 60.5420(b) of NSPS subpart 

OOOO to run from April 1 through 

September 30, and from October 1 

through March 31, at the Atlas Pipeline 

Driver Gas Plant in Midland, Texas? 

A: Yes. EPA approves the proposed 

alternate reporting schedule to align the 

periodic reporting time period 

requirements of NSPS subpart 0000 

since it does not extend the reporting 

period that would be covered by the 

next semiannual report, as allowed 

under section 60.5420(b). The alternate 

reporting schedule does not extend the 

reporting period that would be covered 

by the next semiannual. 

Abstract for [1500065] 

Q1: Are the five City of Rock Island 

Public Works Department 880 HP spark 

ignition natural gas fired engines (plus 

one offline spare) at their wastewater 

treatment plant in Wisconsin 

considered emergency engines under 

NSPS subpart JJJJ? 

A1: No. Since the engines would be 

operated approximately 16 times per 

year for 270 hours, EPA determines that 

the engines do not meet the definition 

of emergency stationary internal 

combustion engines. Therefore, the 

engines are subject to subpart JJJJ. 

Q2: Can a waiver from performance 

testing be granted for the engines? 

A2: No. EPA cannot grant a waiver of 

performance testing for these engines, 

but due to the potential difficulties in 

testing, EPA encourages the City to 

request alternative testing if necessary. 

Abstract for [1500066] 

Q: May EPA approve an alternative to 

stack testing under NSPS subpart JJJJ for 

nine identical non-certified Riverview 

bio-gas fueled generators located on 

three farms (Riverview Dairy, West 

River Dairy, and District 45 Dairy) in 

Minnesota? 

A: No. EPA does not approve any of 

the five alternative options proposed by 

Riverview for its generators, which 

included: (1) exemption from ongoing 

testing for engines that meet the 

standard, (2) retroactive certification by 

the manufacturer, (3) self-certification 

through testing, (4) provide certification 

to manufacturers that have met the 

standards, and (5) test one engine and 

apply results to all nine. However, EPA 

does provide two alternatives, Modified 

Option 1A and 1B that could be used to 

demonstrate compliance. Modified 

Option 1A is annual testing for NO, 

NOX, CO and O2 using a portable 

analyzer. Modified Option 1B is to test 

each dairy’s engine sets at least once 

every three years, rotating annually on 

a three-year cycle. 

Abstract for [1500067] 

Q: May an alternative test method be 

approved for Hawaiian Electric 

Company’s four new compression 

ignition engines subject to NSPS subpart 

IIII at the Honolulu International 

Airport in Oahu that were certified on 

diesel but will be operated on biodiesel? 

A: Yes. EPA determines that operation 

of the engines on biodiesel would not 

void the certification if all of the 

following conditions are met: the 

biodiesel meets the requirements of 40 

CFR 60.4207(b), the manufacturer’s 

warranty includes the use of the 

biodiesel, and the biodiesel meets 

ASTM D6751. The engines must also be 

installed, configured, operated and 

maintained per the manufacturer’s 

instructions. 

Abstract for [1500068] 

Q: Does EPA approve an Alternative 

Monitoring Plan (AMP) for Evergreen 

Industrial Services (EIS) to conduct 

monitoring of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) 

emissions in lieu of installing a 

continuous emission monitoring system 

(CEMS), to monitor emissions 

controlled by portable and temporary 

thermal oxidizers units (TOUs) during 

tank degassing and other similar 

operations at refineries in Region 6 that 

are subject to NSPS subparts J or Ja? 

A: Yes. Based on the description of 

the process, the vent gas streams, the 

design of the vent gas controls, and the 

H2S monitoring data furnished, EPA 

conditionally approves the AMP when 

EIA is conducting degassing operations 

at refineries in Region 6 since it is 

impractical to use a H2S CEMS in a 

portable TOUs. The EPA response letter 

list the operating conditions for 

degassing operations and data which the 

refineries must furnish to EIS as part of 

the conditional approval. 

Abstract for [1500069] 

Q: May Derenzo & Associates in 

Livonia, Michigan use a TECO Model 

55C analyzer in lieu of Method 18 that 

will be used with Method 25A to 

determine nonmethane organic 

compounds emitted from an internal 

combustion engine subject to NSPS 

subpart JJJJ? 

A: Yes. EPA approves the request to 

use TECO Model 55C as an alternative 

to Method 18 for measuring methane 

since it should produce results similar 

to the ‘‘cutter’’ analyzers already 

allowed by the regulation. 

Abstract for [1500071] 

Q: Does EPA approve the use by TRC 

Companies located in Lowell, 

Massachusetts of a TECO Model 55C 

analyzer to measure non-methane 

organic compounds (NMOC) from 

engines subject to NSPS subpart JJJJ? 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
17704 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Notices 

A: Yes. EPA approve TRC Companies 

request for use of the TECO Model 55C 

analyzer in lieu of Method 18 to 

measure NMOC from subpart JJJJ 

engines, and the analyzer may be used 

by other engines subject to NSPS 

subpart JJJJ. EPA will announce this as 

broadly applicable to all stationary 

spark ignition combustion engines on 

our Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

emc/trnethods.html#CatB). 

Abstract for [1500072] 

Q1: Does EPA conditionally approve 

a revision to a previously approved 

Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) to 

allow for an automatic sampling system, 

and an associated flow meter for 

collecting and recording hydrogen 

sulfide (H2S) content, to be included for 

the West Operations Ground Flare 

(Multi Jet Flare), which is part of a Flare 

Gas Recovery System (FGRS) subject to 

NSPS subpart Ja, at the Motiva 

Enterprises Norco Refinery in Norco, 

Louisiana? 

A1: Yes. EPA conditionally approves 

the AMP revision based on how the 

automatic sampling system functions 

regarding the configuration and 

operation of the FGRS. The H2S 

concentration of the combined refinery 

fuel gas stream routed to the FGRS and 

the Multi Jet Flare was less than 1 part 

per million. This satisfied EPA’s 

condition for approval that the H2S 

content shall be inherently low. 

Additionally, the automatic sampling 

device samples the blended fuel gas 

stream before it is sent to the Multi Jet 

Flare, and there are no crossover points 

between the FGRS and other fuel gas 

streams. This satisfied EPA’s condition 

for approval that no crossover points 

shall exist in the fuel gas vent stream 

going to the Multi Jet Flare. Based on 

review by EPA Headquarters, Motiva 

also was authorized to use an alternate 

test method for testing and analysis, 

which removed the previous 

requirement to measure and record 

refinery fuel gas H2S concentrations 

using the Length of Stain Tube method. 

EPA’s ‘‘Conditions for Approval of the 

Alternative Monitoring Plan for 

Miscellaneous Refinery Fuel Gas 

Streams, dated December 7, 1999, are 

incorporated by reference, except for the 

monitoring provisions in Steps 1 

through 7, as described in the EPA 

response letter. 

Q2: What recordkeeping and report 

requirements are included in the 

conditional approval? 

A2: Motiva shall maintain the H2S 

concentration data from the sampling 

system and the alternate test method in 

the laboratory information management 

system. The gas flow data from the flow 

meter will be maintained in the 

electronic process data storage system. 

Additional records shall be kept to note 

when the FGRS is operating in either of 

two different scenarios. Quarterly 

reporting must be submitted, except 

more frequently under certain 

circumstances, as outlined in the 

conditional EPA approval letter. 

Abstract for [1500073] 

Q: May Derenzo & Associates in 

Livonia, Michigan use the TECO Model 

55I analyzer (which is a newer version 

of the previously approved Model 55C) 

in lieu of Method 18 and Method 25A 

to determine non-methane organic 

compounds (NMOC) emitted from RICE 

subject to NSPS subpart JJJJ or NESHAP 

subpart ZZZZ? 

A: Yes. EPA approves the alternative 

testing request for NSPS subpart JJJJ, 

provided that the facility follows all 

applicable requirements in Method 25A 

for sample heating, appropriate test 

procedures, calibration and 

standardization. Since NESHAP subpart 

ZZZZ does not require the measurement 

of NMOC that part of the request is not 

considered. 

Abstract for [1500074] 

Q: Can EPA confirm the proposed 

deadline for completing the initial 

performance test under 40 CFR part 60 

subpart Ec for the University of Texas 

Medical Branch’s medical infectious 

waste incinerator in Galveston, Texas? 

A: Yes. EPA confirms that the initial 

compliance performance test should be 

completed within 60 days of achieving 

maximum production rate, and not later 

than 180 days after initial startup as 

required under section 60.8 of the 

General Provisions. 

Abstract for [A150001] 

Q: Does the use of the PreConstruction Survey, as described in 

ASTM E2356–14 ‘‘Standard Practice for 

Comprehensive Building Asbestos 

Surveys,’’ demonstrate compliance with 

the ‘‘thorough inspection’’ requirement 

at 40 CFR 61.145(a)? 

A: Yes. If an owner/operator follows 

the steps described in Sections 1 

through 5 and Section 8 in ASTM 

E2356–14 ‘‘Standard Practice for 

Comprehensive Building Asbestos 

Surveys’’, it would provide a thorough 

inspection of the facility. However, EPA 

would not accept the Limited Asbestos 

Screen (i.e., Practice E2308) described 

in Section 1.5 as a substitute for the 

Comprehensive Building Asbestos 

Survey, and would not consider the 

Limited Asbestos Screen as a thorough 

inspection. 

Abstract for [C150001] 

Q: Do regulations related to ozone 

depleting substances under 40 CFR part 

82 prohibit the use of Leak Stop to 

repair leaks in residential air 

conditioning systems that contain 

chlorofluorocarbons? 

A: No. The use of aerosol chemical 

products such as Leak Stop are not 

prohibited as long as there is no 

‘‘knowing venting’’ or ‘‘knowing 

release’’ of an ozone depleting substance 

taking place. We do not currently have 

any information about the propellant 

used by the Leak Stop product. 

However, if it is propelled by a Class I 

or II ozone depleting substance, then it 

is banned under the non-essential 

products exclusion found at 40 CFR 

82.60. 

Abstract for [M150010] 

Q: Will EPA approve a waiver of the 

initial performance test according to the 

provisions of 40 CFR 60.8(b)(4) and 

63.7(h) for a new chemset chamber 

subject to the NESHAP for Lead Acid 

Battery Manufacturing, 40 CFR part 63 

subpart PPPPPP, and the NSPS for Lead 

Acid Battery Manufacturing, 40 CFR 

part 60 subpart KK, at the Johnson 

Controls Battery Group Inc.’s (JCBGI’’s) 

facility in Canby, Oregon? 

A: No. EPA is denying the requested 

waiver because the new unit is not 

identical to the previously installed 

units and could have a different 

capacity. While emissions are expected 

to be low, the initial performance test is 

valuable to verify the installations of 

new equipment. 

Abstract for [M150011] 

Q: Will EPA approve a National 

Security Exemption (NSE)for the 

Department of Defense to waive the 

performance testing requirements for 

twelve stationary diesel fired engines 

constructed between 2003 and 2009, all 

of which are subject to the National 

Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants for Stationary Reciprocating 

Internal Combustion Engines (RICE) at 

40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ, while 

five engines are also subject to the New 

Source Performance Standard for 

Compression Ignition RICE at 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart IIII, which are located 

at Fort Greely, Alaska? 

A: No. An NSE exemption is not 

necessary because 40 CFR part 63 

subpart ZZZZ does not require 

performance testing for emergency 

engines; according, an exemption from 

performance testing is not necessary for 

these twelve engines if they meet the 

definition of ‘‘emergency stationary 

RICE’’ under subpart XXXX. In addition, 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Notices 17705 

subpart IIII does not require 

performance testing for manufacturedcertified engines; accordingly, an 

exemption from performance testing 

under subpart IIII is not necessary for 

the five manufactured-certified engines 

located at Fort Greely. 

Abstract for [M150012] 

Q: Does EPA determine that the 

operation of an emergency generator 

owned and operated by the Union 

Pacific Railroad’s rail yard facility in 

Lane County, Oregon is classified as a 

stationary source under NESHAP 

subpart ZZZZ? 

A: No. EPA determines that the 

engine used to provide power 

restoration for emergencies at railroad 

tunnels in Oregon is a portable diesel 

generator. Because the engine has not 

provided power, or operated for 

emergency use, or any other purpose 

other than testing at the location where 

it has been stored for more than 12 

months, it does not meet the definition 

of stationary engine for that location 

under subpart ZZZZ. 

Abstract for [M150013] 

Q1: Does EPA determine that 40 CFR 

part 63 subpart HHHHHH, National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants: Paint Stripping and 

Miscellaneous Surface Coating 

Operations at Area Sources, apply to the 

process of spray applying vehicle 

undercoating? 

A1: Yes. EPA determines the process 

of spray applying vehicle undercoating 

is subject to NESHAP subpart 

HHHHHH. The undercoating would be 

considered a coating under the NESHAP 

definitions and would not be a sealant. 

It is generally spray-applied using a 

hand-held device that creates an 

atomized mist of coating and deposits 

the coating on a sub straight, just as are 

other automotive coatings. 

Q2: Does EPA determine that the 

exemption for facilities that do not 

spray-apply target HAP-containing 

coatings is available to part of a facility? 

A2: No. EPA determines that a facility 

that is not exempt must satisfy the rule 

requirements for all of their sprayapplied coating operations. If the facility 

spray-applies no target HAP, then it may 

request exemption from the rule. 

Abstract for [M150015] 

Q: Will EPA approve an alternative to 

the visible emissions monitoring 

requirement of 40 CFR 63.11423(b) of 

the National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for 

Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area 

Sources, subpart PPPPPP, for Johnson 

Controls Battery Group Incorporated’s 

facility in Canby, Oregon to shut down 

equipment per permit conditions if any 

visible emissions are observed rather 

than continuing to operate and conduct 

a Method 9 test? 

A: Yes. EPA approves this minor 

change in monitoring methodology 

pursuant to 40 CFR 63.8(b)(i) because it 

will be more stringent than that which 

is required according to 40 CFR 

63.11423(b) by the NESHAP standard. 

Abstract for [M150016] 

Q: Does 40 CFR part 63 subpart 

MMMMMM for Area Source Carbon 

Black Production apply to Reklaim 

Technologies’ tire reclamation facility at 

the Port of Morrow near Boardman, 

Oregon? 

A: No. Based on the information 

provided by Reklaim, EPA determines 

that the process at Reklaim’s facility is 

materially different from the ‘‘carbon 

black production’’ process that is 

subject to subpart MMMMMM. The 

process involves heating shredded tires 

in an oxygen starved environment to 

recover carbon black, oil and steel from 

the tires. As such the process does not 

fall within the definition of ‘‘carbon 

black production’’ and is not subject to 

subpart MMMMMM. 

Abstract for [M150017] 

Q: The Olympic Region Clean Air 

Agency (ORCAA) in Port Angeles, 

Washington asked if 40 CFR part 63 

subpart HHHHHH for Paint Stripping 

and Miscellaneous Surface Coating 

Operations apply to the process of 

spray-applied truck bed lining. 

A: EPA determines that operations 

that spray-apply coatings to truck bed 

liners, including color coatings, are 

subject to subpart HHHHHH, based on 

the definitions of coatings and sprayapplied coating operations in 40 CFR 

63.11180. Although the definition of 

‘‘truck bed liner coating’’ does exclude 

color coats, that definition is not 

referred in 40 CFR 63.11170, the 

applicability section for subpart 

HHHHHH. The lining operation is 

generally spray-applied using a handheld device that creates an atomized 

mist of coating and deposits the coating 

on a substrate, just as are other 

automotive coatings. 

Abstract for [M150023] 

Q: Does EPA approve Holcim’s 

particulate matter (PM) alternative 

continuous parameter monitoring 

system (CPMS) plan for the common 

stack venting exhaust emissions from 

different sources at their Portland 

cement plant in Florence, Colorado, 

subject to the National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

From the Portland Cement 

Manufacturing Industry, subpart LLL? 

A: Yes. Pursuant to 40 CFR 63.8(f)(2) 

and 63.1350(o)(4), EPA conditionally 

approves the use of one PM CPMS on 

the common stack whereby a sitespecific operating limit is established 

that corresponds to the results of 

performance testing demonstrating 

compliance with the kiln and clinker 

cooler emission limits. The conditions 

for approval are specified in the EPA 

response letter. 

Abstract for [M150024] 

Q: Does EPA approve an alternative 

monitoring plan that uses a longer 

averaging time for inlet flow monitoring 

as a surrogate parameter for monitoring 

methanol destruction in the Aeration 

Stabilization Basin (ASB) subject to the 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) 

from the Pulp and Paper Industry, 

subpart S, at the Clearwater Paper 

Corporation, Cypress Bend Mill located 

in McGehee, Arkansas? 

A: Yes. Based on the monitoring data 

provided by the company and 

performance test results, EPA approves 

the AMP request. EPA agrees that a 

daily flow is not representative of the 

actual hydraulic retention time in the 

ASB, whereas a nine-day rolling average 

inlet flow established per 40 CFR 

63.453(n)(4) provides an actual 

representation of the treatment system 

retention time. 

Abstract for [M150025] 

Q: Does EPA approve an alternative 

monitoring request to conduct monthly 

pressure differential measurements 

across the catalyst at load conditions 

within plus or minus 10 percent of the 

baseline load established during the 

initial engine performance tests outlined 

in QEP Field Services Company’s (QEP) 

Consent Decree, rather than the plus or 

minus 10 percent of 100 percent load as 

required in 40 CFR part 63 subpart 

ZZZZ for Stationary Reciprocating 

Internal Combustion Engines located at 

Chapita, Coyote Wash, Island and 

Wonsits Valley Compressor Stations? 

A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves 

the AMP request pursuant to § 63.8(t)(2) 

based on the performance testing 

negotiated as part of the QEP Consent 

Decree. EPA believes that it is 

technically appropriate to conduct the 

monthly pressure drop readings at plus 

or minus 10 percent of the load at an 

affected facility engine when the initial 

performance test that was conducted is 

showing compliance with the MACT 

ZZZZ. The conditions for approval are 

described in the EPA response letter. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
17706 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Notices 

Abstract for [M150026] 

Q: Do NSPS subpart IIII and NESHAP 

subpart ZZZZ apply to the engine of a 

mobile power generator in Springdale, 

Arkansas that is designed to supply 

electrical power on a temporary basis, at 

various locations within the Kawneer 

Springdale Plant, and does not remain 

at any location greater than 12 months? 

A: No. EPA determines that NSPS 

subpart IIII and NESHAP subpart ZZZZ 

do not apply since this engine is 

considered a nonroad mobile source. 

The mobile generator is a wheeled unit 

and its engine meets the criteria for a 

nonroad engine that it be by itself or in 

or on a piece of equipment that is 

portable or transportable. Furthermore, 

it will not remain in a single location for 

longer than 12 consecutive months. 

Abstract for [M150027] 

Q1: Is the stationary gas compression 

reciprocating internal combustion 

engine (RICE) at the Dimension Energy 

Company Coquille Bay, Louisiana 

facility a remote affected source under 

40 CFR part 63 subpart ZZZZ? 

A1: Yes. After reviewing the 

description of the RICE and its 

operations, EPA determines that it is an 

existing area source which meets the 

definition of a remote stationary RICE 

under 40 CFR 63.6675. 

Q2: What are the continuing 

compliance requirements for a remote 

stationary RICE? 

A2: The operator must: Perform 

prescribed preventative maintenance at 

certain intervals; maintain the RICE 

according to the manufacturer’s 

instructions; minimize startup time or 

develop a maintenance plan using good 

air pollution prevention practices; and, 

maintain records to demonstrate that 

applicable requirements have been 

completed. 

Abstract for [M150028] 

Q: Does EPA agree that the Callidus 

Closed Loop Gasification System 

(CCLGS) at the Del-Tin Fiber plant in El 

Dorado, Arkansas is exempt from the 

Boiler MACT, subpart DDDDD under 

the exemption at 40 CFR 63.7491(h) 

because it is subject to and complying 

with the Plywood MACT, subpart 

DDDD? 

A: No. The EPA determines that both 

the Boiler MACT and the Plywood 

MACT apply to specific components of 

the CCLGS based on a review of the 

design and operation information 

available for the Del-Tin Fiber facility, 

so the exemption at 40 CFR 63.7491(h) 

does not apply. The rotary gasifiers and 

secondary combustion chamber (SCC) 

are considered affected sources, 

specifically defined as ‘‘process heaters’’ 

under the Boiler MACT when 

combustion gases are not used to 

directly heat process material. The 

portion of combustion gases that 

directly flow through the dryer units are 

considered affected sources under the 

Plywood MACT (§ 63.2232(b) and 

§ 63.2292) and are thereby exempted 

from the Boiler MACT requirements 

(§ 63.7491(1)). However, any 

combustion gases from the rotary 

gasifiers and the SCC that bypass the 

dryer units and are used for indirect 

heat transfer to process material or to 

heat transfer material for use in a 

process unit are subject to the Boiler 

MACT (§ 63.7575). 

Abstract for [M150029] 

Q: Does EPA agree to accept data from 

a prior performance test in lieu of a new 

performance test to demonstrate initial 

compliance with 40 CFR part 63 subpart 

ZZZZ for six natural gas fueled spark 

plug ignition engines at the ExxonMobil 

Chemical facility in Baton Rouge, 

Louisiana? 

A: Yes. EPA accepts a previous 

performance testing for six engines 

conducted in lieu of implementing an 

initial test. The testing was done using 

the same methods specified in subpart 

ZZZZ, and was conducted within two 

years of the performance test deadline. 

Additionally, the equipment was not 

modified following the April 2012 

testing. 

Abstract for [M150030] 

Q: Does EPA agree that the RockTenn 

Hodge Mill Boiler in Hodge, Louisiana 

is a biomass hybrid suspension grate 

boiler under 40 CFR part 63 subpart 

DDDDD? 

A: Yes. EPA agrees that the boiler is 

subject to NESHAP subpart DDDDD 

since the description provided meets 

the definition of a hybrid suspension 

grate boiler found in the rule. Since 

natural gas and tire derived fuel (TDF) 

are also used, the facility must keep 

records to demonstrate the annual 

average moisture content is at or above 

40 percent. The facility must use natural 

gas for startup, shutdown, and flame 

stabilization, and use TDF when 

excessively firing wet biomass fuel. 

Abstract for [M150031] 

Q: Are three Electric Utility 

Generating Units (EUGUs) located at the 

Lafayette Utilities System (LUS) Doc 

Bonin Electric Generating Station in 

Lafayette, Louisiana considered to be 

affected sources with gas-fired boilers 

that are not subject to Boiler Area 

Source MACT, subpart JJJJJJ? 

A: EPA determines that the boilers are 

not affected sources subject to the Boiler 

Area Source MACT if all conditions at 

40 CFR 63.11237 are met. Gas-fired 

boilers are excluded from subpart JJJJJJ 

per 40 CFR 63.11195(e). A permit 

limitation is necessary to verify 

applicability requirements are met for 

each EUGU for burning fuel oil only 

during natural gas curtailment, and to 

not exceed testing hours with fuel oil 

during any calendar year. 

Abstract for [M150032] 

Q1: Does EPA approve an Alternative 

Monitoring Plan (AMP) for three 

Reciprocating Internal Combustion 

Engines (RICE) subject to NESHAP 

subpart ZZZZ at the Occidental Permian 

Terrill Gas Treating Facility for testing 

at less than 100 percent maximum load? 

A1: Yes. EPA approves Occidental 

Permian proposed AMP for a lower 

engine load be set as a maximum load 

for compliance demonstration. 

Specifically, we approve performance 

testing at the alternate lower maximum 

engine load with monitoring required at 

plus or minus 10 percent. The three 

RICE cannot operate at 100 percent load 

due to site-specific operations at the 

facility, and therefore cannot be tested 

at 100 percent plus or minus 10 percent 

operational capacity, as specified at 40 

CFR 63.6620(b)(2). If operations change 

such that the maximum load of the 

engines exceeds the alternative lower 

maximum load, the AMP approval will 

be terminated, and retesting will be 

required to demonstrate compliance 

with NESHAP subpart ZZZZ at the 

higher engine load. 

Abstract for [M150034] 

Q: Does EPA agree that the backup 

power generator at the Freddie MAC 

facility in Carrollton, Texas is classified 

as an existing commercial emergency 

stationary Reciprocating Internal 

Combustion Engine (RICE) that is not 

subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart ZZZZ? 

A: Yes. EPA determines that the 

Freddie MAC facility is an area source 

with a commercial NAICS code, and the 

backup power generator meets the 

exemption provided at 40 CFR 

63.6585(f)(2) applicable to emergency 

stationary RICE operated at an area 

source. This RICE, used solely for 

backup power generation, have not 

exceeded 50 hours for any activities 

during any one year period within the 

past two year period. 

Abstract for [M150036] 

Q: Will EPA provide a waiver to 

CertainTeed Corporation of the 60-day 

requirement under 40 CFR 63.9(c) to 

notify EPA in advance of the initial 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Notices 17707 

performance test at the GS Roofing 

facility in Portland, Oregon? 

A: Yes. EPA is granting a waiver of 

the 60-day requirement for a notification 

prior to the initial performance test 

pursuant to 40 CFR 63.9(i) of the 40 CFR 

63.9(c) requirement to enable testing 

during facility’s highest volume period 

with the maximum ambient 

temperature, which is will occur in less 

than 60 days. This would enable the 

estimation of what the emissions are 

during a worst case scenario to test the 

limits of our system. 

Abstract for [Z150002] 

Q: Does 40 CFR part 61 subpart N 

apply to the Bullseye Glass Company’s 

manufacture of colored art glass in its 

Portland, Oregon facility? 

A: Yes. NESHAP subpart N applies to 

the company’s manufacture of colored 

art glass. According to 40 CFR 61.160(a), 

40 CFR part 61 subpart N does not apply 

to pot furnaces but rather to each glass 

melting furnace that uses commercial 

arsenic as a raw material. However, 

based on information provided by 

Bullseye Glass including descriptions, 

photos and diagrams, EPA determines 

that the vessels used by Bullseye do not 

meet the definition of pot furnaces 

because they are not sealed off from the 

furnace atmosphere so that there is 

potential for emissions to escape with 

the furnace exhaust. 

Abstract for [Z150004] 

Q: Are boilers/engines/marine 

equipment on a liquefied natural gas 

carrier (LNGC) at the proposed Aguirre 

Gasport located approximately 3 miles 

offshore of the Puerto Rico Electric 

Power Authority subject to NSPS and 

NESHAP standards when the LNGC will 

be converted into a Floating Storage and 

Regasification Unit (FSRU) to be 

permanently moored at the GasPort? 

A: Yes. Based on the information 

provided, EPA determines that the 

FSRU is a stationary source because it 

utilizes boilers as the main propulsion 

devices instead of reciprocating internal 

combustion engines (RICE) and it will 

be permanently moored, except when 

there is a need to take the unit to safer 

water due to and special circumstances. 

Therefore, the affected equipment on 

the FSRU, except for non-reciprocating 

internal combustion engine (RICE), is 

subject to NSPS and NESHAP 

standards. All non-reciprocating RICE 

equipment on the FSRU is not a 

stationary sources because it falls under 

the definition of nonroad engines as 

they will be used on self-propelled 

equipment. Therefore, the NSPS and 

NESHAP do not apply to the nonroad 

RICE. However, the nonroad RICE must 

comply with the applicable nonroad 

engine standards in 40 CFR parts 89, 94, 

1039, 1042, 1043, 1045, 1048, 1054, 

1065, and 1068, if applicable. Specific 

questions on the requirements and 

applicability of a particular NSPS and 

NESHAP rules can be discussed 

separately on a case-by-case basis as the 

need arises. 

Abstract for [Z150005] 

Q: Are the 39 emergency stationary 

reciprocating internal combustion 

engines (RICE) at Los Alamos National 

Laboratory (LANL) area source facility 

subject to RICE NESHAP requirements? 

A: No. EPA determines that the 39 

emergency RICE at LANL are not subject 

to the RICE NESHAP because they are 

located at an area source that is 

classified as an ‘‘institutional’’ facility. 

The RICE rule excludes existing 

stationary emergency engines located at 

residential, commercial, or institutional 

facilities that are area sources of HAP. 

Note that the engines must meet the 

definition of ‘‘Emergency stationary 

RICE’’ in 40 CFR 63.6675. 

Abstract for [Z150006] 

Q: Northern Natural Gas based in 

Omaha, Nebraska asked that, under 40 

CFR 63.6625(h), part 63 NESHAP 

subpart ZZZZ for spark ignition 

reciprocating internal combustion 

engines (RICE) regarding minimizing 

engine idle time, if an engine does not 

complete start up within the thirty 

minute time limit, are there any 

restrictions on initiating another startup 

of the engine and/or the time frame to 

complete the subsequent startup? 

A: No. An engine does not need to be 

shut off if it does not complete startup 

within thirty minutes. However, any 

further activity after thirty minutes is 

considered part of normal operation. 

Multiple startups should be counted as 

separate events with a thirty minute 

time limit per event. If startups occur 

consecutively with short durations in 

between, they could be considered as 

one startup since startups are part of a 

single occasion where the engine is 

working up to normal operations. 

Abstract for [Z150009] 

Q1: May emergency Reciprocating 

Internal Combustion Engines (RICE) that 

currently do not qualify for the 

exclusion in 40 CFR 63.6585(f)(2) 

because they are contractually obligated 

to be available for more than 15 hours 

for the purposes specified at 40 CFR 

63.6640(f)(2)(ii) and (iii) and (f)(4)(ii), 

later qualify for exclusion once those 

contracts expire, provided that the other 

conditions of 40 CFR 63.6585(f)(2) are 

met? 

A1: If an emergency stationary RICE 

does not meet the conditions for the 

exclusion in 40 CFR 63.6585(f)(2) as of 

the compliance date, then it is subject 

to subpart ZZZZ at the date of 

compliance. However, if the engine’s 

status subsequently changes to meet the 

conditions of 40 CFR 63.6585(f)(2) after 

the compliance date, the engine would 

no longer be subject to subpart ZZZZ. 

Q2: Can emergency RICE located at 

area sources continue to participate in 

peak shaving programs for up to 50 

hours per year until May 3, 2014 

without losing their emergency engine 

status? 

A2: An emergency stationary RICE 

located at an area source of HAP 

emissions can be used for peak shaving 

for up to 50 hours per year until May 

3, 2014 if the engine is operated as part 

of a peak shaving (load management 

program) with the local distribution 

system operator and the power is 

provided only to the facility itself or to 

support the local distribution system. 

This is the case whether or not the 

engine will be retrofitted to comply with 

the subpart ZZZZ standards for nonemergency engines. 

Q3: Do 40 CFR 63.6640(f)(4)(i) and (ii) 

address separate and distinct nonemergency situations, and does the 

‘‘local reliability’’ exception set forth in 

40 CFR 63.6640(f)(4)(ii) have no sunset 

provision? 

A3: Yes. 40 CFR 63.6640(f)(4)(i) and 

(ii) are separate and distinct situations 

and there is no sunset provision for the 

operation specified in § 63.6640(f)(4)(ii). 

An emergency stationary RICE at an area 

source of HAP emissions can continue 

to operate for up to 50 hours per 

calendar year for the purpose specified 

in § 63.6640(f)(4)(ii) beyond May 3, 

2014. 

Q4: How does EPA interpret 40 CFR 

63.6640(f)(4)(ii)(A), which requires that 

to qualify for the 50 hour exemption, the 

emergency RICE must be dispatched by 

the local balancing or local transmission 

and distribution system operator? 

A4: If the local transmission and 

distribution system operator informs the 

facility that they will be cutting their 

power, which, in turn, causes the 

facility to engage its emergency 

stationary RICE, the engine would be 

considered dispatched by the local 

transmission and distribution system 

operator. 

Abstract for [Z150010] 

Q1: What date is used under NESHAP 

subpart ZZZZ to determine if engines 

located at Allison Transmission 

Indianapolis facility in Indiana, are 

‘‘existing’’ or ‘‘new’’? 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
17708 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Notices 

A1: The rule uses the date that the 

engine commenced construction to 

determine if the engine is existing or 

new. The General Provisions to 40 CFR 

part 63 define both ‘‘construction’’ and 

‘‘commenced’’ and those definitions are 

applied to the subpart. 

Q2: Does NESHAP subpart ZZZZ 

apply to an engine that has been rebuilt, 

specifically where the engine core is 

reused, but components such as pistons, 

rings and bearings are reconditioned or 

replaced? 

A2: A rebuilt engine would need to be 

evaluated to determine if reconstruction 

had occurred. The General Provisions to 

part 63 defines ‘‘reconstruction.’’ 

Abstract for [Z150011] 

Q: Are the emergency engines located 

at the NASA Langley Research Facility 

in Hampton, VA subject to NESHAP 

subpart ZZZZ for Reciprocating Internal 

Combustion Engines? 

A: No. EPA determines that the 

emergency engines are located at a 

facility that is an area source and 

classified as an ‘‘institutional’’ facility. 

Therefore, under 40 CFR 63.6590(b)(3), 

emergency engines at the facility are 

exempt from requirements under 

NESHAP subpart ZZZZ. 

Abstract for [1600004] 

Q: Does EPA accept the industry 

coalition request to rescind a November 

21, 2007, letter to the National Grain 

and Feed Association in which EPA 

stated that temporary storage facilities 

meet the definition of ‘‘permanent 

storage capacity’’ under 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart DD, NSPS for Grain Elevators 

(Subpart DD), and required it be 

included when determining 

applicability of Subpart DD for a 

particular facility? 

A: Yes. The EPA is proposing 

revisions to Subpart DD and has also 

decided to re-evaluate the rationale for 

the November 21, 2007 letter. While the 

definition of ‘‘permanent storage 

capacity’’ in Subpart DD is broad, we 

are now aware that temporary storage 

facilities (TSFs) generally handle the 

grain less time throughout the year than 

other types of permanent storage 

facilities and may require different 

treatment. Also, while not dispositive as 

to the applicability of the rule to these 

units, we note that TSFs did not exist 

during the development of Subpart DD, 

and their processes and handling 

techniques were not specifically 

considered during the rulemaking 

process. For these reasons, EPA rescinds 

the November 21, 2007 letter. As a 

result, TSFs do not meet the definition 

of ‘‘permanent storage capacity’’ under 

Subpart DD and should not be included 

when determining applicability under 

Subpart DD for a particular facility. 

Dated: February 25, 2016. 

Betsy Smidinger, 

Acting Director, Office of Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2016–07185 Filed 3–29–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

[OMB 3060–1213] 

Information Collection Being Reviewed 

by the Federal Communications 

Commission Under Delegated 

Authority 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: As part of its continuing effort 

to reduce paperwork burdens, and as 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– 

3520), the Federal Communications 

Commission (Commission) invites the 

general public and other Federal 

agencies to take this opportunity to 

comment on the following information 

collection. Comments are requested 

concerning: Whether the collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

Commission, including whether the 

information shall have practical utility; 

the accuracy of the Commission’s 

burden estimate; ways to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information collected; ways to minimize 

the burden of the collection of 

information on the respondents, 

including the use of automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology; and ways to 

further reduce the information 

collection burden on small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 employees. 

The Commission may not conduct or 

sponsor a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid 

control number. No person shall be 

subject to any penalty for failing to 

comply with a collection of information 

subject to the PRA that does not display 

a valid Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) control number. 

DATES: Written PRA comments should 

be submitted on or before May 31, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Direct all PRA comments to 

Cathy Williams, FCC, via email PRA@

fcc.gov and to Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov. 

Include in the comments the Title as 

shown in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

additional information about the 

information collection, contact Cathy 

Williams at (202) 418–2918. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

OMB Control Number: 3060–1213. 

Title: Application to Participate in a 

Reverse Incentive Auction, FCC Form 

177. 

Form Number: FCC Form 177. 

Type of Review: Extension of a 

currently approved collection. 

Respondents: Business or other forprofit entities, not-for-profit institutions, 

and state, local or tribal governments. 

Estimated Number of Respondents 

and Responses: 600 respondents and 

600 responses. 

Estimated Time per Response: 90 

minutes. 

Frequency of Response: One-time 

reporting requirement. 

Obligation to Respond: Required to 

obtain or retain benefits. Statutory 

authority for the currently approved 

information collection is contained in 

sections 154(i) and 309(j)(5) of the 

Communications Act, as amended, 47 

U.S.C. 4(i), 309(j)(5), and sections 

1.2204 and 73.3700(h)(4)(i), (h)(4)(ii), 

and (h)(6) of the Commission’s rules, 47 

CFR 1.2204, 73.3700(h)(4)(i), (h)(4)(ii), 

and (h)(6). 

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 900 

hours. 

Total Annual Costs: None. 

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: 

Certain information collected on FCC 

Form 177 will be treated as confidential 

for various periods of time during the 

course of the broadcast incentive 

auction (BIA) pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 

1452(a)(3) and section 1.2206(b) of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.2206(b). 

To the extent necessary, respondents 

may request confidential treatment of 

information collected on FCC Form 177 

that is not already being treated as 

confidential pursuant to section 0.459 of 

the Commission’s rules. See 47 CFR 

0.459. 

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No 

impact(s). 

Needs and Uses: A request for 

approval of this information collection 

will be submitted to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) after 

this 60-day comment period in order to 

obtain the full three year clearance from 

OMB. On February 22, 2012, the 

President signed the Spectrum Act, 

which, among other things, authorized 

the Commission to conduct incentive 

auctions, and directed that the 

Commission use this innovative tool for 

an incentive auction of broadcast 

television spectrum to help meet the 

Nation’s growing spectrum needs. See 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES