Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Notices 95585 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9956–57–OECA] 

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 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, 

reconstruction, or modification. The 

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, the 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). The EPA’s written responses to 

these inquiries are commonly referred to 

as alternative monitoring decisions. 

Furthermore, the 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. The EPA’s written responses 

to these inquiries are commonly referred 

to as regulatory interpretations. 

The EPA currently compiles EPAissued 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 30 such documents added to the ADI 

on December 6, 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 

December 6, 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 DECEMBER 6, 2016 

Control No. Categories Subparts Title 

1500007 ............. NSPS ............................ Eb ................................. Waiver of System Operational Limits During Performance Test. 

1500050 ............. MACT, NESHAP, 

NSPS.

A, Db, JJJJJJ ............... Extension Request for Initial Performance Test at Coal-Fired Boiler. 

1500053 ............. NSPS ............................ Ja .................................. Alternative Monitoring Plan for Flares at a Petroleum Refinery. 

1500061 ............. NSPS ............................ IIII ................................. Regulatory Interpretation for Bi-fuel Engine Kits. 

1500075 ............. NSPS ............................ KKK, OOOO, VV, VVa Applicability Determination for a Natural Gas Processing Plant. 

1500076 ............. NSPS ............................ Ja .................................. Applicability Determination for a Condensate Splitter Processing Facility. 

1500077 ............. NSPS ............................ CCCC, DDDD .............. Applicability Determination for Thermal Oxidizer. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
95586 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Notices 

ADI DETERMINATIONS UPLOADED ON DECEMBER 6, 2016—Continued 

Control No. Categories Subparts Title 

1500078 ............. NSPS ............................ OOO ............................. Applicability Determination for Equipment Replacement at Salt Recovery 

Production Line. 

1500079 ............. NSPS ............................ DD ................................ Applicability Determination for Wire Screen Column Dryers. 

1500080 ............. NSPS ............................ JJJ ................................ Applicability Determination for Closed Loop Dry to Dry Cleaning Equipment. 

1500084 ............. NSPS ............................ KKK, NNN, OOOO, 

RRR.

Alternative Monitoring for Vent Streams Flow Monitoring and Pilot Light 

Monitoring. 

1600001 ............. GACT, MACT, 

NESHAP, NSPS.

CCCC, DDDDD, JJJJJJ Applicability Determination for a Stoker Boiler. 

1600002 ............. NSPS ............................ OOO ............................. Extension Request for Performance Test at Sand Mine. 

1600005 ............. NSPS ............................ LLLL ............................. Alternative Monitoring for Granular Activated Carbon and Fugitive Ash 

Monitoring at Sewage Sludge Incinerator. 

1600006 ............. NSPS ............................ LLLL ............................. Alternative Monitoring for Wet Electrostatic Precipitator at Sewage 

Sludge Incinerator. 

1600007 ............. NSPS ............................ Ja .................................. Alternative Monitoring of Hydrogen Sulfide from Flares at Chemical 

Plant. 

1600008 ............. NSPS ............................ J, Ja .............................. Alternative Monitoring of Hydrogen Sulfide from Portable Temporary 

Thermal Oxidizer Units at Refinery Degassing Operations. 

M150035 ............ MACT, NESHAP .......... HHHHHHH ................... Alternative Monitoring for Scrubber at Polyvinyl Chloride Plant. 

M150038 ............ MACT, NESHAP .......... N ................................... Alternative Monitoring Procedures for Air Pollution Control Device at 

Chrome Plating Facility. 

M150039 ............ MACT, NESHAP .......... DDDDD ........................ Alternative Monitoring for Wet Scrubbers at Pulp and Paper Mill. 

M150040 ............ MACT, NESHAP .......... DDDDD ........................ Alternative Monitoring for Wet Venturi Scrubber and Power Boiler. 

M160001 ............ MACT, NESHAP .......... RRR .............................. Applicability Determination for an Aluminum Chip Dryer. 

M160002 ............ MACT, NESHAP .......... DDDD, DDDDD ............ Applicability Determination for Drying Kilns and Boilers. 

M160003 ............ MACT, NESHAP .......... DDDDD ........................ Applicability Determination for a Biomass Boiler Sub-Categorization. 

M160004 ............ MACT, NESHAP .......... BBBBB ......................... Applicability Determination for Semiconductor Facility. 

Z150003 ............ MACT, NESHAP .......... BBBBBB ....................... Alternative Monitoring for Internal Floating Roof Tanks. 

Z150007 ............ MACT, NESHAP .......... ZZZZ ............................. Regulatory Interpretation of Duke Energy Emergency Generator Programs. 

Z150008 ............ MACT, NESHAP, 

NSPS.

IIII, JJJJ, ZZZZ ............. Regulatory Interpretation on Stack Testing for Reciprocating Internal 

Combustion Engines. 

Z150012 ............ GACT, MACT, 

NESHAP.

JJJJJJ ........................... Regulatory Interpretation of Emissions Test Data for Wood-Fired Boilers. 

Z160001 ............ GACT, MACT, 

NESHAP.

DDDDDDD ................... Clarification of Prepared Feeds Area Source Rule. 

Abstracts 

Abstract for [1500007] 

Q: Will the EPA grant a waiver to the 

large municipal waste combustor 

(MWC) at Covanta Marion, Inc. (CMI) in 

Brooks, Oregon, pursuant to its 

authority under 40 CFR 60.53b(b)(2) for 

the combustor unit load level 

limitations, under 40 CFR 60.53b(c)(1) 

for the particulate matter control device 

inlet temperature, and under 40 CFR 

60.58b(m)(2)(ii) for the average mass 

carbon feed rate, for the two weeks 

preceding, and during the annual 

dioxin/furan and mercury performance 

tests for the purpose of evaluating 

system performance? 

A: Yes. For the purpose of evaluating 

system performance, the EPA agrees to 

waive the following operational limits 

imposed to large municipal waste 

combustors under the Federal Plan at 

subpart FFF, part 62, pursuant to its 

authority under 40 CFR 60.53b(b)(2): (1) 

MWC load level (steam generation rate), 

(2) flue gas temperatures at the inlet to 

the particulate matter control device, 

and (3) activated carbon injection rate 

(mass carbon feed rate). These 

requirements are waived for the two 

week period preceding, and during the 

annual dioxin/furan and mercury 

performance test which is scheduled to 

take place during the week of June 9, 

2014 at the CMI MWC. This waiver is 

limited to the time frame and 

operational limits specifically identified 

above, and all otherwise applicable 

requirements continue to be in effect 

during this period. 

Abstract for [1500050] 

Q: May the Eielson Air Force Base 

(EAFB) in Alaska have an extension to 

the required initial performance test 

deadlines for a recently constructed 

Boiler 6A subject to 40 CFR part 60 

subpart Db and 40 CFR part 63 subpart 

JJJJJJ under the force majeure provisions 

in 40 CFR 60.2, 60.8(a)(1) through (4); 

63.2, and 60.7(a)(4)(i) through (iii)? 

A: No. The EPA determines that the 

event described in the request does not 

meet the definition of a ‘‘force majeure 

event’’. The EPA cannot conclude that 

the delay in full operation of B6A in 

sufficient time to conduct the required 

initial performance tests was beyond the 

control of the EAFB; therefore, the EPA 

is denying the EAFB’s request to extend 

the April 26, 2015, deadline for 

conducting the initial performance 

testing of B6A. 

Abstract for [1500053] 

Q: Will the EPA approve alternatives 

to the quality assurance testing 

requirements, required by 40 CFR 

60.107a(e)(1), for the total reduced 

sulfur (TRS) flare analyzer at the CHS 

Inc. refinery in Laurel, Montana? 

A: Yes. The EPA conditionally 

approves the alternative quality 

assurance testing requirements for the 

high range TRS portion of the analyzer 

under 40 CFR 60.l3(i). The conditions 

for approval of the AMP request to 

address safety hazards concerns are 

established in the EPA response letter, 

which include a laboratory 

demonstration of linearity for the 

analyzer. 

Abstract for [1500061] 

Q1: Does the installation of the bi-fuel 

kit on new U.S. EPA-certified units at 

engines at the USR Corporation in 

Virginia subject to NSPS subpart IIII 

affect the manufacturer’s certification? 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Notices 95587 

In other words, is the unit still a 

certified unit? 

A1: No. The EPA determines that the 

engine is no longer certified after the 

conversion and the owner/operator 

must follow the requirements listed 

under 40 CFR 60.4211(g) to show 

compliance with emission standards in 

NSPS subpart IIII. 

Q2: Does the installation and 

operation of the bi-fuel kit on a certified 

engine constitute tampering under the 

Clean Air Act, or is this action 

prohibited by other provisions of the 

Clean Air Act? 

A2: No. The EPA determines this 

action is not prohibited for certified 

stationary compression ignition internal 

combustion engines (CI ICE), but after 

the installation and operation of the kit, 

the unit is no longer certified. The 

owner/operator must show compliance 

with emission standards by following 

requirements listed in 40 CFR 

60.4211(g). 

Q3: If a manufacturer’s certification is 

affected for an engine, what specific 

requirements must be performed to 

ensure compliance with emission 

standards under NSPS subpart IIII? URS 

requests a determination as to the 

testing procedures required for a facility 

with a fleet of identical engines which 

have been installed with bi-fuel units. 

The engines are identical in size, 

horsepower, model year, etc. The test 

would determine compliance with 

NSPS subpart IIII and would represent 

compliance for all the identical engines 

for the client. It is URS’ contention that 

since the engines are identical in every 

way, it would be unnecessary and cost 

prohibitive to test all of the engines. Can 

a representative engine test satisfy the 

testing requirements for a fleet of 

identical engines for the same client? 

A3: No. The testing requirements are 

listed in 40 CFR 60.4211(g). An initial 

performance test must be conducted for 

stationary CI ICE less than or equal to 

500 horsepower (HP). For stationary CI 

ICE greater than 500 horsepower, the 

owner/operator must conduct an initial 

test, and subsequent testing every 8,760 

hours of operation or every 3 years, 

whichever comes first. The EPA 

determines that a representative engine 

test cannot satisfy the testing 

requirements for a fleet of identical 

engines for one client, unless the owner/ 

operator has requested and received 

approval of a waiver of the performance 

testing requirements, listed under 40 

CFR 60.8(b). 

Abstract for [1500075] 

Q1: Does the NSPS subpart OOOO 

apply to the storage facilities at the 

Williams Four Corners LLC Ignacio Gas 

Plant located near Ignacio, Colorado? 

A1: Yes. Based on the information 

provided, the EPA understands the 

storage facilities referred to are the 

portion of the plant which stores final 

product (propane, butane, etc.) prior to 

offsite transport. As such, the storage 

facilities at the Ignacio Gas Plant are a 

process unit and an affected facility 

under subpart OOOO. 

Q2: What value should the Ignacio 

Gas Plant use for ‘‘B’’ in the equation for 

determining whether a ‘‘capital 

expenditure’’ has occurred, and thus a 

modification under subpart OOOO at 

the Ignacio Gas Plant? 

A2: For determining whether a 

modification has occurred at the Ignacio 

Gas Plant under subpart OOOO, in the 

equation for capital expenditure in 40 

CFR 60.481(a), the value to be used for 

‘‘B’’ is 4.5 and the value to be used for 

‘‘X’’ is 2011 minus the year of 

construction. 

Abstract for [1500076] 

Q1: Does the EPA determine that 

NSPS subpart Ja applies to the 

condensate splitter located at the Kinder 

Morgan Crude & Condensate LCC 

(KMCC) Facility, a petroleum refinery 

located in Galena Park, Texas? 

A1: Yes. Based upon the information 

provided, the EPA determines that the 

KMCC condensate splitter facility is a 

refinery under subpart Ja because it 

receives and distills a crude oil and 

condensate hydrocarbon mixture into 

various refined petroleum products. 

Based on review of the company’s 

information, the EPA concludes that the 

raw material feedstock, processes 

employed, and products generated meet 

the definition of a petroleum refinery 

provided at 40 CFR 60.101a. 

Abstract for [1500077] 

Q1: Does the EPA determine that the 

thermal oxidizer at the 3M Company 

(3M) facility in Cordova, Illinois is 

subject to the Standards of Performance 

for Commercial and Industrial Solid 

Waste Incineration (CISWI) Units, 40 

CFR part 60 subpart CCCC? 

A1: No. The EPA determines that the 

thermal oxidizer is not subject to 

subpart CCCC because 3M commenced 

construction of the thermal oxidizer 

before the threshold date for a new 

CISWI unit. 

Q2: Does the EPA determine that a 

fluorinated liquid organic chemical 

byproduct from a chemical 

manufacturing process unit at the 

facility which is atomized in the 

thermal oxidizer is not a ‘‘solid waste’’ 

as defined in 40 CFR 60.2265? 

A2: Yes. Based on the information 

provided, the byproduct liquid appears 

to meet the Non Hazardous Secondary 

Material (NHSM) criteria and would be 

considered a non-waste ingredient 

under the 40 CFR part 241 regulations. 

Abstract for [1500078] 

Q1: Does the EPA determine that the 

‘‘like-for-like’’ replacement exemption 

in 40 CFR 60.670(d) is applicable to the 

replacement of affected facilities on 

production lines that were constructed 

after August 31, 1983 at the 3M 

Company salt recovery production line 

located in Elyria, Ohio? 

A1: Yes. The EPA determines that the 

‘‘like-for-like’’ replacement exemption 

in 40 CFR 60.670(d)(1) of subpart OOO 

is applicable to ‘‘affected facilities’’ 

(those constructed after August 31, 

1983) with regards to the subpart OOO 

amendments promulgated on April 28, 

2009 based on 3M’s description that the 

Weigh Conveyors A and B are equal or 

smaller in size to and perform the same 

function as the original conveyors, and 

emissions at the conveyors did not 

increase, and as long as the remaining 

affected facilities in the salt recovery 

production line have not been replaced 

since April 22, 2008. 

Q2: What emission standards apply to 

a production line constructed after 

August 31, 1983 that includes affected 

facilities constructed as a ‘‘like-for-like’’ 

replacement after April 22, 2008, 

assuming that all of the affected 

facilities on the production line have 

not been replaced as provided in 40 CFR 

60.670(d)(3)? 

A2: A production line constructed 

after August 31, 1983 that includes 

affected facilities constructed as a ‘‘likefor-like’’ replacement after April 22, 

2008 is subject to the original subpart 

OOO rule standards promulgated on 

August 1, 1985, and not the 2009 

subpart OOO rule standards, as long as 

all affected facilities on the production 

line have not been replaced. 

Abstract for [1500079] 

Q: Does the EPA determine that NSPS 

subpart DD applies to column dryers 

constructed of woven wire screen at the 

Riceland Foods facility in Stuttgart, 

Arkansas (Riceland)? 

A: No. The EPA determines that 

although the Riceland facility is a grain 

terminal elevator subject to subpart DD, 

the column dryers in question are a new 

subcategory of grain dryers not subject 

to subpart DD due to its differences in 

size, type and class of column dryers. 

The EPA has stated this position in the 

July 9, 2014 proposed rule for subpart 

DD and in a new proposed subpart DDa 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
95588 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Notices 

rule, which now includes a definition 

for ‘‘wire screen column dryers’’. 

Abstract for [1500080] 

Q: Does the EPA determine that NSPS 

subpart JJJ for Petroleum Dry Cleaners 

applies to closed loop, dry to dry new 

hydrocarbon equipment at Parrot 

Cleaners facility in Louisville, 

Kentucky? 

A: No. The EPA determines that the 

dry to dry closed loop machines 

installed at Parrot Cleaners do not meet 

the definition of a ‘‘petroleum dry 

cleaner,’’ in that they do not use solvent 

in a ‘‘combination of washers, dryers, 

filters, stills, and settling tanks’’ since 

these are single unit machines. The EPA 

intent to regulate dry cleaning machines 

with separate units (i.e., transfer 

machines with separate washers and 

dryers) in subpart JJJ is evidenced by the 

equipment standard requiring separate 

‘‘solvent recovery dryers’’ in section 

60.622 and in the testing procedures in 

section 60.624, as well as in other EPA 

statements regarding the petroleum 

solvent drycleaning industry. Therefore, 

subpart JJJ does not apply to the dry to 

dry machines installed at the facility. 

Abstract for [1500084] 

Q1: Does the EPA approve the use of 

a lock and seal configuration in lieu of 

flow indicators to monitor VOC 

containing vent streams routed from 

distillation facilities to plant flares at 

the Aux Sable Liquid Products (ASLP) 

facility in Morris, Illinois to 

demonstrate compliance with 

requirements of 40 CFR 63 subpart 

NNN? 

A1: Yes. The EPA approves locking or 

sealing leak-proof bypass valves in the 

closed position in lieu of flow 

indicators. ASLP will conduct monthly 

monitoring of the lock or seal valves to 

ensure that they function and are kept 

in the closed position. ASLP will 

maintain a log of each lock or seal 

inspection and comply with the 

monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 

60.703(b)(2), 40 CFR 60.703(b)(2)(i), and 

40 CFR 60.703 (b)(2)(ii) of NSPS subpart 

RRR for the purpose of complying with 

NSPS NNN. In addition, ASLP will need 

to comply with the monitoring and 

record keeping requirements of 40 CFR 

60.705(d)(2) and (s). 

Q2: Does the EPA approve the use of 

infrared cameras to monitor the 

continuous presence of a pilot light in 

lieu of a thermocouple or ultraviolet 

beam sensor, in the ASLP Morris, 

Illinois facility? 

A2: No. The EPA does not approve 

the use of an infrared camera pilot 

monitor (PM) to meet the requirements 

of 40 CFR 60.663(b), 40 CFR 60.703(b) 

and 40 CFR 60.18(e)(2) because ASLP is 

unable to prove that their pilot monitor 

can continuously monitor the presence 

of a pilot flame. The PM is able to detect 

the flare flame accurately and reliability 

when the vent gas is flowing, but it has 

not proven to have sufficient resolution 

for a situation where the pilot light is 

not present and a flare flame is present 

with vent gas flowing. 

Abstract for [1600001] 

Q1: Does the EPA determine that the 

stoker boiler at Fibrominn LLC 

(Fibrominn) in Benson, Minnesota is 

subject to the Standards of Performance 

for Commercial and Industrial Solid 

Waste Incineration (CISWI) Units, 40 

CFR part 60 subpart CCCC (CISWI 

NSPS)? 

A1: No. Although the EPA concludes 

that the boiler is a CISWI unit, 

Fibrominn commenced construction of 

its boiler on or before June 4, 2010 and 

there is no evidence that it has been 

modified or reconstructed after August 

7, 2013. Therefore, the EPA concludes 

that Fibrominn’s boiler is not subject to 

the CISWI NSPS pursuant to 40 CFR 

60.2010 and 60.2015. 

Q2: Does the EPA determine that 

Fibrominn’s boiler is subject to the 

Federal Plan Requirements for CISWI 

Units That Commenced Construction 

On or Before November 30, 1999, 40 

CFR part 62 subpart III (CISWI FIP)? 

A2: No. Fibrominn’s boiler is not 

subject to the CISWI FIP because 

Fibrominn commenced construction 

between November 30, 1999, and June 

4, 2010. The CISWI NSPS applies to 

each CISWI unit that commenced 

construction after June 4, 2010, or 

commenced reconstruction or 

modification after August 7, 2013. 

Q3: Does the EPA determine that 

Fibrominn’s boiler is exempt from the 

requirements in the CISWI FIP? 

A3: No. Fibrominn’s boiler is not 

subject to the CISWI FIP. Therefore, the 

question of whether Fibrominn’s boiler 

is exempt from the CISWI FIP is moot. 

Q4: Does the EPA determine that 

Fibrominn can avoid being subject to 

the NESHAP for Major Sources: 

Industrial, Commercial, and 

Institutional Boilers and Process 

Heaters, 40 CFR part 63 subpart DDDDD 

(Major Source Boiler MACT) by taking 

federally enforceable limits on its 

potential to emit prior to the compliance 

date, January 31, 2016? 

A4: Yes. The EPA agrees that 

Fibrominn can take federally 

enforceable limits on its potential to 

emit to avoid being subject to the Major 

Source Boiler MACT. By doing so, 

Fibrominn would become subject to the 

NESHAP for Industrial, Commercial, 

and Institutional Boilers Area Sources, 

40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJJJ (Area 

Source Boiler MACT). 

Q5: If Fibrominn submits a formal 

application to the Minnesota Pollution 

Control Agency (MPCA) to amend 

Fibrominn’s existing Title V permit in 

order to take a synthetic minor limit, 

and Fibrominn submits the application 

to the MPCA prior to January 31, 2016, 

the compliance date for the Major 

Source Boiler MACT, does this 

constitute Fibrominn’s ‘‘taking a 

synthetic minor limit’’ in terms of 

eligibility to avoid being subject to the 

Major Source Boiler MACT? 

A5: No. Fibrominn’s submittal of its 

application for modification of its Title 

V permit does not constitute taking 

federally enforceable limits on its 

potential to emit. 

Q6: Does the EPA determine that 

Fibrominn remain subject to the casespecific MACT in its 2002 Title V 

permit after the compliance date for the 

Major Source Boiler MACT? 

A6: Yes. The EPA notes that more 

than one MACT standard can apply to 

the same equipment or operation. 

Unless the case specific MACT is 

removed from the permit, Fibrominn 

would remain subject to the case 

specific MACT and either the Major 

Source or Area Source Boiler MACT. 

Abstract for [1600002] 

Q: Does the EPA approve an extension 

of time to conduct a performance test 

required by NSPS subpart OOO based 

on a force majeure event at the Hi-Crush 

Augusta, LLC industrial sand mine and 

processing plant in August, Wisconsin? 

A: No. The EPA determines that the 

event described in the request does not 

meet the definition of a ‘‘force majeure 

event’’ under 40 CFR 60.2. 

Abstract for [1600005] 

Q1: Does the EPA approve an 

alternative monitoring plan (AMP) for 

the granular activated carbon adsorption 

system used to control mercury 

emissions from the sewage sludge 

incinerator subject to 40 CFR part 60 

subpart LLLL at the Mattabassett District 

Water Pollution Control Facility in 

Cromwell, Connecticut? 

A1: Yes. The EPA approves 

Mattabassett’s AMP for the carbon bed 

under 40 CFR 60.13(i) for the granular 

activated carbon adsorption system 

(‘‘carbon bed’’) used to control mercury 

emissions from the sewage sludge 

incinerator subject to subpart LLLL. The 

alternative monitoring plan that 

Mattabassett has proposed, combined 

with the facilities construction permit, 

meets the requirement of a similar type 

of monitoring application for carbon 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Notices 95589 

beds used to control mercury under 40 

CFR part 63 subpart EEE. 

Q2: Does the EPA approve 

Mattabassett’s site-specific ash handling 

monitoring plan to meet the fugitive 

emission limits specified in 40 CFR part 

60 subpart LLLL, considering that the 

ash at the facility is collected using an 

entirely wet system? 

A2: Yes. The EPA approves 

Mattabassett’s site-specific plan for 

fugitive ash monitoring that consists of 

daily observations of the ash lagoons. 

Abstract for [1600006] 

Q: Does the EPA approve an 

alternative monitoring plan (AMP) for 

the wet electrostatic precipitator (WESP) 

used to control air emissions from the 

sewage sludge incinerator subject to 40 

CFR part 60 subpart LLLL located at the 

Mattabassett District Water Pollution 

Control Facility (Mattabassett) in 

Cromwell, Connecticut? 

A: Yes. The EPA approves 

Mattabassett’s AMP to monitor the total 

water flow rate of the influent to the 

WESP on an 8 hour block basis and to 

set the parameter limit at 90 percent of 

the 8 hour flow recorded during the 

initial performance test. 

Abstract for [1600007] 

Q: Does the EPA approve the 

alternative monitoring plan to use the 

same high level calibration gas for both 

the low range and high level range for 

two dual range hydrogen sulfide (H2S) 

monitors installed on two flares subject 

to 40 CFR part 60 subpart Ja at the Shell 

Chemical LP plant in Saraland, 

Alabama? 

A: Yes. The EPA responded to the 

Alabama Department of Environmental 

Management that based upon the 

expectation that the majority of H2S 

readings will be made on the lower 

range of the dual range monitors, a 

demonstration that the monitors have a 

linear response across their entire range 

of operation, and the toxicity of H2S, 

the proposal is acceptable. 

Abstract for [1600008] 

Q: Does the EPA approve an 

alternative hydrogen sulfide (H2S) 

monitoring plan (AMP) for portable 

temporary thermal oxidizer units 

(TOUs) that control emissions during 

tank degassing and vapor control 

projects subject to 40 CFR part 60 

subpart J and 40 CFR part 60 subpart Ja 

at Tristar Global Energy Solutions 

(Tristar) petroleum refineries located in 

EPA Region 4? 

A: Yes. The EPA approves the AMP 

request since installing and operating an 

H2S continuous emission monitoring 

system would be impractical due to the 

short term nature of the degassing 

operations performed by Tristar. In 

addition, Tristar’s proposed monitoring 

alternative is consistent with previously 

approved alternatives for other tank 

degassing service providers. 

Abstract for [M150035] 

Q1: Does the EPA approve an 

alternative monitoring request (AMR) 

for the purpose of monitoring pressure 

drop under requirements of 40 CFR part 

63 subpart HHHHHHH Table 5, 

Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) and 

Copolymer Production at Major Sources 

NESHAP at the Oxy Vinyls, LP 

Pasadena PVC plant in Pasadena, Texas? 

A1: Yes. The EPA approves the AMR 

to substitute ambient pressure for the 

measured outlet pressure of the 

scrubber. Since the scrubber is a low 

pressure scrubber, the outlet of the 

scrubber system operates at ambient 

pressure. Any pressure changes in the 

scrubber would be indicated by changes 

to the inlet pressure, which will be 

directly monitored. Therefore, the 

calculation of pressure drop will be 

determined by the difference between 

inlet pressure and ambient pressure. 

The operating limit for pressure drop 

has been established using engineering 

assessments and manufacturer’s 

recommendations, which is allowed by 

40 CFR 63.11935(d)(2). Scrubber 

pressure drop will be recorded in 

accordance with the approved AMR 

during a performance test, along with 

other operating parameters required by 

Table 5 of subpart HHHHHHH. The 

frequency and content of pressure drop 

monitoring, recording, and reporting 

will not change as a result of the 

approved AMR. 

Abstract for [M150038] 

Q: Does the EPA approve of 

alternative work practice and 

monitoring procedures for the three 

enclosed hard chromium plating tanks 

to be installed that will be subject to 40 

CFR part 63 subpart N at the Har-Conn 

Chrome Company (Har-Conn) facility in 

West Hartford, Connecticut? 

A: Yes. The EPA approves the HarConn alternative monitoring procedures 

to demonstrate ongoing compliance 

with the operation and maintenance 

(‘‘O&M’’) practices and monitoring 

specified in Table 1 of 63.342 as they 

are not feasible for the application to the 

Palm Technology Emission Eliminating 

Devices (EEE) used by the enclosed hard 

chromium tanks. Har-Conn will use the 

operation and maintenance (O&M) 

practices and manual recommended by 

the manufacturer of the Palm 

Technology Emission Eliminating 

Devices (EEE), as well as daily, weekly, 

monthly, quarterly, and annual 

compliance monitoring logs for the EED. 

Abstract for [M150039] 

Q: Does the EPA approve an 

alternative monitoring plan to the use of 

an alternative control device parameter 

other than one of the parameters 

required at 40 CFR 63.7525(f) and 

Tables 4, 7, and 8 in subpart DDDDD for 

wet scrubbers at the SAPPI Fine Paper 

North America (SAPPI) facility in 

Skowhegan, Maine? 

A: Yes. The EPA approves SAPPI’s 

alternative monitoring request for the 

wet scrubber to monitor scrubber liquid 

supply pressure in lieu of the pressure 

drop across the wet scrubber used to 

control emissions from the Number 2 

Power Boiler. Based on the data 

provided showing strong correlation 

between spray tower liquid 

recirculation pressure and flow, as well 

as data that demonstrates a poor 

correlation between pressure drop of the 

scrubber and heat input to the boiler (an 

indicator of emissions), EPA agrees that 

this method may be used in this 

situation in lieu of monitoring pressure 

drop across the scrubber. In addition, 

this method is consistent with similar 

boiler monitoring applications. 

Abstract for [M150040] 

Q1: Does the EPA approve separate 

sets of parameter monitoring thresholds 

for the scrubber liquid flow rate and 

pressure drop of the wet venturi 

scrubber subject to 40 CFR part 63 

subpart DDDDD at the Verso 

Corporation (Verso) facility in Jay, 

Maine under two operating scenarios: 

(1) Periods when the unit burns biomass 

and combined biomass/fossil-fuel 

burning at boiler capacities up to 480 

MMBtu, and (2) periods when the unit 

burns only fossil fuel at boiler capacities 

equal to or less than 240 MMBtu, on a 

30-day rolling average and on a daily 

block average when burning only fossil 

fuels? 

A1: Yes. The EPA approves Verso’s 

alternative monitoring request for both 

operating scenarios. 

Q2: Does the EPA approve for Verso 

when burning exclusively natural gas to 

operate without engaging the wet 

venturi scrubber after startup and 

exclude periods when the wet scrubber 

is not engaged due to burning gas from 

the 30-day compliance averages? 

A2: Yes. The EPA approves the 

request to allow the unit to operate 

without engaging the wet scrubber and 

to exclude parameter monitoring data 

during periods when only natural gas is 

fired, provided that Verso can 

demonstrate through existing data or 

emissions testing that the unit complies 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
95590 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Notices 

with the PM, Hg, and HCl emissions 

standards while firing only natural gas. 

Abstract for [M160001] 

Q: Would an aluminum chip drying 

process at the Remelt Scientific facility 

(Remelt) in Port Charlotte, Florida, that 

is used to remove water meet the 

definition of ‘‘thermal chip dryer’’ in 40 

CFR part 63 subpart RRR? 

A: No. Remelt’s chip drying process 

does the not meet the definition of 

‘‘thermal chip dryer’’ and is therefore 

not subject to subpart RRR. Based on the 

description that the process operates at 

temperatures of 200F and 235F, and the 

oil that remains on the chips has an 

evaporation temperature of over 300F, 

we believe that the process would be 

used solely to remove water from the 

aluminum chips since it would not be 

operating at temperatures sufficient to 

remove the machining oil that remains 

on the chips. 

Abstract for [M160002] 

Q1: The ArborTech Forest Products, 

Inc. (ArborTech) facility in Blackstone, 

Virginia is planning to increase its 

lumber production such that the 

potential to emit for methanol would be 

greater than 10 tons per year. Does the 

EPA determine that the facility would 

be reclassified as a major source for 

hazardous air pollutants (HAPs)? 

A1: Yes. The EPA determines that if 

ArborTech increases the air permit limit 

on production and potential methanol 

emissions would exceed 10 tons/year 

that the facility would qualify as a major 

source and would need to be 

reclassified as a major source in the 

State permit. 

Q2: Does the EPA determine that 

ArborTech would be subject to 40 CFR 

part 63 subpart DDDD, Plywood and 

Composite Wood Products National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants (PCWP MACT), and would 

the dry kilns be considered an affected 

source immediately upon issuance of 

the revised permit/reclassification to a 

major source of HAPs? 

A2: Yes. The EPA determines that 

ArborTech would be subject to the 

subpart DDDD rule on the date of 

issuance of the revised permit when the 

facility would be reclassified as a major 

source of HAPs, and therefore the dry 

kilns would be an affected source under 

the rule. 

Q3: Does the EPA determine that if 

the wood-fired boilers’ exhaust is routed 

to the lumber kiln(s) and used to dry 

lumber the boilers would be an 

‘‘affected source’’ under the PCWP 

MACT and subject to the rule? 

A3: The EPA determines that if 

Arbortech becomes a major source of 

HAPs, and if ArborTech sent 100 

percent of the exhaust from its woodfired boilers to its lumber drying kiln(s) 

to help dry lumber, then the boilers 

would not be subject to 40 CFR part 63 

subpart DDDDD (the Major Source 

Boiler MACT), but would instead be 

subject to the PCWP MACT. 

Q4: When does the EPA determine 

that Arbortech would become subject to 

the Major Source Boiler MACT? 

A4: The EPA determines that if 

ArborTech were to become a major 

source of HAPs after the Major Source 

Boiler MACT initial compliance date for 

existing sources of January 31, 2016, 

then ArborTech would be required to 

bring its existing boilers into 

compliance with the Major Source 

Boiler MACT within three years after 

ArborTech became a major source, 

unless ArborTech had previously sent 

100% of the exhaust from its boiler(s) to 

its kiln(s), thus making the boiler(s) and 

their exhaust streams affected sources 

under the PCWP MACT. If Arbortech 

were to become a major source prior to 

the Major Source Boiler MACT initial 

compliance date for existing sources of 

January 31, 2016, then its existing 

boilers would be required to be in 

compliance as of January 31, 2016, 

unless ArborTech had previously sent 

100% of the exhaust from its boiler(s) to 

its kiln(s), thus making the boiler(s) and 

their exhaust streams affected sources 

under the PCWP MACT. 

Abstract for [M160003] 

Q: Does the EPA approve the recategorization of Boiler No. 9 at the 

Finch Paper, LLC (Finch) integrated 

pulp and paper manufacturing facility 

located in Glen Falls, New York from 

the wet biomass stoker subcategory to 

the hybrid suspension grate boiler 

subcategory pursuant to 40 CFR part 63 

subpart DDDDD (the Major Source 

Boiler MACT)? 

A: Yes. Based on the information 

submitted on the design and operation 

of the Boiler No. 9, the EPA determines 

that it meets the definition of ‘‘hybrid 

suspension grate boiler’’ found in 40 

CFR 63.7575. Therefore, Boiler No. 9 

will be subject to the rule as it pertains 

to existing hybrid suspension grate 

boilers. 

Abstract for [M160004] 

Q: Does the EPA determine that the 

Truesense Imaging, Inc. (Truesense) 

semiconductor fabrication business 

(Semiconductor Business) located at its 

microelectronics wafer fabrication 

facility (FAB facility) in Rochester, NY 

is subject to the National Emissions 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

for Semiconductor Manufacturing, 40 

CFR part 63 subpart BBBBB 

(Semiconductor MACT)? 

A: Yes. The EPA determines that the 

FAB facility, currently owned and 

operated by Truesense, is and continues 

to be an existing source with 

compliance required as of 2006 and 

must continue to comply with the 

Semiconductor MACT, even after a sale, 

as long as the source otherwise 

continues to meet the definition of an 

affected facility (i.e., major source status 

not withstanding) consistent with the 

‘‘Once In Always In’’ policy. 

Abstract for [Z150003] 

Q: Does the EPA approve Monroe 

Interstate Pipeline Company (MIPC) 

alternative monitoring request for use of 

top-side in-service inspections in lieu of 

the out-of-service inspection 

requirements for specific types of 

internal floating roof (IFR) storage tanks 

subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart 

BBBBBB (GD GACT) and/or 40 CFR part 

60 subpart Kb, NSPS for Volatile 

Organic Liquid Storage Vessels), at the 

MIPC Chelsea Tank Farm in Aston, PA? 

A: Yes. In accordance with 40 CFR 

60.13 and 63.8(f), EPA approves MIPC 

alternative monitoring request for use of 

top-side in-service internal inspection 

methodology for the IFR storage tanks 

subject to NSPS Kb and GD GACT 

specified in the AMP request (tanks that 

have geodesic dome roofs equipped 

with skylights for enhanced natural 

lighting and aluminum honeycomb 

panel decks constructed decks with 

mechanical shoe primary and secondary 

seals liquid surface) to meet the internal 

out-of-service inspection required at 

intervals no greater than 10 years by the 

applicable regulations. MIPC will be 

able to have visual access to all of the 

requisite components (i.e., the primary 

and secondary mechanical seals, 

gaskets, and slotted membranes) 

through the top side of the IFR for the 

specified storage tanks, as well as 

properly inspect and repair the requisite 

components while these tanks are still 

in-service, consistent with the 

inspection and repair requirements 

established under NSPS subpart Kb. In 

addition, MIPC internal inspection 

methodology includes identifying and 

addressing any gaps of more than 1⁄8

inch between any deck fitting gasket, 

seal, or wiper and any surface that it is 

intended to seal; complying with the 

fitting and deck seal requirements and 

the repair time frame requirement in 

NSPS subpart Kb for all tanks, including 

GACT tanks; and implementing a full 

top-side and bottom-side out-of-service 

inspection of the tank each time an IFR 

storage tank is emptied and degassed for 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Notices 95591 

any reason, and keep records for at least 

five years. 

Abstract for [Z150007] 

Q: Does the EPA determine that the 

stationary reciprocating internal 

combustion engines (RICE) participating 

in two Duke Energy Carolinas 

nonresidential demand response 

programs meet the definition of 

‘‘emergency stationary RICE’’ in the 

National Emissions Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Stationary 

Reciprocating Internal Combustion 

Engines (‘‘RICE NESHAP’’)? 

A: No. The EPA determines that the 

terms of Duke’s demand response 

programs do not meet all of the 

operational limits on emergency engines 

in the RICE NESHAP. The terms of the 

programs are consistent with the 

limitations on emergency demand 

response. However, an engine must also 

comply with the definition of 

‘‘emergency stationary RICE’’ and all of 

the operational restrictions in 40 CFR 

63.6640(f) to be considered RICE 

NESHAP emergency engines. 

Abstract for [Z150008] 

Q1: Has EPA Method 1 been removed 

from the reciprocating internal 

combustion engine (RICE) NESHAP 

subpart ZZZZ, or should the engines at 

Farabee Mechanical in Hickman, 

Nebraska (Farabee) be following Method 

1 for test port locations. 

A1: No. EPA Method 1 of 40 CFR part 

60 Appendix A from the RICE NESHAP 

should be followed for test port 

locations. The EPA response letter 

provides guidance for numerous testing 

scenarios under NESHAP subpart ZZZZ 

sources including engines where 

Method 1 is required but the testing 

ports do not meet the minimum criteria 

of Method 1 and engines that are not 

required to use Method 1 procedures. 

Q2: Is there any conflict with the RICE 

NESHAP subpart ZZZZ rule if utilizing 

test ports at engines for testing 

purposes? 

A2: No. The Farabee Mechanical 

facility was approved to use single-point 

sampling at NSPS subpart JJJJ sources in 

lieu of Method 1 for their engines. 

Single point sampling without a 

stratification test for nitrogen oxide 

emissions using Alternative Test 

Method 87 is allowed under 40 CFR 60, 

Subparts IIII and JJJJ. However, single 

point sampling for carbon monoxide at 

NESHAP subpart ZZZZ sources have 

not yet been broadly approved. 

Therefore, when Method 1 is not met, a 

stratification test is to be conducted to 

show if the site is acceptable to perform 

the test. 

Abstract for [Z150012] 

Q: Does the EPA approve the use of 

the results of a particulate matter 

emission test conducted on December 

2014 for two new wood-fired boilers at 

Norwich University in Northfield, 

Vermont that are subject to the 

requirements of 40 CFR part 63 subpart 

JJJJJJ as being representative of ‘‘initial 

conditions’’ because the first test, 

conducted in February 2014, was not 

conducted under normal operating 

conditions? 

A: Yes. The EPA approves the use of 

emissions test data from the second test 

as meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 

63.11220(b) since it is representative of 

normal operating conditions, and 

therefore Norwich University may avoid 

the requirement to test particulate 

matter every three years. 

Abstract for [Z160001] 

Q: Does the EPA accept the proposal 

by Tyson Foods Inc. to use a louvered 

door system, where the louvers would 

only open inward and would only open 

when negative pressure is in place, to 

meet the work practice requirements in 

40 CFR part 63 subpart DDDDDDD, 

National Emissions Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area 

Sources: Prepared Feeds Manufacturing 

(Prepared Feeds Area Source Rule), to 

keep exterior doors in the immediate 

affected areas shut except during normal 

ingress and egress, as practicable? 

A: Yes. The EPA determines that the 

use of the louvered door system would 

meet the requirements of subpart 

DDDDDDD. The louvered door system 

described would maintain the function 

of the closed doors by only opening the 

louvers to the interior of the building 

when the doors are under negative 

pressure, drawing air into the building. 

Under these conditions the doors would 

be serving the purpose of minimizing 

the release of prepared feed dust 

emissions to the outside, which is the 

intent of the work practice standard in 

Section 63.11621(a)(1)(iii). 

Dated: November 10, 2016. 

David A. Hindin, 

Director, Office of Compliance, Office of 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. 

[FR Doc. 2016–31235 Filed 12–27–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS 

ADVISORY BOARD 

Notice of Federal Accounting 

Standards Advisory Board 2017 

Meeting Schedule 

AGENCY: Federal Accounting Standards 

Advisory Board. 

ACTION: Notice. 

Board Action: Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 

3511(d), the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463), as 

amended, and the FASAB Rules of 

Procedure, as amended in October 2010, 

notice is hereby given that the Federal 

Accounting Standards Advisory Board 

(FASAB) will hold its meetings on the 

following dates throughout 2017, unless 

otherwise noted. 

February 22–23, 2017 

April 26–27, 2017 

June 21–22, 2017 

August 30–31, 2017 

October 25–26, 2017 

December 20–21, 2017 

The purpose of the meetings is to 

discuss issues related to the following 

topics: 

Accounting and Reporting of 

Government Land 

Budget and Accrual Reconciliation 

Concepts—The Financial Report 

DoD Implementation Guidance Request 

Leases 

Risk Assumed 

Tax Expenditures 

Any other topics as needed 

Unless otherwise noted, FASAB 

meetings begin at 9 a.m. and conclude 

before 5 p.m. and are held at the 

Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) at 441 G Street NW. in Room 

7C13. Agendas and briefing materials 

are available at http://www.fasab.gov/ 

briefing-materials/ approximately one 

week before the meetings. 

Any interested person may attend the 

meetings as an observer. Board 

discussion and reviews are open to the 

public. GAO building security requires 

advance notice of your attendance. If 

you wish to attend a FASAB meeting, 

please pre-register on our Web site at 

http://www.fasab.gov/pre-registration/ 

no later than 8 a.m. the Tuesday before 

the meeting to be observed. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Wendy M. Payne, Executive Director, 

441 G Street NW., Mailstop 6H19, 

Washington, DC 20548, or call (202) 

512–7350. 

Authority: Federal Advisory Committee 

Act, Pub. L. 92–463. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES