68432 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 220 / Thursday, November 14, 2013 / Notices 

Schedule A&B—2013 Revised (Bundled) 

to be effective 5/1/2013. 

Filed Date: 11/5/13. 

Accession Number: 20131105–5039. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/13. 

Docket Numbers: ER14–315–000. 

Applicants: Western Massachusetts 

Electric Company. 

Description: Western Massachusetts 

Electric Company submits Cancellation 

of LCRA with CMEEC to be effective 1/ 

1/2014. 

Filed Date: 11/5/13. 

Accession Number: 20131105–5040. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/13. 

Docket Numbers: ER14–316–000 

Applicants: Tampa Electric Company. 

Description: Tampa Electric Company 

submits Emergency Interchange Service 

Contract w_Southern Company—2013 

Rev (Unbundled) to be effective 5/1/

2013. 

Filed Date: 11/5/13. 

Accession Number: 20131105–5041. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/13. 

Docket Numbers: ER14–317–000. 

Applicants: Tampa Electric Company. 

Description: Tampa Electric Company 

submits QF Transmission Agreement 

with Auburndale Pwr Partners—2013 

Revised to be effective 5/1/2013. 

Filed Date: 11/5/13. 

Accession Number: 20131105–5042. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/13. 

Docket Numbers: ER14–318–000. 

Applicants: The Connecticut Light 

and Power Company. 

Description: The Connecticut Light 

and Power Company submits LCRA 

with CTMEEC to be effective 1/1/2014. 

Filed Date: 11/5/13. 

Accession Number: 20131105–5043. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/13. 

Docket Numbers: ER14–319–000. 

Applicants: Public Service Company 

of New Hampshire. 

Description: Public Service Company 

of New Hampshire submits Localized 

Cost Responsibility Agreement with 

CTMEEC to be effective 1/1/2014. 

Filed Date: 11/5/13. 

Accession Number: 20131105–5059. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/13. 

Docket Numbers: ER14–320–000. 

Applicants: Western Massachusetts 

Electric Company. 

Description: Western Massachusetts 

Electric Company submits Localized 

Cost Responsibility Agreement with 

CTMEEC to be effective 1/1/2014. 

Filed Date: 11/5/13. 

Accession Number: 20131105–5061. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/13. 

Docket Numbers: ER14–321–000. 

Applicants: The Connecticut Light 

and Power Company. 

Description: The Connecticut Light 

and Power Company submits Localized 

Cost Responsibility Agreement with 

Town of Wallingford to be effective 1/ 

1/2014. 

Filed Date: 11/5/13. 

Accession Number: 20131105–5067. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/13. 

Docket Numbers: ER14–322–000. 

Applicants: Public Service Company 

of New Hampshire. 

Description: Public Service Company 

of New Hampshire submits Localized 

Cost Responsibility Agreement with 

Town of Wallingford to be effective 1/ 

1/2014. 

Filed Date: 11/5/13. 

Accession Number: 20131105–5074. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/13. 

Docket Numbers: ER14–323–000. 

Applicants: Deseret Generation & 

Transmission Co-operative, Inc. 

Description: Deseret Generation & 

Transmission Co-operative, Inc. submits 

OATT Order No. 764 Compliance Filing 

to be effective 11/12/2013. 

Filed Date: 11/5/13. 

Accession Number: 20131105–5078. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/13. 

Docket Numbers: ER14–324–000. 

Applicants: Western Massachusetts 

Electric Company. 

Description: Western Massachusetts 

Electric Company submits Localized 

cost responsibility agreement between 

Town of Wallingford and WMECO to be 

effective 1/1/2014. 

Filed Date: 11/5/13. 

Accession Number: 20131105–5079. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/13. 

The filings are accessible in the 

Commission’s eLibrary system by 

clicking on the links or querying the 

docket number. 

Any person desiring to intervene or 

protest in any of the above proceedings 

must file in accordance with Rules 211 

and 214 of the Commission’s 

Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 

385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern 

time on the specified comment date. 

Protests may be considered, but 

intervention is necessary to become a 

party to the proceeding. 

eFiling is encouraged. More detailed 

information relating to filing 

requirements, interventions, protests, 

service, and qualifying facilities filings 

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

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

other information, call (866) 208–3676 

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

Dated: November 5, 2013. 

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2013–27163 Filed 11–13–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[ Docket No. EL13–90–000] 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company; 

Notice of Initiation of Proceeding and 

Refund Effective Date 

On September 24, 2013, the 

Commission issued an order that 

initiated a proceeding in Docket No. 

EL13–90–000, pursuant to section 206 

of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 

U.S.C. 824e (2006), to determine the 

justness and reasonableness of the rate 

increase proposed by Pacific Gas and 

Electric Company. Pacific Gas and 

Electric Company, 144 FERC ¶ 61,277 

(2013). 

The refund effective date in Docket 

No. EL13–90–000, established pursuant 

to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the 

date of publication of this notice in the 

Federal Register. 

Dated: November 7, 2013. 

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2013–27164 Filed 11–13–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9902–92–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, Etc. 

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 Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance (OECA) Web site 

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

monitoring/programs/caa/adi.html. The 


TKELleY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 220 / Thursday, November 14, 2013 / Notices 68433 

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 § 111(d) of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA) contain no specific 

regulatory provision providing that 

sources may request applicability 

determinations, EPA also responds to 

written inquiries regarding applicability 

for the part 63 and § 111(d) programs. 

The NSPS and NESHAP also allow 

sources to seek permission to use 

monitoring or recordkeeping that is 

different from the promulgated 

requirements. See 40 CFR 60.13(i), 

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

EPA’s written responses to these 

inquiries are commonly referred to as 

alternative monitoring decisions. 

Furthermore, EPA responds to written 

inquiries about the broad range of NSPS 

and NESHAP regulatory requirements as 

they pertain to a whole source category. 

These inquiries may pertain, for 

example, to the type of sources to which 

the regulation applies, or to the testing, 

monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting 

requirements contained in the 

regulation. EPA’s written responses to 

these inquiries are commonly referred to 

as regulatory interpretations. 

EPA currently compiles EPA-issued 

NSPS and NESHAP applicability 

determinations, alternative monitoring 

decisions, and regulatory 

interpretations, and posts them to the 

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

the stratospheric ozone regulations, 

contained in 40 CFR part 82. The ADI 

is an electronic index on the Internet 

with over one thousand EPA letters and 

memoranda pertaining to the 

applicability, monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements of the NSPS, NESHAP, 

and stratospheric ozone regulations. 

Users can search for letters and 

memoranda by date, office of issuance, 

subpart, citation, control number, or by 

string word searches. 

Today’s notice comprises a summary 

of 32 such documents added to the ADI 

on October 30, 2013. This notice lists 

the subject and header of each letter and 

memorandum, as well as a brief abstract 

of the letter or memorandum. Complete 

copies of these documents may be 

obtained from the ADI through the 

OECA Web site at: www.epa.gov/

compliance/monitoring/programs/caa/

adi.html. 

Summary of Headers and Abstracts 

The following table identifies the 

database control number for each 

document posted on the ADI database 

system on October 30, 2013; the 

applicable category; the section(s) and/ 

or subpart(s) of 40 CFR part 60, 61, or 

63 (as applicable) addressed in the 

document; and the title of the 

document, which provides a brief 

description of the subject matter. 

We have also included an abstract of 

each document identified with its 

control number after the table. These 

abstracts are provided solely to alert the 

public to possible items of interest and 

are not intended as substitutes for the 

full text of the documents. This notice 

does not change the status of any 

document with respect to whether it is 

‘‘of nationwide scope or effect’’ for 

purposes of CAA § 307(b)(1). For 

example, this notice does not convert an 

applicability determination for a 

particular source into a nationwide rule. 

Neither does it purport to make a 

previously non-binding document 

binding. 

ADI DETERMINATIONS UPLOADED ON OCTOBER 30, 2013 

Control No. Categories Subparts Title 

1100013 .......................... NSPS ............................. A, OOO, UUU ................ Request to Extend Required Initial Performance Test due to 

Force Majeure. 

1100014 .......................... NSPS ............................. A, KKK, Kb .................... Applicability to Condensate Storage Tanks and a Backup 

Vapor Recovery Unit. 

1100015 .......................... MACT, NSPS ................. J, UUU ........................... Alternative Monitoring Plan for Opacity Monitoring—Fluidized 

Catalytic Cracking Unit Wet Gas Scrubber. 

1100016 .......................... NSPS ............................. J ..................................... Approval of Operating Parameters on an ExxonMobil Low Energy Jet Ejector Venturi (JEV) Wet Gas Scrubber for a 

Compliance Alternative. 

1100019 .......................... MACT, NSPS ................. J, UUU ........................... Alternative Monitoring Plan for Low Energy Jet Ejector Venturi 

(JEV) Wet Gas Scrubber. 

1100020 .......................... NSPS ............................. J ..................................... Alternative Monitoring Plan for Low Energy Jet Ejector Venturi 

(JEV) Wet Gas Scrubber. 

1100021 .......................... NSPS ............................. Ja ................................... Request for Exemption in lieu of an Alternative Monitoring 

Plan for Low Sulfur Bearing Fuel Gas Stream. 

1100023 .......................... NSPS ............................. J ..................................... Alternative Monitoring Plan Request for a Wet Gas Scrubber 

on a Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit. 

1100024 .......................... NSPS ............................. J ..................................... Alternative Monitoring Plan Request for Hydrogen Sulfide Vent 

Stream Monitoring. 

1100025 .......................... NSPS ............................. J ..................................... Request Exemption in lieu of an Alternative Monitoring Plan 

for Low Sulfur Vent Stream Combustion from a Catalytic 

Hydrodesulfurization Unit. 

1100026 .......................... NSPS ............................. J ..................................... Request Exemption in lieu of an Alternative Monitoring Plan 

for Low Sulfur Vent Stream from a Catalytic Platinum Reformer Unit. 


TKELleY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
68434 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 220 / Thursday, November 14, 2013 / Notices 

ADI DETERMINATIONS UPLOADED ON OCTOBER 30, 2013—Continued 

Control No. Categories Subparts Title 

1200001 .......................... NSPS ............................. NNN, RRR ..................... Alternative Monitoring Plan Request for Vent Stream Flow 

Monitoring for a Distillation Column and Associated Flare. 

1200002 .......................... NSPS ............................. EEEE ............................. Request for Clarification of Other Solid Waste Incinerators Exclusion For Prescription Drugs Returned through Voluntary 

Program. 

1200003 .......................... NSPS ............................. J ..................................... Request for Exemption in lieu of an Alternative Monitoring 

Plan for Monitoring of Multiple Low Sulfur Vent Streams 

from a Coker Disulfide Separator and Reformer. 

1200007 .......................... NSPS ............................. Db .................................. Request for Use of Alternate Span Value for NOX CEMS on a 

Boiler. 

1200008 .......................... NSPS ............................. J ..................................... Alternative Monitoring Plan Request for Monitoring a Wet Gas 

Scrubber on a Refinery Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit. 

1200010 .......................... NSPS ............................. NNN, RRR ..................... Alternative Monitoring Plan and Test Waiver Request for Vent 

Stream Flow Monitoring. 

1200011 .......................... NSPS ............................. J ..................................... Request Exemption in lieu of an Alternative Monitoring Plan 

for Monitoring Three Low Sulfur Vent Streams from Combustion a Catalytic Hydrodesulfurization Unit. 

1200012 .......................... NSPS ............................. J ..................................... Request Exemption in lieu of an Alternative Monitoring Plan 

for Low Sulfur Vent Stream Combustion from a Cumene 

Depropanizer Unit. 

1200013 .......................... NSPS ............................. J ..................................... Alternative Monitoring Plan Request for Wet Gas Scrubbers 

on a Refinery Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit. 

1200014 .......................... NSPS ............................. J ..................................... Request Exemption in lieu of an Alternative Monitoring Plan 

for Vent Stream Combustion from a Catalytic Reformer Unit 

in a Flare. 

1200015 .......................... NSPS ............................. NNN, RRR ..................... Alternative Monitoring Plan Request for the Use of Car Seals 

on Closed Bypass Valves. 

1200022 .......................... NSPS ............................. J ..................................... Request for Clarification of Marine Vessel Loading Vapors as 

Fuel Gas. 

1200025 .......................... NSPS ............................. J ..................................... Request for Use of Alternate Span Value for O2 CEMS. 

1200028 .......................... NSPS ............................. EEEE, FFFF .................. Alternative Emission Control Request to use Operating Parameter Limits (OPLs) in Lieu of using a Wet Scrubber. 

1200032 .......................... MACT, NSPS ................. JJJJ, ZZZZ ..................... Determination of Applicability for Stationary Spark Ignition Internal Combustion Engines. 

A130001 ......................... Asbestos ........................ M .................................... Determination of the Use of Foam to Meet the Adequately 

Wet Requirement. 

A130002 ......................... Asbestos ........................ M .................................... Removal of Buried Pipe Wrapped with Asbestos-Containing 

Material. 

A130003 ......................... Asbestos ........................ M .................................... Encapsulating Wall Board with Spray Foam. 

M130001 ......................... MACT ............................. CC .................................. Alternative Monitoring Plan Request for use of a Video Camera for Verification of Flare Pilot Light. 

M130002 ......................... MACT ............................. FFFF, YY ....................... Determination of Applicability of NESHAP to Propane Dehydrogenation Plant. 

Z130001 .......................... NESHAP ........................ E .................................... Determination of Applicability of NESHAP to an Integrated 

Biosolids Management System. 

Abstracts 

Abstract for [1100013]: C:\Documents 

and Settings\mmalave\Local 

Settings\Temp\wzc696\1100013.pdf. 

Q: Will EPA consider as force majeure 

certain contract disputes between a 

company and its contractor over 

production testing and plant operation 

at a facility that prevented stack tests 

from being conducted before the 

compliance deadline under 40 CFR part 

60, subparts OOO and UUU, at the 

Cadre Material Products crusher and 

calciner facility in Voca, Texas? 

A: No. EPA disagreed that the events 

described in the request letter met the 

criteria of force majeure under 40 CFR 

60.8(a), because the contract dispute 

was not beyond the company’s ability to 

control. EPA disapproved the request 

for an eight week extension to conduct 

required performance testing and 

submit the necessary reports; however, 

EPA granted a one-week extension for 

adverse weather conditions that 

occurred and did meet force majeure 

criteria. 

Abstract for [1100014]: C:\Documents 

and Settings\mmalave\Local 

Settings\Temp\wzc696\1100014.pdf. 

Q1: Does 40 CFR part 60, subparts A 

and KKK apply to a backup vapor 

recovery unit (BU–VRU) compressor at 

the Marathon Petroleum (Marathon) 

Indian Basin Gas Plant (IBGP) near 

Carlsbad, New Mexico? 

A1: Yes. EPA determined that the 

BU–VRU compressor unit is considered 

to be in VOC service. Even though the 

compressor is associated with pollution 

control equipment, the pollution control 

exemption of 40 CFR 60.14(e) of the 

General Provisions cannot apply 

because of a direct conflict with the 

applicability provisions of NSPS 

subpart KKK. The provisions of 40 CFR 

60.630 supersede any exemptions in 40 

CFR 60.14. 

Q2: Does 40 CFR part 60, subparts A 

and Kb apply to two stabilized 

condensate storage tanks at the 

Marathon IBGP near Carlsbad, New 

Mexico? 

A2: Yes. EPA determined that the two 

storage tanks are located after the point 

of custody transfer since these are 

located in the natural gas processing 

plant, which is upstream of the IBGP. 

Therefore, both tanks are subject to the 

requirements of NSPS subpart Kb 

because the custody transfer exemption 

of 40 CFR § 60.110b(d)(4) does not 

apply. 


TKELleY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 220 / Thursday, November 14, 2013 / Notices 68435 

Abstract for [1100015]: C:\Documents 

and Settings\mmalave\Local 

Settings\Temp\wzc696\1100015.pdf. 

Q: Does EPA approve ExxonMobil’s 

Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) 

under 40 CFR 60.13(i)(3) and 63.8(4)(i) 

for monitoring a wet gas scrubber (WGS) 

on refinery Fluid Catalytic Cracking 

Unit (FCCU) No. 2, in lieu of a 

Continuous Opacity Monitoring System 

(COMS), to demonstrate compliance 

with the opacity limits under 40 CFR 

60.102(a)(2) and parameter monitoring 

requirements of 40 CFR § 63.1564(b)(1) 

at ExxonMobil’s Baytown, Texas 

refinery (ExxonMobil)? 

A: Yes. EPA granted final approval of 

ExxonMobil’s AMP based on its 

approval of the two scrubber operating 

parameter limits (OPLs) established 

under performance testing at 

representative operating conditions for 

the FCCU and each WGS. The 

establishment of the two OPLs and their 

approval by EPA were conditions in a 

prior approval. Previously, EPA had 

conditionally approved ExxonMobil’s 

AMP request since moisture in the 

FCCU exhaust from the WGS interfered 

with the ability of the COMS to take 

accurate readings, due to excessive 

water at the point of measurement, and 

flow meters were not reliable for 

measuring WGS scrubber liquid 

recirculation rates. In the response 

letter, EPA also clarified that ongoing 

compliance demonstration for each 

approved OPL is to be based on a three 

hour rolling average period. 

Abstract for [1100016]: C:\Documents 

and Settings\mmalave\Local 

Settings\Temp\wzc696\1100016.pdf. 

Q: Does EPA approve ConocoPhillips’ 

Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) 

under 40 CFR 60.13(i)(3) for monitoring 

a wet gas scrubber (WGS) on refinery 

Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit (FCCU) 

No. 4, in lieu of a Continuous Opacity 

Monitoring System (COMS), to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

opacity limit under 40 CFR 60.102(a)(2) 

at ConocoPhillips’ Ponca City, 

Oklahoma refinery? 

A: Yes. EPA granted final approval of 

ConocoPhillips’ AMP request 

established under performance testing at 

representative operating conditions for 

the FCCU and each WGS. The 

establishment of the two OPLs and their 

approval by EPA were conditions in a 

prior approval. Previously, EPA had 

conditionally approved ConocoPhillips’ 

AMP request because moisture in the 

FCCU exhaust from the WGS interfered 

with the ability of the COMS to take 

accurate readings, due to excessive 

water at the point of measurement. As 

described in the response letter, EPA 

also required continued periodic testing 

to confirm OPLs for ongoing compliance 

demonstration beyond the termination 

of the existing Consent Decree. 

Abstract for [1100019]: C:\Documents 

and Settings\mmalave\Local 

Settings\Temp\wzc696\1100019.pdf. 

Q: Does EPA approve ConocoPhillips’ 

Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) 

under 40 CFR 60.13(i)(3) for monitoring 

a wet gas scrubber (WGS) on refinery 

Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit (FCCU) 

No. 5, in lieu of a Continuous Opacity 

Monitoring System (COMS), to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

opacity limit under 40 CFR 60.102(a)(2) 

at ConocoPhillips’ Ponca City, 

Oklahoma refinery? 

A: Yes. EPA granted final approval to 

ConocoPhillips’ AMP request 

established under performance testing at 

representative operating conditions for 

the FCCU and each WGS. The 

establishment of the OPLs and their 

approval by EPA were conditions in a 

prior approval. Previously, EPA had 

conditionally approved ConocoPhillips’ 

AMP request since moisture in the 

FCCU exhaust from the WGS interfered 

with the ability of the COMS to take 

accurate readings due to excessive water 

at the point of measurement. As 

described in the response letter, EPA 

also required continued periodic testing 

to confirm OPLs for ongoing compliance 

demonstration. 

Abstract for [1100020]: C:\Documents 

and Settings\mmalave\Local 

Settings\Temp\wzc696\1100020.pdf. 

Q: Will EPA approve Motiva’s 

Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) 

under 40 CFR 60.13(i)(3) for monitoring 

wet gas scrubbers (WGS) on a refinery 

Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit (FCCU), in 

lieu of a Continuous Opacity Monitoring 

System (COMS), to demonstrate 

compliance with the opacity limit under 

40 CFR 60.102(a)(2) at Motiva’s 

Convent, Louisiana refinery? 

A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves 

Motiva’s AMP since moisture in the 

FCCU exhaust from the WGS interfered 

with the ability of the COMS to take 

accurate readings due to excessive water 

at the point of measurement. The 

conditions for approval require that 

Motiva establish three Operating 

Parameter Limits (OPLs) under 

performance testing at representative 

operating conditions for the FCCU and 

each WGS, whereby worst-case 

emissions are anticipated. EPA 

identified the three OPLs to ensure that 

the WGSs function as intended and 

emissions from the FCCU will meet the 

regulatory requirements for particulate 

matter, sulfur dioxide and opacity. 

Abstract for [1100021]: C:\Documents 

and Settings\mmalave\Local 

Settings\Temp\wzc696\1100021.pdf. 

Q: Does EPA approve an exemption in 

lieu of a previously submitted 

Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) 

request for combusting a vent stream 

from an alkylation unit in a dedicated 

process flare as an inherently low-sulfur 

stream under 40 CFR part 60 subpart Ja, 

at Valero Refining’s Ardmore, Oklahoma 

refinery? 

A: Yes. EPA determined that a 

monitoring exemption is appropriate for 

the Alkylation Unit vent stream, and 

voided the AMP request. Based upon 

review of the information provided, 

EPA agreed that the dedicated process 

flare is exempt from the monitoring 

requirements of 40 CFR 60.105a(g) 

because the vent stream combusted in 

the flare is inherently low in sulfur 

because it is produced in a process unit 

intolerant to sulfur contamination, and 

thus, meets the conditions and 

exemption criteria of sulfur content 

below 5 parts per million in 40 CFR 

60.107a(a)(3)(iii). The effective date of 

the exemption is the effective date of the 

reissued final rule and lift of stay, 

November 13, 2012. EPA also clarified 

that the exemption determination 

should be referenced and attached to the 

facility’s new source review and Title V 

permit for federal enforceability. 

Abstract for [1100023]: C:\Documents 

and Settings\mmalave\Local 

Settings\Temp\wzc696\1100023.pdf. 

Q: Does EPA approve Marathon 

Petroleum’s (Marathon) Alternative 

Monitoring Plan (AMP) under 40 CFR 

60.13(i)(3) for monitoring a wet gas 

scrubber (WGS) on a refinery Fluid 

Catalytic Cracking Unit (FCCU), in lieu 

of a Continuous Opacity Monitoring 

System (COMS), to demonstrate 

compliance with the opacity limit under 

40 CFR 60.102(a)(2) at Marathon’s Texas 

City, Texas refinery? 

A: Yes. EPA granted final approval of 

Marathon’s AMP request based on the 

approval of the three scrubber operating 

parameter limits (OPLs) established 

under performance testing at 

representative operating conditions for 

the FCCU and each WGS. The 

establishment of the OPLs and their 

approval by EPA were conditions in a 

prior approval. Previously, EPA had 

conditionally approved Marathon’s 

AMP request since moisture in the 

FCCU exhaust from the WGS interfered 

with the ability of the COMS to take 

accurate readings due to excessive water 

at the point of measurement. In the 

response letter, EPA also clarified that 

compliance demonstration for each OPL 

was to be based on a three hour rolling 

average period, and required continued 

periodic testing to confirm OPLs for 

ongoing compliance demonstration. 


TKELleY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
68436 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 220 / Thursday, November 14, 2013 / Notices 

Abstract for [1100024]: C:\Documents 

and Settings\mmalave\Local 

Settings\Temp\wzc696\1100024.pdf. 

Q: Does EPA approve Motiva’s 

Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) 

under 40 CFR 60.13(i)(3) for monitoring 

a hydrogen sulfide (H2S) vent stream 

combusted in a crude charge heater, in 

lieu of a Continuous Emissions 

Monitoring System (CEMS), to 

demonstrate compliance with the sulfur 

dioxide (H2S) monitoring requirements 

of 40 CFR 60.105(a)(3) and (4) under 

NSPS subpart J, at Motiva’s Convent, 

Louisiana refinery? 

A: No. EPA determined that Motiva’s 

AMP request is not acceptable because 

it has not submitted sufficient 

information to justify it. EPA requires 

that at least two critical independent 

Operating Limit Parameters (OPLs) be 

proposed for the caustic pre-wash tower 

to be able to obtain EPA’s approval for 

using a daily ‘‘doctor test’’ (ASTM 

Method D4952–09) to monitor total 

sulfur and sulfides in the tower outlet 

effluent, in lieu of installing a H2S 

CEMS. Therefore, the requirement to 

install a CEMS for monitoring H2S in 

the vent stream combusted in the Crude 

Charge Heater under 40 CFR 

60.105(a)(4) shall continue to apply. 

Abstract for [1100025]: C:\Documents 

and Settings\mmalave\Local 

Settings\Temp\wzc696\1100025.pdf. 

Q: Does EPA approve an exemption in 

lieu of a previously approved 

Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for 

combusting the vent stream from a 

catalytic Hydrodesulfurization unit 

(CHD No. 1) at a process heater as an 

inherently low-sulfur stream under 40 

CFR part 60 subpart J, at the 

ExxonMobil’s Beaumont, Texas 

refinery? 

A: Yes. EPA approves the monitoring 

exemption for the catalytic 

hydrodesulfurization vent stream, and 

voided ExxonMobil’s AMP request 

based on the process operating 

parameters and monitoring data 

submitted by the company and in light 

of changes made to Subpart J on June 

24, 2008 (73 FR 35866). The vent stream 

combusted in the heater meets the 

conditions and exemption criteria of 40 

CFR 60.105(b)(1)(i)–(v), and therefore 

has been demonstrated to be inherently 

low in sulfur since it meets the 

conditions and exemption criteria of 

sulfur content below 5 parts per million 

in 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(C). EPA 

agreed that the process heater is exempt 

from monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 

60.105(a)(3) and (4). If refinery 

operations change from representations 

made for this exemption determination, 

then ExxonMobil must document the 

change(s) and follow the appropriate 

steps outlined in 40 CFR 60.105(b)(3)(i)– 

(iii). 

Abstract for [1100026]: C:\Documents 

and Settings\mmalave\Local 

Settings\Temp\wzc696\1100026.pdf. 

Q: Does EPA approve an exemption in 

lieu of an Alternative Monitoring Plan 

(AMP) for combusting the combined 

vent stream from a catalytic platinum 

reformer unit (PtR–4) in two heaters or 

a low pressure flare as an inherently 

low-sulfur stream under 40 CFR part 60 

subpart J, at the ExxonMobil Beaumont, 

Texas refinery? 

A: Yes. EPA determined that a 

monitoring exemption is appropriate for 

the combined vent stream, and voided 

the AMP request based on the process 

operating parameters and monitoring 

data submitted by the company and in 

light of changes made to Subpart J on 

June 24, 2008 (73 FR 35866). EPA 

agreed that the heaters and flare that 

burn the vent stream are exempt from 

monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 

60.105(a)(3) and (4). The combined vent 

stream combusted is inherently low in 

sulfur because it is produced in a 

process unit intolerant to sulfur 

contamination, and thus, meets the 

conditions and exemption criteria of 

sulfur content below 5 parts per million 

in 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(C). If refinery 

operations change such that the sulfur 

content of the off-gas vent stream 

changes from representations made for 

this exemption determination, then 

ExxonMobil must document the 

change(s) and follow the appropriate 

steps outlined in 40 CFR 60.105(b)(3)(i)– 

(iii). 

Abstract for [1200001]: C:\Documents 

and Settings\mmalave\Local 

Settings\Temp\wzc696\1200001.pdf. 

Q: Does EPA approve an Alternative 

Monitoring Plan (AMP) for vent stream 

flow monitoring for a distillation 

column and associated flare to 

implement NSPS subpart RRR testing, 

monitoring, and recordkeeping 

provisions in lieu of complying with 

corresponding provisions of NSPS 

subpart NNN, with the exception of 

small vent and drain valves utilized for 

maintenance events, for the Advanced 

Aromatics facility in Baytown, Texas? 

A: Yes. EPA approves Advanced 

Aromatics’ AMP request to implement 

NSPS subpart RRR for testing, 

monitoring, and recordkeeping 

provisions in lieu of complying with 

corresponding provisions of NSPS 

subpart NNN for a distillation column 

vent stream routed to a flare without 

any by-pass lines. To ensure that 

affected vent streams are routed to 

appropriate control devices, Advanced 

Aromatics is required to maintain a 

schematic diagram of the affected vent 

streams, collection system(s), fuel 

systems, control devices, and bypass 

systems as part of the initial report 

submitted in accordance with 40 CFR 

60.705(b). EPA noted that small vent 

and drain valves utilized for 

maintenance events are not exempt 

under NSPS subpart NNN or subpart 

RRR. Therefore, flow must be monitored 

during maintenance events at these 

locations in accordance with NSPS 

subpart RRR, because such components 

act as bypass valves during such events 

(i.e., flow is diverted away from the 

control device). 

Abstract for [1200002]: C:\Documents 

and Settings\mmalave\Local 

Settings\Temp\wzc696\1200002.pdf. 

Q: The Arkansas Department of 

Environmental Quality requests 

guidance from EPA on whether 

prescription drugs collected by the 

police department during community 

voluntary take back programs in 

Arkansas meet the definition of 

confiscated contraband under 40 CFR 

60.2887(p), in order to claim an 

exclusion from NSPS subpart EEEE 

requirements for other solid waste 

incinerators (OSWI)? 

A: No. EPA does not consider 

prescription drugs collected from 

households during a community take 

back program to be illegal or prohibited 

drugs; therefore, they are not 

‘‘contraband.’’ As described in the 

preamble to the OSWI final rule (69 FR 

71483), such drugs are clearly not 

confiscated, since they are voluntarily 

collected. 

Abstract for [1200003]: C:\Documents 

and Settings\mmalave\Local 

Settings\Temp\wzc696\1200003.pdf. 

Q: Does EPA approve exemptions in 

lieu of Alternative Monitoring Plans 

(AMP) for combusting multiple vent 

streams from a coker, disulfide 

separator, and reformer in various 

combustion devices as inherently lowsulfur streams under 40 CFR part 60 

subpart J, at the Valero Refining Texas 

City, Texas refinery? 

A: Yes. EPA approves a monitoring 

exemption for the vent streams, and 

voided the original AMP request based 

on review of the information provided 

by the company and in light of changes 

made to Subpart J on June 24, 2008 (73 

FR 35866). EPA agreed that the 

combustion devices are exempt from 

monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 

60.105(a)(3) and (4). The two vent 

streams combusted are inherently low 

in sulfur because they are produced in 

a process unit intolerant to sulfur 

contamination, and thus, meet the 

conditions and exemption criteria of 

sulfur content of below 5 parts per 

million in 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(C). If 


TKELleY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 220 / Thursday, November 14, 2013 / Notices 68437 

refinery operations cause a change in an 

exempt stream status, then Valero must 

document the change and determine if 

the stream remains exempt. 

Abstract for [1200007]: C:\Documents 

and Settings\mmalave\Local 

Settings\Temp\wzc696\1200007.pdf. 

Q: Does EPA approve an alternative 

monitoring plan (AMP) to use a lower 

alternate span value for a nitrogen oxide 

(NOX) continuous emissions monitoring 

system (CEMS) than what is required in 

40 CFR 60.48b(e)(2) on a boiler required 

to meet more stringent NOX emission 

limit under Best Available Control 

Technology (BACT) and subject to NSPS 

subpart Db, at ConocoPhillips’ 

Westlake, Louisiana facility? 

A: Yes. EPA approves ConocoPhilip’s 

AMP to lower the Boiler NOX CEMS 

span setting from 500 ppm to 100 ppm 

for the existing facility operations. The 

use of BACT may lower stack gas 

concentrations such that the span value 

of 500 ppm for NOX CEMS specified by 

40 CFR 60.48b(e)(2) may be too high to 

ensure accurate and reliable reporting of 

compliance with a more stringent NOX

emission limit. The proposed lower 

span setting should ensure accuracy in 

measuring actual NOX concentrations in 

the boiler stack gases so that compliance 

can be demonstrated with adequate 

confidence levels. 

Abstract for [1200008]: C:\Documents 

and Settings\mmalave\Local 

Settings\Temp\wzc696\1200008.pdf. 

Q: Does EPA approve ConocoPhillips’ 

Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) 

under 40 CFR 60.13(i)(3) for monitoring 

a wet gas scrubber (WGS) on a refinery 

Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit (FCCU), in 

lieu of a Continuous Opacity Monitoring 

System (COMS), to demonstrate 

compliance with the opacity limit under 

40 CFR 60.102(a)(2) at ConocoPhillips’ 

Sweeny, Texas refinery? 

A: Yes. EPA granted final approval of 

ConocoPhillips’ AMP request based on 

approval of the three scrubber operating 

parameter limits (OPLs) CHD No. 1 

established under performance testing at 

representative operating conditions. The 

establishment of the three OPLs and 

their approval by EPA were conditions 

in a prior approval. Previously, EPA had 

conditionally approved the AMP since 

moisture in the FCCU exhaust from the 

WGS interfered with the ability of the 

COMS to take accurate readings, due to 

excessive water at the point of 

measurement. 

Abstract for [1200010]: C:\Documents 

and Settings\mmalave\Local 

Settings\Temp\wzc696\1200010.pdf. 

Q: Does EPA approve an Alternative 

Monitoring Plan (AMP) request and a 

performance test waiver for two 

ethylene distillation columns vent 

streams being introduced with the 

primary fuel into associated boilers and 

process heaters without any bypass 

lines, in accordance with 40 CFR 

60.8(b), and as provided by 40 CFR 

60.704(b)(5), to implement NSPS 

subpart RRR testing, monitoring, and 

recordkeeping provisions in lieu of 

complying with corresponding 

provisions of NSPS subpart NNN, at the 

Chevron Phillips facility in Port Arthur, 

Texas? 

A: Yes. EPA approves Chevron 

Phillips’ AMP request to implement the 

NSPS subpart RRR for testing, 

monitoring, and recordkeeping 

provisions, in lieu of complying with 

corresponding provisions of NSPS 

subpart NNN. To ensure that affected 

vent streams are routed to the 

appropriate control devices, Chevron 

Phillips facility is required to maintain 

a schematic diagram of the affected vent 

streams, collection system(s), fuel 

systems, and control devices as part of 

the initial report submitted in 

accordance with 40 CFR 60.705(b). 

Abstract for [1200011]: C:\Documents 

and Settings\mmalave\Local 

Settings\Temp\wzc696\1200011.pdf. 

Q: Does EPA approve an exemption in 

lieu of an Alternative Monitoring Plan 

(AMP) for combusting three vent 

streams from a catalytic 

hydrodesulfurization unit as inherently 

low-sulfur streams under 40 CFR part 60 

subpart J, at the Citgo Petroleum Corpus 

Christi, Texas East refinery (Citgo)? 

A: Yes. EPA determined that a 

monitoring exemption is appropriate for 

the specified Hydrar vent streams, and 

voided the original AMP request in light 

of the changes of the revised rule dated 

June 24, 2008. Based on a review of the 

information provided, EPA agreed that 

combustion devices which burn the 

streams are exempt from the monitoring 

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

(4). The vent streams combusted are 

inherently low in sulfur because they 

are produced in a process unit 

intolerant to sulfur contamination, and 

thus, meet the conditions and 

exemption criteria of sulfur content 

below 5 parts per million in 40 CFR 

60.105(a)(4)(iv)(C). If refinery operations 

cause a change in an exempt stream 

status, then Citgo must document the 

change and determine if the stream 

remains exempt. If it is determined that 

the streams are no longer exempt, 

continuous monitoring at each 

combustion device must begin within 

15 days of the change, in accordance 

with 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv). 

Abstract for [1200012]: C:\Documents 

and Settings\mmalave\Local 

Settings\Temp\wzc696\1200012.pdf. 

Q: Does EPA approve an exemption in 

lieu of an Alternative Monitoring Plan 

(AMP) for combusting a vent stream 

from a cumene depropanizer unit as an 

inherently low-sulfur stream under 40 

CFR part 60 subpart J, at the Citgo 

Petroleum Corpus Christi, Texas East 

refinery (Citgo)? 

A: Yes. EPA determined that a 

monitoring exemption is appropriate for 

the vent stream from a cumene 

depropanizer unit, and voided the 

original Citgo’s AMP in the light of the 

changes of the revised rule dated June 

24, 2008. Based on a review of the 

information provided, EPA agreed that 

combustion devices that burn the vent 

stream are exempt from monitoring 

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

(4). The vent stream combusted is 

inherently low in sulfur because it is 

produced in a process unit intolerant to 

sulfur contamination, and thus, meets 

the exemption criteria of sulfur content 

below 5 parts per million in 40 CFR 

60.105(a)(4)(iv)(C). If refinery operations 

cause a change in an exempt stream 

status, then Citgo must document the 

change and determine if the stream 

remains exempt. If it is determined that 

the stream is no longer exempt, 

continuous monitoring at each 

combustion device must begin within 

15 days of the change, in accordance 

with 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv). 

Abstract for [1200013]: C:\Documents 

and Settings\mmalave\Local 

Settings\Temp\wzc696\1200013.pdf. 

Q: Does EPA approve an Alternative 

Monitoring Plan (AMP) under 40 CFR 

60.13(i)(3) for monitoring wet gas 

scrubbers (WGS) on a refinery Fluid 

Catalytic Cracking Unit (FCCU), in lieu 

of a Continuous Opacity Monitoring 

System (COMS), to demonstrate 

compliance with the opacity limit under 

40 CFR 60.102(a)(2) at Citgo Petroleum’s 

(Citgo) Lake Charles, Louisiana refinery? 

A: EPA conditionally approves Citgo’s 

AMP request. The AMP approval is 

conditioned on Citgo conducting 

another performance test (PT) to 

properly evaluate under representative 

operating conditions and establish the 

three operating parameter limits (OPLs) 

for each WGS to ensure these scrubbers 

function as intended, and that the PT 

results indicate that emissions from the 

FCCU meet the particulate matter, sulfur 

dioxide and opacity standards. 

Abstract for [1200014]: C:\Documents 

and Settings\mmalave\Local 

Settings\Temp\wzc696\1200014.pdf. 

Q: Does EPA approve an exemption in 

lieu of an Alternative Monitoring Plan 

(AMP) for combusting a vent stream 

from a catalytic reformer unit in a flare 

as an inherently low-sulfur stream 


TKELleY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
68438 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 220 / Thursday, November 14, 2013 / Notices 

under 40 CFR part 60 subpart J, at the 

ConocoPhillips Sweeny, Texas refinery? 

A: Yes. EPA determined that a 

monitoring exemption is appropriate for 

the catalytic reformer unit vent stream, 

and voided the original AMP in light of 

the changes made in the revised rule 

dated June 24, 2008. Based on a review 

of the information provided, EPA agreed 

that the flare is exempt from the 

monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 

60.105(a)(3) and (4). The vent stream 

combusted in the flare is inherently low 

in sulfur because it is produced in a 

process unit intolerant to sulfur 

contamination, and thus, meets the 

conditions and exemption criteria of 

sulfur content below 5 parts per million 

in 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(C). If other 

sulfur/sulfide bearing streams not from 

catalytic reformers enter the stripper 

and become part of the waste fuel gas 

stream, ConocoPhillips must apply for 

an AMP on the stripper, and propose at 

least three independent process 

parameters to ensure a low sulfur/

sulfide stream going to the flare. EPA 

clarify that any significant increase in 

the sulfur/sulfide concentration 

detected in the stream would initiate 

continuous monitoring under 40 CFR 

60.1 05(a)(3) or (4). 

Abstract for [1200015]: C:\Documents 

and Settings\mmalave\Local 

Settings\Temp\wzc696\1200015.pdf. 

Q: Does EPA approve a waiver of the 

requirement under NSPS subpart NNN 

at 40 CFR 60.663(b)(2), and to 

implement the alternative monitoring 

requirements of NSPS subpart RRR at 40 

CFR 60.703(b)(2)(ii) instead, at the 

ConocoPhillips East Vacuum Liquid 

Recovery/CO2 Plant in Lea County, New 

Mexico? 

A: Yes. EPA approves ConocoPhillips’ 

AMP request for a waiver of the 

monitoring requirements under 40 CFR 

60.663(b)(2) to implement the 

monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 

60.703(b)(2)(ii) instead, which will 

allow for the use of car seals on closed 

bypass valves in lieu of flow indicators. 

To ensure that affected vent streams are 

routed to appropriate control devices, 

ConocoPhillips is required to maintain 

a schematic diagram of the affected vent 

streams, collection system(s), fuel 

systems, control devices, and bypass 

systems as part of the initial report 

submitted in accordance with 40 CFR 

60.705(b). 

Abstract for [1200022]: C:\Documents 

and Settings\mmalave\Local 

Settings\Temp\wzc696\1200022.pdf. 

Q: Are marine vessel loading vapors 

that are inherently low in sulfur, 

collected by a Marine Vapor Recovery 

(MVR) system and routed to an airassisted marine flare vapor combustor, 

at the ExxonMobil Beaumont, Texas 

refinery, subject to MACT subpart Y 

requirements under 40 CFR 63.562, also 

subject to New Source Performance 

Standards (NSPS) for Refineries, part 60, 

subpart J? 

A: No. EPA determines that if the vent 

stream is collected to comply with the 

provisions for marine tank vessel 

loading under 40 CFR 63.562 or 40 CFR 

63.651, it does not meet the definition 

of a fuel gas, as defined at 40 CFR 

60.101(d). EPA evaluated ExxonMobil’s 

request in light of changes made to 

NSPS subpart J on June 24, 2008, which 

modified the definition of fuel gas to 

specifically exclude vapors collected 

and combusted to comply with 

provisions of 40 CFR 63.562 or 40 CFR 

63.651. 

Abstract for [1200025]: C:\Documents 

and Settings\mmalave\Local 

Settings\Temp\wzc696\1200025.pdf. 

Q: Does EPA approve an alternative 

monitoring plan (AMP) for an alternate 

lower span setting of 10 percent for the 

oxygen (O2) continuous emissions 

monitoring system (CEMS) on sulfur 

recovery units (SRU) subject to NSPS 

subpart J at the Flint Hills Resources 

(FHR) East and West Refineries in 

Corpus Christi, Texas? 

A: Yes. EPA approves the AMP 

request for the proposed lower span 

setting of 10 percent for the specified 

CEMS since it satisfied criteria 

established in Performance 

Specification 2 of subpart 60, Appendix 

B. Based on the information provided in 

your AMP request, the lower span 

setting on specified CEMS should 

ensure accuracy in measuring actual 

pollutant concentrations in stack gases 

so that compliance can be demonstrated 

with adequate confidence levels. 

Abstract for [1200028]: C:\Documents 

and Settings\mmalave\Local 

Settings\Temp\wzc696\1200028.pdf. 

Q: Does EPA approve a petition to use 

Operating Parameter Limits (OPLs) to 

limit emissions in lieu of using a wet 

scrubber for a dual chamber commercial 

other solid waste incinerator (OSWI) 

unit, which destroys contraband for U.S. 

Customs and other law enforcement 

agencies, under NSPS subpart FFFF, 

located at Kippur Corporation’s 

(Kippur) El Paso, Texas facility? 

A: No. EPA denies Kippur’s petition 

due to a lack of information pertaining 

to the recent modification made to 

increase the design capacity of the 

OWSI unit, as well as a lack of 

information pertaining to both the 

proper characterization of material fired 

to the OSWI Unit and the proper 

operation, performance testing 

established under representative 

operating conditions, and subsequent 

monitoring of the OSWI unit proposed 

OPLs to demonstrate compliance with 

the rule. As described in the EPA 

response letter, this information is 

needed to be able to evaluate the 

petition under the appropriate rule that 

applies to the modified OSWI unit. If a 

modification occurred, then according 

to 40 CFR 60.2992, the OSWI unit 

becomes subject to 40 CFR part 60 

subpart EEEE and 40 CFR part 60 

subpart FFFF no longer applies. 

Abstract for [1200032]: C:\Documents 

and Settings\mmalave\Local 

Settings\Temp\wzc696\1200032.pdf. 

Q1: The Oklahoma Department of 

Environmental Quality (ODEQ) requests 

guidance from EPA on whether engines 

with: (1) A maximum engine power 

equal to or greater than 75 KW (100 HP), 

except gasoline and rich burn engines 

that use liquid petroleum gas, which 

were manufactured between 06/12/2006 

and 07/01/2007, and for which the 

owner or operator commenced 

construction after 06/12/2006; and (2) 

lean-burning maximum engine power 

equal to or greater than 500 HP but less 

than 1,350 HP, manufactured between 

06/12/2006 and 01/01/2008, and for 

which the owner or operator 

commenced construction after 06/12/

2006; are subject to requirements of 40 

CFR part 63 subpart ZZZZ for 

reciprocating internal combustion 

engines (RICE MACT) and 40 CFR part 

60 subpart JJJJ for stationary spark 

ignition internal combustion engines 

(SSIICE)? 

A1: No. EPA concurs with ODEQ that 

the specified engines do not meet the 

criteria of 40 CFR 60.4230(a), and 

consequently have no applicable 

requirements under the SSIICE NSPS or 

the RICE MACT rules. 

Q2: What are the streamlined 

compliance requirements for various 

categories of engines in relation to the 

SSIICE NSPS or the RICE MACT? 

A2: EPA notes that if an engine 

specifically identified in 40 CFR 

63.6590(c) is not subject to any 

requirements in the NSPS SSIICE, then 

no further action is necessary for the 

specified engine under the RICE MACT. 

However, all other engines must meet 

additional requirements if so delineated 

in the RICE MACT. 

Q3: What are the key factors in 

determining whether an owner/operator 

has any additional requirements to meet 

under the RICE MACT when the engine 

is not subject to NSPS SSIICE? 

A3: The key factors in determining if 

there are additional requirements to 

meet under the RICE MACT, when the 

engine is not subject to the SSIICE 

NSPS, are engine size and whether or 


TKELleY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 220 / Thursday, November 14, 2013 / Notices 68439 

not the engine is located at a major 

source or area source. 

Abstract for [A130001]: 

C:\Documents and 

Settings\mmalave\Local 

Settings\Temp\wzc696\A130001.pdf. 

Q: The Asbestos Institute request 

clarification from EPA on whether the 

use of foam meet the ‘‘adequately wet’’ 

standard, as stated in the Asbestos 

NESHAP, 40 CFR part 61, subpart M? 

A: EPA determines that as long as the 

foam is applied as a liquid and 

sufficiently mixes with or penetrates the 

asbestos-containing material and 

prevents visible emissions, the use of 

such foam is acceptable in meeting the 

adequately wet requirement under the 

Asbestos NEHSAP M. The response is 

limited to this question regarding foam 

as a wetting agent. It is the 

responsibility of the owner or operator 

to meet other asbestos emission control 

requirements (also known as ‘‘work 

practice standards’’) during the 

demolition or renovation operation, as 

described in the EPA response letter. 

Abstract for [A130002]: 

C:\Documents and 

Settings\mmalave\Local 

Settings\Temp\wzc696\A130002.pdf. 

Q1: Cantey Hanger LLP request a 

determination for a client on whether 

only removing a 1500 foot section of the 

asbestos-containing material (ACM)- 

wrapped pipeline in a pipeline 

renovation project, while leaving the 

remainder of the non-friable ACMwrapped pipeline in the ground, 

transform the site into a waste disposal 

site under 40 CFR 61.154 of 40 CFR part 

61, subpart M (i.e., Asbestos NESHAP)? 

A1: No. The Asbestos NESHAP does 

not apply to undisturbed pipelines 

coated with ACM that remain in the 

ground following a renovation project, 

which is the described scenario in your 

request, as long as no asbestoscontaining waste material is deposited 

in the recently renovated area. This is 

consistent with a previously EPA issued 

applicability determination, ADI 

Control Number A030001 dated March 

6, 2003. 

Q2: If no additional ACM is deposited 

at the site for a year, would the site 

become an inactive waste disposal site 

per 40 CFR 61.154(g)? 

A2: Yes. If the renovated area does not 

receive asbestos-containing waste 

material, the site is not subject to the 

active waste disposal regulation at 40 

CFR 61.154, in general and 40 CFR 

61.154(g), specifically. Therefore, the 

inactive waste disposal requirement at 

40 CFR 61.151 of the Asbestos NESHAP 

does not apply. 

Abstract for [A130003]: 

C:\Documents and 

Settings\mmalave\Local 

Settings\Temp\wzc696\A130003.pdf. 

Q: Does 40 CFR part 61, subpart M 

(i.e., Asbestos NESHAP) apply to 

encapsulating wall board with spray 

foam insulation if the surface of the wall 

board will not be disturbed? 

A: EPA is unable to comment on 

whether encapsulating wall board with 

spray foam insulation would be 

compliant with the Asbestos NESHAP 

based on the limited on site-specific 

information provided in the request. 

However, if the work you are 

contemplating does not involve 

wrecking or taking out load-bearing 

structures (demolition) or altering one 

or more facility components, including 

stripping or removing regulated 

asbestos-containing material 

(renovation), then the Asbestos 

NESHAP for demolition and renovation 

operations does not apply to the 

proposed action. 

Abstract for [M130001]: 

C:\Documents and 

Settings\mmalave\Local 

Settings\Temp\wzc696\M130001.pdf. 

Q: Does EPA approve Valero 

Refinery’s (Valero) Alternative 

Monitoring Plan (AMP) for using a 

video camera to monitor a flare pilot 

flame in a control room and record the 

observation, in lieu of having an 

ultraviolet (UV) flame detector, as 

required by 40 CFR part 63 subpart CC, 

at Valero’s Three Rivers refinery in 

Texas? 

A: No. EPA does not approve Valero’s 

AMP since it determined that the 

equivalence of using a video camera that 

must be monitored by operations 

personnel in lieu of a continuous 

recording thermocouple or equivalent 

device was not demonstrated under 40 

CFR 60.18(1)(2). 40 CFR 63.644(a)(2) 

requires that a device that continuously 

detects the presence of a pilot flame 

must be used when the controlling 

device is a flare. 40 CFR 63.11(b)(5) 

requires that the monitoring device 

must be a thermocouple or equivalent 

device. A thermocouple has a 

continuous recording mechanism that is 

not dependent on operation or 

monitoring by personnel. 

Abstract for [M130002]: 

C:\Documents and 

Settings\mmalave\Local 

Settings\Temp\wzc696\M130002.pdf. 

Q: Is the propane dehydrogenation 

(PDH) plant located at the Dow 

Chemical Company, Texas Operations 

(Dow) site subject to 40 CFR part 63 

subpart YY (MON NESHAP) or subpart 

FFFF (GMACT and Ethylene MACT)? 

A: EPA determines that Dow’s process 

is subject to the MON NESHAP, as it did 

not meet the criteria of an ethylene 

production process as defined by the 

Ethylene MACT due to the natural gas 

liquid feed stream and process 

conditions including temperature. 

Abstract for [Z130001]: C:\Documents 

and Settings\mmalave\Local 

Settings\Temp\wzc696\Z130001.pdf. 

Q: Is the integrated biosolids 

management system (IBMS), which uses 

dried biosolids as a feedstock in the 

gasifier to produce syngas for heat 

energy to be transferred to the indirect 

sludge dryer, located at the MaxWest 

South Sanford Water Resources Center 

(MaxWest) in Sanford, Florida, subject 

to 40 CFR part 61 subpart E? 

A: EPA determines that Subpart E is 

applicable to sludge gasifier and 

integrated thermal oxidizer portions and 

not to the sludge dryer portion of 

MaxWest’s IBMS system. 40 CFR part 61 

subpart E does not apply to MaxWest’s 

IBMS sludge dryer portion because it 

does not meet the definition of ‘‘sludge’’ 

dryer in 40 CFR part 61 subpart E since 

it being indirectly heated by thermal 

transfer fluid with no contact with 

combustion gases. 40 CFR part 61 

subpart E applies to MaxWest’s 

combination of the gasifier and thermal 

oxidizer as together they comprise a 

sewage sludge incinerator of a two-steps 

process, one that produces the gases 

through the heating of sewage sludge, 

and a follow up unit in which the gases 

are combusted and emissions vented to 

the atmosphere. 

Dated: October 24, 2013. 

Lisa Lund, 

Director, Office of Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2013–27287 Filed 11–13–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2013–0490; FRL–9902–61] 

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel; 

Notice of Rescheduled Public Meeting 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Agency is issuing this 

notice to reschedule the 3-day meeting 

of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, 

and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory 

Panel (FIFRA SAP) to consider and 

review, Scientific Uncertainties 

Associated with Corn Rootworm 

Resistance Monitoring for Bt Corn Plant 

Incorporated Protectants (PIPs). The 

meeting was announced in the Federal 

Register on August 9, 2013. The Agency 

issued a notice of cancellation in the 

Federal Register on October 28, 2013. 


TKELleY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES