62304 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 209 / Monday, October 31, 2005 / Notices 

Scott Comes 

Beth McCormick 

Dated: October 25, 2005. 

L.M. Bynum, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 05–21609 Filed 10–28–05; 8:45am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–M 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–7990–6] 

Recent Posting to the Applicability 

Determination Index (ADI) Database 

System of 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 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 

document may be located by 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 e-mail at: 

malave.maria@epa.gov. For technical 

questions about the individual 

applicability determinations or 

monitoring decisions, refer to the 

contact person identified in the 

individual documents, or in the absence 

of a contact person, refer to the author 

of the document. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The General Provisions to the NSPS 

in 40 CFR part 60 and 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 

broadly termed applicability 

determinations. See 40 CFR 60.5 and 

61.06. Although the part 63 NESHAP 

and section 111(d) of the Clean and Air 

Act regulations contain no specific 

regulatory provision that sources may 

request applicability determinations, 

EPA does respond 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 which 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 broadly termed 

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 broadly termed 

regulatory interpretations. 

EPA currently compiles EPA-issued 

NSPS and NESHAP applicability 

determinations, alternative monitoring 

decisions, and regulatory 

interpretations, and posts them on the 

Applicability Determination Index (ADI) 

on a quarterly basis. In addition, the 

ADI contains EPA-issued responses to 

requests pursuant to the stratospheric 

ozone regulations, contained in 40 CFR 

part 82. The ADI is an electronic index 

on the Internet with more than one 

thousand EPA letters and memoranda 

pertaining to the applicability, 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements of the NSPS and 

NESHAP. The letters and memoranda 

may be searched by date, office of 

issuance, subpart, citation, control 

number or by string word searches. 

Today’s notice comprises a summary 

of 58 such documents added to the ADI 

on August 19, 2005. The subject, author, 

recipient, date, header and a brief 

abstract of each letter and memorandum 

are listed in this notice. Complete 

copies of these documents may be 

obtained from the ADI through the 

OECA Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/ 

compliance/assistance/applicability. 

Summary of Headers and Abstracts 

The following table identifies the 

database control number for each 

document posted on the ADI database 

system on August 19, 2005; the 

applicable category; the subpart(s) of 40 

CFR part 60, 61, or 63 (as applicable) 

covered by the document; and the title 

of the document, which provides a brief 

description of the subject matter. We 

have also included an abstract of each 

document identified with its control 

number after the table. These abstracts 

are provided solely to alert the public to 

possible items of interest and are not 

intended as substitutes for the full text 

of the documents. 

ADI DETERMINATIONS UPLOADED ON AUGUST 19, 2005 

Control Category Subpart Title 

M050020 .............................. MACT ................................ RRR ................................... Treatment of New In-Line Fluxer as a New Unit. 

M050021 .............................. MACT ................................ XXXX ................................. Tire Retreading Operations. 

M050022 .............................. MACT ................................ HH, HHH ........................... Separating Single Individual Surface Sites. 

M050023 .............................. MACT ................................ UUU ................................... Temporary Alternative Monitoring Plan. 

M050024 .............................. MACT ................................ CC ..................................... Alternative Reporting Period. 

M050025 .............................. MACT ................................ AA ...................................... Clarification of Cooling Tower Requirements. 

M050026 .............................. MACT ................................ LLL ..................................... Opacity Limit for Commingled Emission Streams. 

M050027 .............................. MACT ................................ LLL ..................................... Opacity Limit for Commingled Emission Streams. 

M050028 .............................. MACT ................................ VVVV ................................. Classification of a Resin as a Production Resin. 

M050029 .............................. MACT ................................ A, T .................................... Degreaser No Longer Using Regulated Solvent. 

M050031 .............................. MACT ................................ RRR ................................... Holding Furnaces Regulated as Group 2 Furnaces. 

M050032 .............................. MACT ................................ RRR ................................... Sweat Furnace. 

M050033 .............................. MACT ................................ RRR ................................... Die Caster Not Operating a Scrap Dryer. 

M050034 .............................. MACT ................................ RRR ................................... Clarification of Visible Emission Observations. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 209 / Monday, October 31, 2005 / Notices 62305 

ADI DETERMINATIONS UPLOADED ON AUGUST 19, 2005—Continued 

Control Category Subpart Title 

M050035 .............................. MACT ................................ ZZZZ .................................. Applicability of RICE to Units Less than 500 Brake 

Horsepower. 

Z050004 ............................... NESHAP ............................ N ........................................ Glass-Melting Furnaces Used for R&D Purposes. 

Z050005 ............................... NESHAP ............................ C ........................................ Emission Test Waiver for Incinerator. 

Z050006 ............................... NESHAP ............................ FF ...................................... Alternative Monitoring Plan for Dual Purpose Valves. 

0500019 ............................... NSPS ................................. WWW ................................ Clarification on Treatment System. 

0500020 ............................... NSPS ................................. Dc ...................................... Alternative Recordkeeping for Boiler Fuel Usage. 

0500021 ............................... NSPS ................................. J ......................................... Processing Transmix. 

0500022 ............................... NSPS ................................. Dc ...................................... Alternative Recordkeeping for Boiler Fuel Usage. 

0500023 ............................... NSPS ................................. Dc ...................................... Recordkeeping Variance. 

0500024 ............................... NSPS ................................. Db ...................................... Waiver of NOX Monitoring During Boiler Startup. 

0500025 ............................... NSPS ................................. OOO, UUU ........................ Processing of Fused Silica. 

0500026 ............................... NSPS ................................. LL ....................................... Relocation of Iron Ore Concentrate. 

0500027 ............................... NSPS ................................. PPP ................................... Alternative Monitoring for Scrubber. 

0500028 ............................... NSPS ................................. Db, Dc ............................... Fuel Supplier Certifications. 

0500029 ............................... NSPS ................................. Db, Dc ............................... Boiler Derate Proposal. 

0500030 ............................... NSPS ................................. Dc ...................................... Alternative Monitoring Proposals for Opacity and SO2. 

0500031 ............................... NSPS ................................. BBB ................................... Tire Retreading Operations. 

0500032 ............................... NSPS ................................. DD ..................................... Use of Grain Storage Capacity to Determine Applicability. 

0500033 ............................... NSPS ................................. J ......................................... Alternative Monitoring Plan for Enclosed Flare. 

0500034 ............................... NSPS ................................. Db ...................................... Applicability of Percent Reduction and Emission Rate 

Limits. 

0500035 ............................... NSPS ................................. Kb ...................................... Alternative Method for Defining Maximum True Vapor 

Pressure. 

0500036 ............................... NSPS ................................. A, Db ................................. Wood Fired Boiler NOX Limits and Required Monitoring. 

0500037 ............................... NSPS ................................. J ......................................... Alternative Monitoring Plan for Gas Turbines. 

0500038 ............................... NSPS ................................. J ......................................... Alternative Monitoring Plan for Caustic Treating Plant. 

0500039 ............................... NSPS ................................. J ......................................... Soil Vapor Stream/Regenerator Vent Gas Stream. 

0500040 ............................... NSPS ................................. GG ..................................... Custom Fuel Monitoring Schedule. 

0500041 ............................... NSPS ................................. A, J .................................... Temporary Alternative Monitoring Plan. 

0500042 ............................... NSPS ................................. J ......................................... Sulfur Pits & Storage Tanks, Liquid Sulfur Loading 

Stations. 

0500043 ............................... NSPS ................................. A, J .................................... Alternative Monitoring Plan for Heaters & Boilers. 

0500044 ............................... NSPS ................................. A, J .................................... Alternative Monitoring Plan for Reformer Heater. 

0500045 ............................... NSPS ................................. A, J .................................... Alternative Monitoring Plan for Loading Facility. 

0500046 ............................... NSPS ................................. A, J .................................... Alternative Monitoring Plan for Fuel Gas Streams. 

0500047 ............................... NSPS ................................. A, J .................................... Alternate Span Value for Sulfur Recovery Unit. 

0500049 ............................... NSPS ................................. VV ...................................... Alternative Monitoring for Leak Detection. 

0500050 ............................... NSPS ................................. PPP ................................... Alternative Monitoring Procedure for Scrubber. 

0500051 ............................... NSPS ................................. Db, Dc ............................... Boiler Derate Proposal. 

0500052 ............................... NSPS ................................. UUU ................................... Alternative Monitoring and Test Waiver for Scrubber. 

0500053 ............................... NSPS ................................. Dc ...................................... Fuel Recordkeeping Variance. 

0500054 ............................... NSPS ................................. Dc ...................................... Alternative Recordkeeping Frequency for Fuel Usage. 

0500055 ............................... NSPS ................................. KK ...................................... Waiver of Applicability for Storage Silo Vents. 

0500056 ............................... NSPS ................................. UUU ................................... Applicability of Sand Reclamation Processes in 

Foundry I. 

0500057 ............................... NSPS ................................. LLL ..................................... Alternative Monitoring Request. 

0500058 ............................... NSPS ................................. Y ........................................ Charcoal Briquet Manufacturing. 

0500059 ............................... NSPS ................................. Db ...................................... Thermal Oxidizer-Heat Recovery Steam Generators. 

Abstracts 

Abstract for [M050020] 

Q: Is a new in-line fluxer at ALCOA’s 

plant in Massena, New York, considered 

a ‘‘new source’’ under 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart RRR? 

A: Yes. EPA has determined that the 

proposed new in-line fluxer would be 

considered a separate secondary 

aluminum processing unit (SAPU) from 

the existing SAPU and therefore, a new 

emission unit or ‘‘new source’’ under 40 

CFR part 63, subpart RRR. 

Abstract for [Z050004] 

Q: Would two new, continuous glassmelting furnaces, to be used for research 

and development purposes at Corning’s 

Sullivan Park facility, be subject to the 

requirements in 40 CFR part 61, subpart 

N? 

A: Yes. Any glass-melting furnace that 

uses commercial arsenic as a raw 

material is subject to the requirements 

in 40 CFR part 61, subpart N. 

Abstract for [0500019] 

Q: Are combustion engines that 

process treated gas and that meet the 

treatment system requirements in New 

Source Performance Standard subpart 

WWW, 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C), 

subject to the control requirements in 40 

CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(B)? 

A: No. As long as the treated gas 

meets the treatment system requirement 

in 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C), the 

combustion engines are not subject to 

the control requirements in 40 CFR 

60.752(b)(2)(iii)(B). 

Abstract for [0500020] 

Q: Will EPA approve an alternative 

monitoring and recordkeeping request 

by First Quality Tissue in Lock Haven, 

Pennsylvania, for monitoring and 

62306 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 209 / Monday, October 31, 2005 / Notices 

recording natural gas usage by seven 

small boilers subject to 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart Dc? 

A: Yes. EPA will approve monthly 

monitoring of fuel usage as opposed to 

daily monitoring because of the small 

size of the boilers in question and the 

very clean fuel they use. 

Abstract for [0500021] 

Q: Does the processing of transmix at 

the Heath Oil facility in Oil City, 

Pennsylvania, subject the facility to the 

requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

J? 

A: No. If the facility does not process 

crude oil, does not have the physical 

capability of processing crude oil, and 

only deals with products that have 

already been produced by a petroleum 

refinery, then the operation does not 

meet the definition of a ‘‘petroleum 

refinery’’ and is not subject to the New 

Source Performance Standard subpart J 

requirements. 

Abstract for [0500022] 

Q: Will EPA approve an alternative 

recordkeeping request, under 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart Dc, for a small boiler 

burning only clean fuels at the Kemp 

Foods facility in Lancaster, 

Pennsylvania? 

A: Yes. EPA will approve the taking 

of monthly, rather than daily, readings 

of natural gas usage for the small boilers 

at the Kemp Foods facility under NSPS 

subpart Dc. 

Abstract for [0500023] 

Q: Will EPA allow, under 40 CFR part 

60, subpart Dc, the U.S. Navy to record 

boiler fuel usage on a monthly, rather 

than daily, basis at seven boilers located 

in three locations in the Tidewater 

Region of Virginia? 

A: Yes. EPA agrees to the proposed 

recordkeeping frequency change given 

that the seven small boilers in question 

combust only very clean fuels and EPA 

has already granted this type of request 

in other areas of the country to other 

facilities. 

Abstract for [0500024] 

Q: Will EPA waive, under 40 CFR part 

60, subpart Db, nitrogen oxide (NOX) 

monitoring during boiler startups on 

mixed fuels for the #5 spreader stoker 

boiler at the University of Virginia in 

Charlottesville, Virginia? 

A: No. EPA will not waive the 

requirement under NSPS subpart Db to 

monitor NOX emissions. However, for 

the short period that mixed fuels are 

being combusted, it will allow 

compliance to be maintained with the 

coal standard rather than the natural gas 

standard. 

Abstract for [0500025] 

Q: Will 40 CFR part 60, subparts OOO 

and UUU apply to a fused silica crucible 

manufacturing process using grinding 

mills and dryers and kilns at the 

Ceradyne facilities in Scottdale and 

Clarkston, Georgia? 

A: No. Because fused silica is not a 

nonmetallic mineral, the processing of 

fused silica is not subject to New Source 

Performance Standard subparts OOO 

and UUU. 

Abstract for [0500026] 

Q: If Tennessee Minerals LLC were to 

remove iron ore concentrate from the 

site of an old mining/metallurgical 

operation in Copperhill, Tennessee, 

would the operation be subject to 40 

CFR part 60, subpart LL? 

A: No. Because the proposed 

operation would not produce a metallic 

mineral concentrate from ore, it would 

not meet the New Source Performance 

Standard subpart LL definition of a 

metallic mineral processing plant. 

Abstract for [0500027] 

Q: Will EPA approve, under 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart PPP, monitoring 

pressure at the water supply pump for 

a scrubber at the Owens Corning facility 

in Fairburn, Georgia? 

A: No. EPA will not approve this 

request for alternative monitoring. To 

ensure ongoing compliance, it is 

necessary that the water flow rate be 

monitored because it is possible that the 

pressure at the pump outlet remains 

unchanged while the flow rate to the 

washing system has decreased. 

Abstract for [0500028] 

Q: Will EPA allow, under 40 CFR part 

60, subparts Db and Dc, a one-time 

certification of fuel sulfur content for 

affected facilities that use very low 

sulfur fuel oil, rather than requiring the 

maintenance of records of fuel oil sulfur 

content for each shipment of fuel 

delivered? 

A: No. EPA will not allow this 

alternative recordkeeping. Affected 

facilities must comply with the New 

Source Performance Standard subparts 

Db and Dc requirements concerning fuel 

oil sulfur certifications. 

Abstract for [0500029] 

Q: Will EPA approve a boiler derate 

proposal, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

Db, that is based on changes made to 

limit the fuel feed rate? 

A: No. EPA will not approve this 

boiler derate proposal under New 

Source Performance Standard subpart 

Db because it is based only on a 

reduction in the fuel feed rate and does 

not result in a reduction in boiler 

capacity, thus failing to comply with 

EPA’s policy on derates. 

Abstract for [Z050005] 

Q: Will EPA grant a waiver from the 

emission testing requirements of 40 CFR 

part 61, subpart C for the incinerator at 

the Duratek Services facility in Oak 

Ridge, Tennessee, which has submitted 

data to demonstrate that the source is in 

compliance with the standard? 

A: Yes. Because the information 

supplied with the waiver request 

indicates that the company will comply 

with the National Emission Standards 

for Hazardous Air Pollutants subpart C, 

a waiver of testing requirements was 

determined to be appropriate. 

Abstract for [0500030] 

Q1: Will EPA approve an alternative 

monitoring request based on EPA 

Reference Method 9 testing data instead 

of using a continuous opacity 

monitoring system, under 40 CFR part 

60, subpart Dc, for a boiler using 

residual oil as a backup fuel at Premium 

Standard Farms in Clinton, North 

Carolina? 

A1: No. The proposed alternative 

monitoring procedure for opacity will 

need to be modified to be consistent 

with previous EPA approvals for similar 

operations with an annual capacity 

factor of 10 percent, as described in the 

EPA’s response. 

Q2: Does EPA approve the request to 

verify compliance with the sulfur 

dioxide emission standard in 40 CFR 

60.42c(d) by the use of fuel supplier 

certifications and maintaining fuel 

usage records on a monthly basis? 

A2: No. Since compliance with the 

fuel sulfur limit in New Source 

Performance Standard subpart Dc is 

determined on a 30-day rolling average 

basis, compliance cannot be determined 

for residual oil-fired units unless daily 

fuel usage records are available. 

Abstract for [0500031] 

Q: Are tire retreading and repair 

operations conducted by Snider Tire, 

Incorporated in Greensboro, North 

Carolina, and Parrish Tire Company in 

Yadkinville, North Carolina, subject to 

the requirements in 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart BBB? 

A: No. The requirements in New 

Source Performance Standard subpart 

BBB do not apply since the operations 

do not produce new tires. 

Abstract for [M050021] 

Q: Are tire retreading and repair 

operations conducted by Snider Tire, 

Incorporated in Greensboro, North 

Carolina, and Parrish Tire Company in 

Yadkinville, North Carolina, subject to 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 209 / Monday, October 31, 2005 / Notices 62307 

the requirements in 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart XXXX? 

A: No. The requirements in 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart XXXX do not apply 

because the operations are not located 

at, nor are they a part of, a major source 

of hazardous air pollutants. 

Abstract for [0500032] 

Q1: Is tempered grain storage capacity 

counted toward total storage capacity 

for the purposes of 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart DD? 

A1: Yes. Dried corn, dropped into 

‘‘tempering’’ bins, may fracture and 

break. However, if no chemical 

processing or milling has yet occurred, 

the tempering bins serve as additional 

storage prior to the germination step, 

and are included in the total storage 

capacity for the purposes of New Source 

Performance Standard (NSPS) subpart 

DD. 

Q2: If storage capacity increases at the 

facility, but there is no increase to the 

hourly grain handling capacity, would a 

facility be exempt under 40 CFR 

60.304(b)(4) of NSPS subpart DD? 

A2: The modification exemption 

under 40 CFR 60.304(b)(4) applies to 

affected facilities at the plant that 

existed prior to the date that NSPS 

subpart DD applied. Therefore, this 

modification exemption does not apply 

to the affected facilities that were 

constructed at the time the grain storage 

capacity reached one million bushels or 

subsequent to that time. 

Q3: Do silos need to be tested and 

equipped with baghouses under NSPS 

subpart DD? 

A3: No. These are not requirements of 

NSPS subpart DD. However, applicable 

local and state requirements may apply. 

Abstract for [Z050006] 

Q1: Do tank and oil/water separator 

pressure/vacuum relief valves at the 

wastewater treatment plant of the Flint 

Hills Resources refinery in Rosemount, 

Minnesota, function as pressure relief 

devices or as dilution air openings 

under the benzene waste operations 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants, 40 CFR part 

61, subpart FF? 

A1: Because the pressure/vacuum 

relief valves relieve excess pressure in 

the closed vent system and allow 

dilution air to enter the closed vent 

system, they are both pressure relief 

devices and dilution air openings under 

the 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF. 

Q2: Can these pressure/vacuum relief 

valves meet all the requirements of 40 

CFR 61.343(a)(1)(i) and 61.347(a)(1)(i)? 

A2: No. When the pressure/vacuum 

relief valves open to relieve excess 

pressure, the pressure in the closed vent 

system is greater than 2.0 inches water 

column above atmospheric, and, thus, 

the continuous monitoring requirement 

in 40 CFR 61.343(a)(1)(i)(C)(3) and 

61.347(a)(1)(i)(C)(3) is not met. 

Q3: Will EPA approve, under 40 CFR 

part 61, subpart FF, the refinery’s 

alternative monitoring plan to: (a) 

design the pressure/vacuum relief 

valves to open only under a negative 

pressure of 0.5 inch water column or a 

positive pressure of 2.0 inches; (b) 

inspect the valves quarterly to verify 

proper operation; and (c) monitor the 

valves semiannually by the method 

specified in 40 CFR 61.355(h)? 

A3: Yes. EPA will approve the 

alternative monitoring plan under 40 

CFR part 61, subpart FF, with the 

condition that an instrument reading 

greater than 500 ppm above background 

indicates detectable emissions from the 

pressure/vacuum relief valves. 

Abstract for [0500033] 

Q: Will EPA allow Flint Hills 

Resources (FHR) Pine Bend Refinery in 

Rosemount, Minnesota, to amend, under 

40 CFR part 60, subpart J, an existing 

alternative monitoring plan for a Zink 

Flare to include a new product, energy 

fortified diesel? 

A: Yes. EPA will allow this 

amendment of the alternative 

monitoring plan because the facility has 

followed the Refinery Fuel Gas (RFG) 

guidance and has submitted all 

necessary information regarding energy 

fortified diesel. Because the facility 

loads only gasolines that meet their 

product specifications for sulfur 

content, the RFG Guidance does not 

require any further hydrogen sulfide 

monitoring on the gasoline loading rack 

off gas when FHR uses the Zink Flare. 

Abstract for [0500034] 

Q1: Do both the 90 percent sulfur 

dioxide reduction requirement and the 

1.2 lbs/mmBtu sulfur dioxide limit 

apply to coal fired boilers subject to 40 

CFR part 60, subpart Db? 

A1: Yes. New Source Performance 

Standard (NSPS) subpart Db requires 

both a 90 percent sulfur dioxide 

reduction and a sulfur dioxide emission 

limit of 1.2 lbs/mmBtu. 

Q2: If both the 90 percent sulfur 

dioxide reduction requirement and the 

1.2 lbs/mmBtu sulfur dioxide limit 

apply to coal fired boilers, is it possible 

to get a waiver of the former for sources 

using very low sulfur coal? 

A2: No. A waiver of the 90 percent 

sulfur dioxide reduction requirement is 

not allowed under NSPS subpart Db. 

Abstract for [M050022] 

Q: How can a single individual 

surface site be separated into a single 40 

CFR part 63, subpart HH facility and a 

40 CFR part 63, subpart HHH facility? 

A: The point of custody transfer at a 

natural gas processing plant is where 

the natural gas enters the pipeline for 

transmission, and is also the point 

where the Maximum Achievable 

Control Technology standard subpart 

HHH applicability begins. Any 

equipment upstream of the pipeline is 

subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HH. 

Abstract for [0500035] 

Q: Will EPA allow the Trenton Agri 

Products ethanol facility in Trenton, 

Nebraska, to use Tanks 4.0 Software as 

the alternative method of defining 

‘‘maximum true vapor pressure’’ under 

40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb? 

A: No. Although the Tanks 4.0 

Software is a valuable tool in 

determining emissions, it is not the 

correct tool in determining applicability 

of the New Source Performance 

Standard subpart Kb requirements to an 

ethanol tank, and thus it will not be 

allowed for this purpose. 

Abstract for [0500036] 

Q1: What nitrogen oxide (NOX) limits 

apply under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db, 

to the two 260 mm Btu/hr wood wastefired boilers at the Burney Forest 

Products (BFP) facility in the Shasta 

County Air Quality Management District 

(AQMD), that are capable of combusting 

natural gas and do not have a 10 percent 

natural gas capacity factor limit? 

A1: Until BFP obtains a 10 percent 

natural gas capacity factor limit that is 

federally enforceable, the facility will be 

subject to the NOX limit of 130 ng/J 

(0.30 lb/million Btu) found at 40 CFR 

60.44b(d). 

Q2: Is a NOX continuous emissions 

monitoring system (CEMS) required 

under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db? 

A2: Yes. BFP is required to operate a 

NOX CEMS until the facility obtains a 

10 percent natural gas capacity factor 

limit. After it obtains a federally 

enforceable 10 percent natural gas 

capacity factor limit, the facility will no 

longer be required under New Source 

Performance Standard (NSPS) subpart 

Db to operate the NOX CEMS, and it will 

no longer be subject to the NOX limit at 

40 CFR 60.44b(d). It should be stressed 

that, at all times, BFP has been and will 

remain subject to both the NSPS subpart 

Db opacity limit and the NOX limit and 

the required NOX monitoring contained 

in the prevention of significant 

deterioration (PSD) and Title V Permits 

issued by the Shasta County AQMD. 

62308 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 209 / Monday, October 31, 2005 / Notices 

Q3: Assuming that the NOX limits 

prescribed in 40 CFR 60.44b(d) apply 

only when BFP is simultaneously 

combusting natural gas with wood, how 

should the data acquisition and 

handling system (DAHS) calculate the 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) 30-day rolling 

average when the facility is combusting 

only wood or only natural gas? 

A3: The assumption that the NOX

limits prescribed in 40 CFR 60.44b(d) 

apply only when BFP is simultaneously 

combusting natural gas with wood is 

incorrect. 

Q4: If 40 CFR 60.44b(d) does not 

establish NOX emission limits when 

combusting wood or natural gas alone, 

should the NOX values recorded by the 

CEMS during periods where wood or 

natural gas only is combusted be deleted 

or disregarded in calculating the 30-day 

average under 40 CFR 60.46b(c) or (d)? 

A4: NOX values should be recorded 

by the CEMS during periods when wood 

is combusted, when natural gas is 

combusted, or when there is 

simultaneous combustion. No NOX

values should be deleted or disregarded 

in calculating the 30-day average under 

40 CFR 60.46b(c) or (d), or 60.49b(g). 

Q5: What is the applicable span value 

for BFP’s NOX analyzers under 60 CFR 

60.48b(e) when the facility 

simultaneously burns wood and natural 

gas? Also, since the facility has to meet 

a state NOX limit much lower than the 

0.30 lb/million Btu limit specified in 

NSPS subpart Db, please verify that it is 

acceptable to use a lower span value of 

250 ppm that has been specifically 

approved by the AQMD. 

A5: The span value for the NOX

analyzers should be 1.5 to 2.5 times 

greater than the permitted limit of 250 

ppm. By ‘‘state NOX limit’’, EPA 

assumes that BFP is referring to the 

emission limits in its prevention of 

significant deterioration (PSD) permit, 

which Shasta County AQMD issued 

pursuant to delegated PSD authority. 

The PSD permit requirements are also 

federal requirements. The NOX limit in 

Condition 1 of the Title V permit is 250 

ppm, although the data submitted by 

BFP to EPA indicates that the emissions 

are normally at 100 ppm or less. 

Specifically, source tests in the year 

2002 and the year 2003, showed a range 

of 60 to 80 ppm NOX for each of the 

boilers, and the monthly reports to the 

County indicate that these boilers have 

had no daily NOX averages above 80 

ppm since the year 1999. 

Q6: Please clarify whether the NOX

CEMS installed in the boilers to meet 

the 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db 

monitoring requirements would be 

considered ‘‘continuous compliance 

monitors’’ under 40 CFR 60.46b(e)(3) or 

‘‘excess emission monitors’’ under 40 

CFR 60.46b(e)(4), based on the fact that 

the maximum boiler heat input capacity 

from fossil fuel firing is only 90 million 

Btu/hr. 

A6: The NOX CEMS would be subject 

to 40 CFR 60.46b(e)(3), unless BFP 

obtains a federally enforceable 

requirement that limits its annual 

capacity for natural gas to 10 percent or 

less. If BFP obtains such a limit, then 

the NSPS subpart Db NOX limit does not 

apply, and the NOX CEMS would no 

longer be subject to the continuous 

compliance monitoring requirements 

under the NSPS subpart Db regulations. 

However, the NOX CEMS would still be 

considered continuous compliance 

monitors under the PSD/Title V and 

therefore, subject to the Best Achievable 

Control Technology emission limits. 

Q7: Please clarify which reports 

would be applicable to these boilers 

under 40 CFR 60.49b and 60.7. 

A7: EPA assumes that this question 

primarily concerns the obligations to 

provide reports concerning NOX

emissions (although opacity reports are 

required by 40 CFR 60.49b(f)). The time 

period for the required initial 

notifications and initial testing has long 

since passed [40 CFR 60.49b(a) and (b)]. 

BFP is subject to the reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements in NSPS 

subparts A and Db. These include 40 

CFR 60.49b(d), 60.49b(g), 60.49b(I), and 

60.7. 

Abstract for [0500037] 

Q: Will EPA approve an alternative 

monitoring plan, under 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart J, for the butane that is 

generated at BP’s Carson, California 

refinery and combusted at the Watson 

Cogeneration Company (WCC) turbines? 

A: Yes. EPA will approve this 

alternative monitoring plan under New 

Source Performance Standard subpart J. 

BP proposed that weekly grab samples 

of the butane be analyzed for sulfur 

content with ASTM Method D5504–94, 

which has been incorporated by 

reference into 40 CFR part 75, subpart 

A. 

Abstract for [0500038] 

Q: Will EPA approve an alternative 

monitoring plan, under 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart J, for the vent gas stream from 

the caustic treating plant that is 

incinerated at the thermal oxidizer at 

the Chevron refinery in El Segundo, 

California? 

A: Yes. EPA will approve an 

alternative monitoring plan under New 

Source Performance Standard subpart J. 

There are no crossover points that 

would allow sour gas to be combined 

with the vent gas. The caustic alkalinity 

is maintained at greater than 5 percent 

which keeps the hydrogen sulfide (H2S) 

in the vent gas stream at less that 0.2 

parts per million. Chevron has 

submitted 14 consecutive days of 

sample results that document the low 

H2S content of this fuel gas stream. 

Abstract for [0500039] 

Q: Will EPA approve alternate 

monitoring plans, under 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart J, for the recovered soil vapor 

stream and the continuous catalytic 

reforming unit regenerator vent gas 

stream at the Chevron facility in El 

Segundo, California? 

A: Yes. EPA determines that 

alternative monitoring plans for these 

streams are appropriate under New 

Source Performance Standard subpart J 

as long as the representative process 

parameter functions serve as indicators 

of a stable and low hydrogen sulfide 

concentration for the streams. 

Abstract for [0500040] 

Q: Will EPA approve a custom fuel 

monitoring schedule, under 40 CFR part 

60, subpart GG, for a combustion 

turbine that combusts pipeline quality 

natural gas at the Corona Energy 

Partners (Corona) facility in Corona, 

California? 

A: Yes. In accordance with its 

longstanding policy, and because 

Corona has proposed to sample the 

sulfur content of the fuel with South 

Coast Air Quality Management District 

Method 307–91, EPA will approve this 

custom fuel monitoring schedule under 

NSPS subpart GG. 

Abstract for [M050023] 

Q: Will EPA allow ExxonMobil, under 

40 CFR part 63, subpart UUU, to use 

EPA Method 9 readings as an alternative 

to continuous opacity monitoring on the 

bypass stack of the fluid catalytic 

cracking unit at its Torrance, California 

refinery? 

A: Yes. EPA will allow ExxonMobil to 

use Method 9 readings under 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart UUU as an alternative 

for bypass stacks as long as the control 

device for particulate matter is not 

bypassed. This approval is for a limited 

period of time to allow ExxonMobil to 

propose and EPA to evaluate the 

feasibility of a more permanent 

monitoring solution. 

Abstract for [0500041] 

Q: Will EPA allow ExxonMobil, under 

40 CFR part 60, subpart J, to use EPA 

Method 9 readings as an alternative to 

continuous opacity monitoring on the 

bypass stack of the fluid catalytic 

cracking unit at its Torrance, California 

refinery? 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 209 / Monday, October 31, 2005 / Notices 62309 

A: Yes, EPA will allow ExxonMobil to 

use Method 9 readings under New 

Source Performance Standard subpart J 

as an alternative for bypass stacks as 

long as the control device for particulate 

matter is not bypassed. This approval is 

for a limited period of time to allow 

ExxonMobil to propose and EPA to 

evaluate the feasibility of a more 

permanent monitoring solution. 

Abstract for [0500042] 

Q: Which requirements of 40 CFR part 

60, subpart J are applicable to sulfur 

pits, sulfur storage tanks, and liquid 

sulfur loading stations? 

A: The emissions from a sulfur 

recovery plant’s sulfur pits are subject to 

the 40 CFR 60.104(a)(2) limit regardless 

of where the emissions are routed. The 

emissions from the sulfur storage tanks 

and the sulfur loading racks are subject 

to the 40 CFR 60.104(a)(1) limit if they 

are combusted at a refinery fuel gas 

combustion device as defined in 40 CFR 

60.101(g). 

Abstract for [0500043] 

Q: Will EPA allow an alternative 

monitoring plan, under 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart J, for four boilers and heaters at 

the Shell Bakersfield refinery? 

A: Yes. EPA approves the proposed 

alternative monitoring plan, which 

entails calculating the hydrogen sulfide 

concentration of the mixed refinery fuel 

gas stream, provided that Shell certifies 

all flow meters and implements a 

quality assurance and quality control 

program for the flowmeters. 

Abstract for [0500044] 

Q: Will EPA approve annual source 

testing and daily detector tube sampling 

of the pressure swing absorption (PSA) 

purge gas under 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

J, for the Shell refinery in Wilmington, 

California? 

A: Yes. Shell’s proposal for measuring 

the hydrogen sulfide (H2S) 

concentration with the threshold value 

of 1 ppm at the outlet of the first Zinc 

Oxide bed will ensure that the PSA 

purge gas will meet the NSPS subpart J 

limit of 160 ppmv. Because the first 

Zinc Oxide bed will be replaced upon 

breakthrough at 1 ppmv, it is highly 

unlikely that the H2S concentration at 

the outlet of the second Zinc Oxide bed 

will ever exceed 0 ppmv. 

Abstract for [M050024] 

Q: Will EPA allow an alternate 

reporting period, under 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart CC, for the Valero refinery in 

Wilmington, California? 

A: Yes. EPA will allow the proposed 

alternate reporting period as long as the 

proposed reporting period does not alter 

any of the other requirements of 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart CC. 

Abstract for [0500045] 

Q: Will EPA approve an alternate 

monitoring plan, under 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart J, for the marine vapor recovery 

loading facility at the Shell refinery in 

Martinez, California? 

A: Yes. EPA approves the proposed 

alternative monitoring plan under New 

Source Performance Standard subpart J 

with the additional recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements set out in the 

determination. 

Abstract for [0500046] 

Q: Will EPA approve an alternative 

monitoring plan, under 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart J, for four fuel gas streams at the 

Shell refinery in Martinez, California? 

A: Yes. EPA will approve alternative 

monitoring plans for these fuel gas 

streams under New Source Performance 

Standard subpart J. However, the 

representative process parameters for 

these streams must function as an 

indicator of a stable and low hydrogen 

sulfide concentration for the streams. 

Abstract for [0500047] 

Q: Will EPA approve, under 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart J, an alternate span 

setting on a continuous emission 

monitor (CEM) for its sulfur recovery 

unit, SRU–4, at the Shell refinery in 

Martinez, California? 

A: Yes. EPA approves the alternate 

span values of 250 ppm and 2,500 ppm 

for the CEM for SRU–4 under New 

Source Performance Standard subpart J. 

These would be appropriate because the 

permitted and anticipated stack 

concentration for the SRU–4 is less than 

100 ppm. 

Abstract for [M050025] 

Q: Is a facility in violation of National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants (NESHAP) subpart AA, 40 

CFR 63.602(e), if it combines its wet 

scrubber effluent with other process 

waters and waste waters, and then 

routes the combined water through a 

pile of disposed gypsum and ultimately 

to the evaporative cooling towers? 

A: Yes. Although the scrubber liquid 

effluent at the facility is being diluted 

with other process waste waters, the 

fluoride emissions captured by the wet 

scrubbers are routed to the evaporative 

cooling towers where they are stripped 

off and emitted to the atmosphere. 

Therefore, the process is a violation of 

NESHAP subpart AA, 40 CFR 63.602(e). 

Abstract for [M050026] and [M050027] 

Q: What is the applicable opacity 

limit under 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

LLL, when kiln emissions and clinker 

cooler emissions are commingled in a 

common stack at the Essroc Portland 

cement facility in San Juan, Puerto 

Rico? 

A: Where emissions from two affected 

facilities are simply combined or 

commingled in a common duct or stack, 

it is EPA’s policy and practice to apply 

the more stringent opacity limitation. 

Application of the more stringent 

limitation is necessary to ensure 

compliance with each applicable 

standard. Therefore, the more stringent 

10 percent clinker cooler opacity limit 

applies. 

Abstract for [M050028] 

Q: Will EPA classify as a ‘‘production 

resin,’’ under 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

VVVV, a non pigmented resin 

developed by Cook Composite and 

Polymers Company in Kansas City, 

Missouri, that is applied by nonatomizing equipment between the skin 

layer and bulk laminate of boats, and 

not directly to the mold surface? 

A: Yes. As the new product is not 

applied directly to the mold surface and 

is not used to repair molds or 

prototypes, it does not meet the 

definitions of ‘‘gel coat’’ or ‘‘tooling 

resin’’ in 40 CFR 63.5779. Consequently, 

due to the product’s properties and 

purpose, it should be classified as a 

‘‘production resin’’ under the 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart VVVV. 

Abstract for [0500048] 

Q: Will EPA accept an alternative 

opacity monitoring plan for two coalfired boilers subject to 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart D, where the continuous opacity 

monitor had to be removed from service 

because of water droplet interference 

from a newly-installed wet-gas scrubber 

used to remove sulfur dioxide? 

A: Yes. EPA will accept this 

alternative opacity monitoring plan 

under New Source Performance 

Standard subpart D. The plan requires 

continuous monitoring of secondary 

power at the electrostatic precipitators 

and liquid flow rate at the wet-gas 

scrubber. 

Abstract for [0500049] 

Q: Will EPA approve, under 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart VV, a monitoring 

procedure at the Eastman Chemical 

facility in Kingsport, Tennessee, that 

uses sensory means (i.e., sight, sound, 

smell) to identify leaks from equipment 

that is in acetic acid and/or acetic 

anhydride service? 

A: Yes. The proposed alternative is 

acceptable under New Source 

Performance Standard subpart VV. 

Monitoring results indicate that 

62310 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 209 / Monday, October 31, 2005 / Notices 

equipment leaks are identified more 

easily through sensory methods than by 

using Method 21, because of the 

physical properties (high boiling points, 

high corrosivity, and low odor 

threshold) of acetic acid and acetic 

anhydride, and the process conditions 

at the plant. 

Abstract for [0500050] 

Q: Will EPA approve, under 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart PPP, an alternative 

monitoring procedure for a scrubber at 

the Owens Corning facility in Fairburn, 

Georgia, in which the water pressure at 

the supply pump, rather than the gas 

pressure drop across the scrubber and 

the scrubbing liquid flow rate, is 

monitored? 

A: Additional information concerning 

the operation of the scrubber and the 

rationale for the proposed alternative 

will need to be provided to EPA before 

a decision can be made. 

Abstract for [0500051] 

Q: Will EPA approve, under 40 CFR 

part 60, subparts Db and Dc, a boiler 

derate proposal from North Carolina 

Baptist Hospital in Winston-Salem, 

North Carolina, which is based on 

changes made to the natural gas burner? 

A: Yes. EPA approves the proposed 

derate method under New Source 

Performance Standard subparts Db and 

Dc, as it will reduce the capacity of the 

boiler and will comply with EPA’s 

policy on derates. 

Abstract for [0500052] 

Q1: Will EPA approve, under 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart UUU, an alternative 

monitoring procedure for a spray tower 

scrubber at the Short Mountain Silica 

facility in Mooresburg, Tennessee? The 

spray tower will control emissions from 

a fluidized bed dryer. Rather than 

measuring the pressure loss of the gas 

stream through the scrubber and the 

scrubbing liquid flow rate, the company 

proposes to monitor the scrubbing 

liquid supply pressure and flow rate. 

A1: Yes. The proposed alternative is 

acceptable under New Source 

Performance Standard (NSPS) subpart 

UUU. Since there is little pressure drop 

of the gas stream as it passes through the 

spray tower, pressure drop is not a good 

indicator of the spray tower efficiency. 

Q2: Will EPA waive the requirement, 

under 40 CFR part 60, subpart UUU, to 

conduct a performance test for a rotary 

dryer which serves as a backup for the 

fluidized bed dryer? The rotary dryer 

will use the same scrubber used for the 

fluidized bed dryer, will be used 

infrequently, and will have half the 

airflow rate of the fluidized bed dryer. 

A2: Yes. A performance test waiver is 

appropriate under NSPS subpart UUU. 

Abstract for [0500053] 

Q: Will EPA approve an alternative 

recordkeeping schedule for boiler fuel 

usage under New Source Performance 

Standard subpart Dc for General Electric 

Transportation’s new natural gas-fired 

boilers at their Erie, Pennsylvania plant? 

A: Yes. EPA will approve the change 

to the recordkeeping frequency because 

the boilers only combust clean natural 

gas, are small boilers, and past EPA 

determinations have allowed a change 

from daily recordkeeping to monthly 

recordkeeping under the same set of 

circumstances. 

Abstract for [0500054] 

Q: Will EPA approve an alternative 

fuel usage recordkeeping frequency for 

small boilers under New Source 

Performance Standard subpart Dc for 

the Standard Steel facility in Burnham, 

Pennsylvania? 

A: Yes. EPA approves the monthly 

recordkeeping alternative proposed by 

Standard Steel for its Burnham, 

Pennsylvania, plant for boiler fuel usage 

because the boilers are small, the only 

fuel is natural gas, and because this 

approval is consistent with past Agency 

determinations on the same subject. 

Abstract for [M050029] 

Q: Will a vapor degreaser at 

Tecumseh Products research laboratory 

in Ann Arbor, Michigan, still be subject 

to the Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT) standard subpart T 

if the facility replaces trichloroethylene 

with Leksol, a solvent consisting of 94 

weight percent n-propyl bromide? 

A: No. Once the facility permanently 

ceases to use any of the solvents listed 

in 40 CFR 63.460(a), and certifies that 

fact in writing, the vapor degreaser will 

no longer be subject to MACT subpart 

T. However, if the facility recommences 

the use of any of these solvents, the 

degreaser will immediately become 

subject to the National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, 

and per 40 CFR 63.9(j), the facility will 

have to inform EPA within 15 calendar 

days of the date of the change. 

Abstract for [0500055] 

Q: C&D Technologies, Incorporated 

completed construction of a building 

enclosure around three storage silos, 

which includes the truck unloading area 

and silo vents. Are these silo vents still 

subject to the requirements of 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart KK? 

A: Yes. The enclosure has an exhaust 

hood and fan that are operating the 

entire time when a truck is unloading 

into a storage silo. The exhaust hood 

and fan route the truck diesel exhaust, 

uncontrolled and directly, from the 

enclosure to the atmosphere. Because 

the fan is taking air from inside the 

enclosure and venting it to the 

atmosphere, it is possible that air vented 

to the atmosphere from the enclosure 

contains exhaust from the silo vents. 

Abstract for [M050030] 

Q: Will EPA authorize, under 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart EEE, the use of data 

from a destruction and removal 

efficiency test conducted on a 

hazardous waste burning cement kiln in 

lieu of the requirement to conduct a 

destruction and removal efficiency test 

on a second hazardous waste burning 

cement kiln that is located at the same 

facility? 

A: Yes. The company has 

demonstrated that the two kilns meet 

the stack test waiver criteria in EPA’s 

February 2004 stack testing guidance. 

Therefore, EPA approves the request 

under the Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology standard subpart EEE. 

Abstract for [M050031] 

Q: Are the molten aluminum holding 

furnaces at Mercury Marine in Fond du 

Lac, Wisconsin, classified and regulated 

as group 2 furnaces under 40 CFR part 

63, subpart RRR? 

A: Yes. The furnaces hold molten 

aluminum prior to injection into die 

casting machines, do not involve 

fluxing, and do not provide any other 

process function, consistent with the 

rule’s definition of a group 2 furnace. 

Thus, they are subject to the Maximum 

Achievable Control Technology 

standard subpart RRR. 

Abstract for [M050032] 

Q: Is the furnace at GNW Aluminum 

in Alliance, Ohio, considered a sweat 

furnace under 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

RRR? 

A: Yes. The furnace has features 

indicative of a sweat furnace, such as 

relative small size, allowance for 

residual iron removal, and tilting to 

empty the molten aluminum, and is 

thus subject to the Maximum 

Achievable Control Technology 

standard subpart RRR. 

Abstract for [M050033] 

Q: Is the Hayes Lemmerz International 

die casting facility in Huntington, 

Indiana, which originally operated a 

scrap dryer and five melting furnaces, 

but has since taken the scrap dryer out 

of service, still subject to 40 CFR part 

63, subpart RRR? 

A: No. Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology standard subpart RRR does 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 209 / Monday, October 31, 2005 / Notices 62311 

not apply to a die caster that operates 

furnaces which melt only clean charge, 

and that does not operate a sweat 

furnace, thermal chip dryer, or scrap 

dryer. 

Abstract for [M050034] 

Q: Under 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

RRR, may Method 22 visible emission 

readings for each test run at the Mercury 

Marine ring crusher in Fond du Lac, 

Wisconsin, be discontinued after 20 

minutes of continuous operation rather 

than 60 minutes, and not resumed until 

the rest break exceeds 10 minutes? 

A: Yes. Three 20-minute test runs are 

allowed and required under the 

Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology standard subpart RRR. The 

crusher must be shutdown after 20 

minutes of continuous operation 

because the hopper following the 

crusher becomes full, and the crusher 

cannot be restarted without a rest break 

that exceeds 10 minutes. When the 

hopper becomes empty, another 20 

minute test run is allowed. 

Abstract for [0500056] 

Q: Are calciners or dryers used in the 

reclamation of foundry sand subject to 

New Source Performance Standard 

(NSPS) subpart UUU? 

A: Yes. Calciner and dryers used in 

the reclamation of foundry sand are 

subject to NSPS subpart UUU. 

Abstract for [0500057] 

Q1: Are the emissions from the liquid 

sulfur storage tanks at the Burlington 

Resources natural gas sweetening and 

sulfur recovery operation at the Lost 

Cabin Gas Plant in Lysite, Wyoming, 

subject to New Source Performance 

Standard (NSPS) subpart LLL? 

A1: No. Emission from liquid sulfur 

storage tanks at a natural gas sweetening 

and sulfur recovery operation are not 

regulated under NSPS subpart LLL. 

Q2: Does performance testing of the 

tail gas incinerator require the inclusion 

of the liquid sulfur storage tank vent 

gas? 

A2: No. Liquid sulfur storage tank 

vent gas does not need to be included 

in the performance testing of the tail gas 

incinerator, nor in the sulfur reduction 

efficiency calculations. 

Q3: Does monitoring the tail gas 

incinerator require inclusion of the 

sulfur contribution from the liquid 

sulfur storage tanks? 

A3: No. Liquid sulfur storage tank 

vent gas does not need to be included 

in the monitoring of the tail gas 

incinerator, nor in the sulfur reduction 

efficiency calculations. 

Q4: Will EPA approve an alternative 

monitoring method for the combined 

sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions from the 

Train 1 tail gas unit and the liquid 

sulfur storage tanks? 

A4: No. EPA will not approve the 

alternative method proposed for the 

combined SO2 emissions from the Train 

1 tail gas unit and the liquid sulfur 

storage tanks. 

Abstract for [0500058] 

Q1: Is New Source Performance 

Standard (NSPS) subpart Y applicable to 

charcoal briquet manufacturing? 

A1: If a charcoal briquet 

manufacturing plant processes more 

than 200 tons of coal per day and meets 

the definition of a ‘‘coal preparation 

plant’’ as defined in 40 CFR 60.250, 

then it would be subject to NSPS 

subpart Y. 

Q2: Does the use of pre-processed coal 

count toward the 200-ton/day threshold 

of NSPS subpart Y? 

A2: No. The use of coal that is preprocessed off-site would not count 

toward the 200-ton/day threshold in 

NSPS subpart Y. 

Q3: Is char made from lignite 

considered to be coal? 

A3: EPA cannot provide a response to 

this question without site-specific 

information. 

Q4: Does NSPS subpart Y apply 

where no size reduction of coal refuse 

removal is conducted? 

A4: The Agency cannot provide a 

response to this question without sitespecific information. 

Abstract for [0500059] 

Q1: ICM, Incorporated, in Colwich, 

Kansas, designs and builds thermal 

oxidizer heat recovery steam generating 

system (TO–HRSG) at ethanol plants. 

Does a thermal oxidizer portion of the 

TO–HRSG satisfy the definition of a 

‘‘duct burner’’ in 40 CFR 60.41b? 

A1: No. The thermal oxidizer does not 

satisfy the definition of a ‘‘duct burner’’

in 40 CFR 60.41b. 

Q2: Are the grains dryers at an 

ethanol plant part of the combined cycle 

system and, therefore, part of the 

affected facility as defined in 40 CFR 

60.40b? 

A2: No. The grains dryers are separate 

sources and are not part of the 

combined cycle system. 

Q3: Can the heat input from the grain 

dryers at an ethanol plant be used to 

calculate the nitrogen oxide 

(NOX)emissions from the affected 

facility? 

A3: No. The heat input from the 

grains dryers cannot be used to calculate 

the NOX emissions from the affected 

facility. 

Abstract for [M050035] 

Q: Does the Maximum Achievable 

Control Technology (MACT) standard 

subpart ZZZZ apply to reciprocating 

internal combustion engines with a siterating of less than 500 brake horsepower 

located at a major source of hazardous 

air pollutants? 

A: No. MACT subpart ZZZZ does not 

apply to reciprocating internal 

combustion engines with a site-rating of 

less than 500 brake horsepower located 

at a major source of hazardous air 

pollutants. 

Dated: October 19, 2005. 

Michael M. Stahl, 

Director, Office of Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 05–21625 Filed 10–28–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–7991–1] 

Notice of the Twelfth Meeting of the 

Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico 

Watershed Nutrient Task Force 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces the 

Twelfth Meeting of the Mississippi 

River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed 

Nutrient Task Force. The purpose of this 

Task Force, consisting of Federal, State, 

and Tribal members, is to lead efforts to 

coordinate and support nutrient 

management and hypoxia-related 

activities in the Mississippi River and 

Gulf of Mexico watersheds. The major 

matters to be discussed at the meeting 

is the activities of the Sub-Basin Teams 

and the Reassessment of the Action Plan 

for Reducing, Mitigating, and 

Controlling Hypoxia in the Northern 

Gulf of Mexico. The Action Plan was 

developed in fulfillment of a 

requirement of section 604(b) of the 

Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia 

Research Control Act (Pub. L. 105–

383—Coast Guard Authorization Act of 

1998) to submit a scientific assessment 

of hypoxia and a plan for reducing, 

mitigating, and controlling hypoxia in 

the Gulf of Mexico. The Action Plan was 

submitted as a Report to Congress on 

January 18, 2001, and the eleventh 

action item is a reassessment of the 

actions every five years. The public will 

be afforded an opportunity to provide 

input to the Task Force during open 

discussion periods. 

DATES: The one day meeting will be 

held from 8:30 a.m.–4:30 p.m.,