[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 209 (Monday, October 31, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62304-62311]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21625]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#adc0ccc1ccdbc883c0ccdfc4ccedc8ddcc83cac2db"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2c414d404d5a4902414d5e454d6c495c4d024b435a">[email protected]</span></a>. 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.

[[Page 62305]]

 
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 glass-melting 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

[[Page 62306]]

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 
(NO<INF>X</INF>) monitoring during boiler startups on mixed fuels for 
the <greek-i>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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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

[[Page 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 (NO<INF>X</INF>) limits apply under 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart Db, to the two 260 mm Btu/hr wood waste-fired 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 NO<INF>X</INF> limit of 130 ng/J (0.30 lb/million Btu) found at 40 
CFR 60.44b(d).
    Q2: Is a NO<INF>X</INF> continuous emissions monitoring system 
(CEMS) required under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db?
    A2: Yes. BFP is required to operate a NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 
CEMS, and it will no longer be subject to the NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> limit and the required NO<INF>X</INF> monitoring 
contained in the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and 
Title V Permits issued by the Shasta County AQMD.

[[Page 62308]]

    Q3: Assuming that the NO<INF>X</INF> 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 (NO<INF>X</INF>) 30-day rolling average 
when the facility is combusting only wood or only natural gas?
    A3: The assumption that the NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> emission 
limits when combusting wood or natural gas alone, should the 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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: NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 
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 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> analyzers should be 1.5 
to 2.5 times greater than the permitted limit of 250 ppm. By ``state 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> for each of the boilers, and the monthly reports to the 
County indicate that these boilers have had no daily NO<INF>X</INF> 
averages above 80 ppm since the year 1999.
    Q6: Please clarify whether the NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 
limit does not apply, and the NO<INF>X</INF> CEMS would no longer be 
subject to the continuous compliance monitoring requirements under the 
NSPS subpart Db regulations. However, the NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 (H<INF>2</INF>S) 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 H<INF>2</INF>S 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?

[[Page 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 
(H<INF>2</INF>S) 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 H<INF>2</INF>S 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 non-
atomizing 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 
coal-fired 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

[[Page 62310]]

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

[[Page 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 (SO<INF>2</INF>) 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 pre-processed 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 
site-specific 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 (NO<INF>X</INF>)emissions from the 
affected facility?
    A3: No. The heat input from the grains dryers cannot be used to 
calculate the NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
site-rating 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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>