44726 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 148 / Thursday, July 31, 2008 / Notices 

Dated: July 21, 2008. 

Richard C. Karl, 

Director, Superfund Division, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. E8–17596 Filed 7–30–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–8699–2] 

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 

letters and memoranda may be searched 

on the ADI by date, office of issuance, 

subpart, citation, control number or by 

string word searches. For questions 

about the ADI or this notice, contact 

Maria Malave at EPA by phone at: (202) 

564–7027, or by 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 Code of Federal Regulations (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 commonly referred 

to as applicability determinations. See 

40 CFR 60.5 and 61.06. Although the 

part 63 NESHAP and section 111(d) of 

the Clean 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 that are 

different from the promulgated 

requirements. See 40 CFR 60.13(i), 

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

EPA’s written responses to these 

inquiries are commonly referred to as 

alternative monitoring decisions. 

Furthermore, EPA responds to written 

inquiries about the broad range of NSPS 

and NESHAP regulatory requirements as 

they pertain to a whole source category. 

These inquiries may pertain, for 

example, to the type of sources to which 

the regulation applies, or to the testing, 

monitoring, recordkeeping or reporting 

requirements contained in the 

regulation. EPA’s written responses to 

these inquiries are commonly referred to 

as regulatory interpretations. 

EPA currently compiles EPA-issued 

NSPS and NESHAP applicability 

determinations, alternative monitoring 

decisions, and regulatory 

interpretations, and posts them on the 

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 over one thousand 

EPA letters and memoranda pertaining 

to the applicability, monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements of the NSPS and NESHAP. 

Today’s notice comprises a summary of 

84 such documents added to the ADI on 

July 11, 2008. The subject, author, 

recipient, date and header of each letter 

and memorandum are listed in this 

notice, as well as a brief abstract of the 

letter or memorandum. Complete copies 

of these documents may be obtained 

from the ADI through the OECA Web 

site at: www.epa.gov/compliance/ 

monitoring/programs/caa/adi.html. 

Summary of Headers and Abstracts 

The following table identifies the 

database control number for each 

document posted on the ADI database 

system on July 11, 2008; 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. This notice 

does not change the status of any 

document with respect to whether it is 

‘‘of nationwide scope or effect’’ for 

purposes of section 307(b)(1) of the 

Clean Air Act. Neither does it purport 

to make any document that was 

previously non-binding into a binding 

document. 

ADI DETERMINATIONS UPLOADED ON JULY 11, 2008 

Control No. Category Subparts Title 

700029 NSPS Db, Dc Boiler Derating. 

700030 NSPS Db Initial Startup for Boiler. 

700031 NSPS Dc Applicability to Snowmelters. 

700032 NSPS CCCC Municipal Waste Combustion Exemption. 

700033 NSPS CCCC Incineration of Untreated Toilet Wastes. 

700034 NSPS D Final Boiler Derating. 

700035 NSPS CCCC Municipal Waste Combustion Unit Exemption. 

700036 NSPS Db Boiler Derating. 

700037 NSPS GG Alternative Fuel Monitoring. 

700038 NSPS Dc Reporting Reduction. 

700039 NSPS Dc Reduction in Fuel Use Recordkeeping. 

700040 NSPS Dc Boiler Refiring. 

700041 NSPS Dc Alternative Fuel Monitoring. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 148 / Thursday, July 31, 2008 / Notices 44727 

ADI DETERMINATIONS UPLOADED ON JULY 11, 2008—Continued 

Control No. Category Subparts Title 

700042 NSPS A, D Boiler Derating. 

700043 NSPS Dc Alternative Fuel Monitoring. 

700044 NSPS O Multiple Hearth Sludge Furnace. 

700045 NSPS A Waiver of 30-Day Notification of Performance Evaluation. 

700046 NSPS CCCC Municipal Waste Combustion Unit Exemption. 

700047 NSPS Dc Reduction in Fuel Emissions Reporting. 

700048 NSPS Dc Alternative Fuel Monitoring. 

700049 NSPS GG Alternative Fuel Monitoring. 

700050 NSPS D Boiler Derating. 

700051 NSPS Ec Waste Weight Surrogate. 

700052 NSPS DD Standards of Performance for Grain Elevators. 

700053 NSPS Ec Incineration of Pharmaceutical Wastes. 

700054 NSPS J Wet Gas Scrubber Opacity Alternative Monitoring. 

700055 NSPS A, GG Alternate Performance Test Method. 

700056 NSPS III, JJJ Work Camp Incinerator. 

700057 NSPS Y Coal Transloader Applicability. 

700058 NSPS FFF Rotogravure Coating Line Applicability. 

700059 NSPS A, Dc Alternative Monitoring Plan for Boilers. 

700060 NSPS Ce, Ec Request for Regulatory Deviation. 

700061 NSPS A, Db Alternative Opacity Monitoring Procedure. 

700062 NSPS A, Db Amendment to Alternative Opacity Monitoring Procedure. 

700064 NSPS H Monitoring Frequency Reduction. 

700065 NSPS Db Boiler Derating. 

700066 NSPS PPP Alternative Excess Emissions Criteria. 

700067 NSPS QQQ Emission Offset Calculations. 

700068 NSPS XX Test Method for Loading Rail Cars at Gasoline Load. 

700069 NSPS XX Classification of Vapor Combustor. 

700070 NSPS J Alternative Monitoring Plan for Gasoline Loading Racks. 

700071 NSPS UUU Synthetic Alumina from Calcining Oven. 

700073 NSPS WWW Definition of Treatment for Landfill Gas Processing. 

700074 NSPS WWW Definition of Treatment for Landfill Gas Processing. 

700075 NSPS CCCC Request for Applicability Determination—Thermal Desorber. 

700076 NSPS A, TTT Adjustment of Deadline for Compliance Statements. 

700077 NSPS IIII Petition to Use Non-Compliant Fuel. 

700078 NSPS Ce Request for Regulatory Deviation/Alternative Determination for Control of Dioxins/Furans (CDD/ 

CDF). 

700079 NSPS Ce Request for Regulatory Deviation/Alternative Determination for Control of Dioxins/Furans (CDD/ 

CDF). 

700080 NSPS Db Alternate Opacity Monitoring During Construction. 

800001 NSPS Dc Alternative Fuel Usage Recordkeeping Proposal. 

800002 NSPS OOO Test Waiver Proposal. 

800003 NSPS J Alternative H2S Monitoring Frequency. 

800004 NSPS J Alternative Monitoring Proposals. 

800005 NSPS WWW Definition of Treatment. 

800006 NSPS H Appendix F (CEM QA) Applicability. 

800007 NSPS UUU Method 9 Test Waiver. 

800008 NSPS OOO Test Waiver Request. 

800009 NSPS J Alternative H2S Monitoring Proposal. 

800010 NSPS WWW Operational and Monitoring Alternatives. 

800011 NSPS Cb Alternative Monitoring Location. 

800012 NSPS WWW Applicability of Well Monitoring Requirements. 

800013 NSPS Db Proposal to Shorten Test Duration. 

800014 NSPS GG Alternative Quality Assurance Procedures. 

800015 NSPS Db Predictive Emission Monitoring System. 

800016 NSPS Db Applicability to Wood Burner/Thermal Oil Heater/Rotary Dryer System. 

M070016 MACT EEE Hydrogen Chloride Continuous Emissions Monitor (CEM). 

M070017 MACT UUU Wet Gas Scrubber Opacity Alternative Monitoring. 

M070018 MACT EEE Monitoring of Scrubber System Solid Content. 

M070019 MACT EEE Alternative Measure to Control Combustion Gas Leaks. 

M070020 MACT G Alternative Monitoring Plan. 

M070021 MACT EEE Monitoring Procedure System and Time Delay for AWFCO. 

M070022 MACT R Test Method for Loading Rail Cars at Gasoline Loading Facility. 

M070023 MACT ZZZZ Request for Alternative Monitoring and Testing. 

M070024 MACT EEE Responses to Comprehensive Performance Test Plan Addendum and Alternative Monitoring 

Application. 

M070025 MACT EEE Response to Alternative Monitoring Application Requests. 

M070026 MACT EEE Response to Alternative Monitoring Application Requests. 

M070027 MACT EEE Response to Alternative Monitoring Application Requests. 

M070028 MACT EEE Response to Alternative Monitoring Application Requests. 

M070029 MACT EEE Response to Alternative Monitoring Application Requests. 

M070030 MACT EEE Response to Alternative Monitoring Application Requests. 

M080004 MACT FFFF Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
44728 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 148 / Thursday, July 31, 2008 / Notices 

ADI DETERMINATIONS UPLOADED ON JULY 11, 2008—Continued 

Control No. Category Subparts Title 

Z070002 NESHAP E Incineration of Untreated Toilet Wastes. 

Z080001 NESHAP WWW Definition of Treatment for Landfill Gas Processing. 

Z080002 NESHAP WWW Definition of Treatment for Landfill Gas Processing. 

Abstract for [0700029] 

Q: Is Blaine Larsen Farms’ (BLF) 

boiler, located at the Dehydration 

Division potato processing plant in 

Dubois, Idaho, derated and therefore 

subject to the requirements of 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart Dc, rather than 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart Db? 

A: Yes. EPA determines that BLF’s 

boiler has been derated and is now 

subject to NSPS subpart Dc, because the 

burner has been replaced with one that 

will limit the boiler capacity to less than 

100 mmBtu/hr, as verified by testing, 

and it meets the four derate criteria, as 

specified in the EPA response letter. 

Abstract for [0700030] 

Q: Has initial startup occurred for a 

boiler at the Warm Springs Forest 

Products Industries’ facility in Warm 

Springs, Oregon, under 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart Db? The facility has conducted 

boil-out and curing. 

A: No. Because the ‘‘Instruction 

Manual for Clarification of Startup in 

Source Categories Affected by New 

Source Performance Standards’’ (EPA–

68–01–4143) states that startup is 

defined as the first time steam is 

produced by the boiler and used to 

provide heat or hot water to run process 

equipment or to produce electricity, 

EPA finds that the boil-out and curing 

of the refractory is therefore a prestartup activity. 

Abstract for [0700031] 

Q: Is a snowmelter with a rated 

capacity between 10 and 100 MMBtu/hr 

that is operated by the Ted Stevens 

Anchorage International Airport subject 

to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc? 

A: No. EPA determines that NSPS 

subpart Dc does not apply to 

snowmelters. Although a snowmelter is 

a device that combusts fuel and melts 

ice resulting in the heating of water, the 

heated water is not being used for 

transferring heat from one point to 

another for any useful purpose such as 

heating a building or creating steam to 

drive a process. Therefore, the heated 

water would not qualify as a heat 

transfer medium. 

Abstract for [0700032] 

Q: Is the Pioneer Natural Resources 

Alaska, Incorporated (PNRA) 

incineration unit located at its 

Oooguruk Development Project Offshore 

Drill Site camp on the North Slope, 

Alaska, exempted from the requirements 

of the NSPS for Commercial and 

Industrial Solid Waste Incineration 

Units at 40 CFR part 60, subpart CCCC? 

A: Yes. Based on the information 

submitted in the notification required to 

claim the exemption under 40 CFR 

§ 60.2020(c)(2), EPA finds that this 

incinerator would meet the exemption 

criteria in 40 CFR 60.2020(c)(2), and is 

therefore required to meet the 

applicable recordkeeping requirements 

established by this provision. The 

incinerator would meet the criteria of 

burning greater than 30 percent 

municipal solid waste or refuse-derived 

fuel (as defined in NSPS subparts Ea, 

Eb, AAAA, and BBBB) in its fuel feed 

stream. This incinerator will primarily 

burn waste generated by a housing camp 

associated with the PNRA facility, along 

with some industrial packing and other 

non-hazardous waste materials from 

drilling support activities on site. 

Abstract for [0700033] 

Q1: Is Anadarko’s double-chamber 

cyclonator forced-air solid waste 

incinerator with a capacity of 2.4 tons 

per day, constructed after November 

1999, that has been seasonally located 

and intermittently operated at remote 

oil and gas exploration sites on the 

North Slope of Alaska since January 

2003, subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

CCCC? 

A1: Yes, EPA concludes that a waste 

incinerator with a capacity of 2.4 tons 

per day, constructed after November 

1999, that has been seasonally located 

and intermittently operated at remote 

oil and gas exploration sites, is subject 

to NSPS subpart CCCC. EPA considers 

this incinerator to be located at an 

industrial facility, and even though the 

incinerator may be moved from one 

location to the next, it will be a distinct 

operating unit of an industrial facility. 

Q2: Is 40 CFR part 61, subpart E, the 

Mercury NESHAP, applicable to an 

incineration unit that incinerates 

untreated sanitary waste (solids) 

collected from Pacto toilets at 

Anadarko’s remote oil and gas 

exploration sites on the North Slope of 

Alaska? 

A2: No. The practice of incinerating 

sanitary waste composed of untreated 

solids from Pacto toilets does not meet 

the description of incinerating sludge 

under the Mercury NESHAP. 40 CFR 

61.50 states that the rule applies to 

‘‘those stationary sources which * * * 

incinerate or dry wastewater treatment 

plant sludge.’’ Under 40 CFR 61.51, 

sludge is defined as ‘‘sludge produced 

by a treatment plant that processes 

municipal or industrial waste waters.’’

Thus, the Mercury NESHAP would not 

apply. 

Abstract for [0700034] 

Q1: Does EPA approve the proposal of 

Roseburg Forest Products (RFP) of 

Roseburg, Oregon, to derate two boilers, 

regulated under 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

D, by eliminating the capacity of both 

boilers to burn oil and replacing the 

burners with burners that are limited to 

burning less than 250 MMBtu/hr of 

natural gas, provided that the natural 

gas pressure delivered to the boilers is 

monitored? 

A1: Yes. EPA believes that the 

changes made by RFP meet the derate 

criteria because installation of a new 

burner is a permanent change to the 

boiler, which requires a system 

shutdown, cannot be easily undone, and 

is not just a change to the fuel feed 

system. Based on the performance test 

data submitted, EPA has concluded that 

the capacity of the boilers does not 

exceed the 250 MMBtu/hr applicability 

threshold, provided the pressures are 

maintained below 9.16 psig for Boiler 

No. 2 and 7.33 psig for Boiler No. 6 

(calculated using a three-hour average). 

Therefore, Boilers No. 2 and No. 6 are 

no longer subject to NSPS subpart D, if 

the limits on gas pressure are monitored 

and maintained below the threshold 

values per the Title V permit. 

Abstract for [0700035] 

Q: Is FEX L.P.’s incineration unit 

located at FEX L.P.’s Artic Wolf Camp 

for housing associated with its 

Northwest National Petroleum Reserve 

Exploration Drilling Project on the 

North Slope, Alaska, exempted from the 

requirements of the NSPS for 

Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste 

Incineration Units, under 40 CFR part 

60, subpart CCCC? 

A: Yes. Based on the information 

submitted in the notification required to 

claim the exemption under 40 CFR 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 148 / Thursday, July 31, 2008 / Notices 44729 

§ 60.2020(c)(2), EPA finds that this 

incinerator would meet the exemption 

criteria in 40 CFR 60.2020(c)(2), and is 

therefore required to meet the 

recordkeeping requirements established 

in this provision. The incinerator would 

meet the exemption criteria of burning 

greater than 30 percent municipal solid 

waste or refuse-derived fuel (as defined 

in NSPS subparts Ea, Eb, AAAA, and 

BBBB) in its fuel feed stream. This 

incinerator will burn primarily 

residential-type waste generated by a 

housing camp and cafeteria facilities 

that are associated with the FEX facility, 

along with industrial packing and other 

non-hazardous waste materials from 

drilling support activities on site. 

Abstract for [0700036] 

Q1: May Blaine Larsen Farms (BLF) 

derate its 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db 

boiler at the Dehydration Division 

potato processing plant in Dubois, 

Idaho, by restricting the fuel-metering 

valves? This would be accomplished 

with an adjustment to the valve, and the 

adjustment screws would either be 

locked into place with a locking device 

that requires a special tool to undo or 

be sealed with epoxy. 

A1: No. EPA determines that this 

approach would not be valid to derate 

a boiler under NSPS subpart Db for 

several reasons. Neither proposed 

method for locking the screws would be 

considered permanent. A derate must 

reduce the capacity of the boiler without 

the installation of a feed rate governor. 

Changes that are made only to fuel feed 

systems are not acceptable for a derate. 

Q2: May Blaine Larsen Farms derate 

its 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db boiler by 

replacing the burner? 

A2: Yes. EPA finds that the 

replacement of the burner is an 

acceptable method to derate a burner 

under NSPS subpart Db since it meets 

the deration criteria, including: (1) It is 

a change that cannot be easily undone, 

(2) requires a system shutdown to 

accomplish or reverse, and (3) it is not 

just a change to the fuel feed system. 

Q3: May the American Society of 

Mechanical Engineers Performance Test, 

Code 4–1998, be used as the verification 

test method to demonstrate a derate has 

been accomplished under 40 CFR part 

60, subpart Db? 

A3: Yes. EPA finds that this method 

has been used before to successfully 

demonstrate that a derate has been 

accomplished under NSPS subpart Db. 

Q4: Is Blaine Larsen Farms test 

protocol verification method acceptable 

to demonstrate that a derate has been 

accomplished under 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart Db? 

A4: Yes. EPA determines that the 

results of the protocol verification 

method would be acceptable under 

NSPS subpart Db if BLF continuously 

monitors fuel feed rates and maintains 

information regarding the fuel heat 

content in order to ensure that the unit 

does not exceed 100 mmBtu/hr of heat 

input. 

Abstract for [0700037] 

Q1: Does EPA approve the use of a 

certified nitrogen oxide continuous 

emission monitoring system (NOX

CEMS) to document compliance with 40 

CFR part 60, subpart GG NOX limit in 

lieu of a performance test for 

compliance analysis after the new fuel 

is introduced for stationary gas turbines 

operated by Klamath Energy, LLC of 

Portland, Oregon? 

A1: Yes. EPA conditionally approves 

the use of a certified NOX CEMS 

because it finds that as long as the 

provisions of 40 CFR § 60.334(b) are 

followed, CEMS are enough to satisfy 

compliance with the emission limit for 

NOX. 40 CFR § 60.334(g) states that a 

performance test is required only when 

equipment parameters need to be 

established. 

Q2: Does EPA waive fuel nitrogen 

content monitoring of 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart GG, if part 75 NOX CEMS are 

used for the Klamath Energy plant? 

A2: EPA finds that whether or not the 

turbine is also subject to part 75, the 

fuel nitrogen content monitoring is 

waived only if the NOX emission 

allowance in the equations used to 

determine the NSPS subpart GG NOX

emission standards in 40 CFR § 60.332 

is not claimed. 

Q3: Does EPA waive the 40 CFR part 

60, subpart GG requirement for water-tofuel injection ratio monitoring because 

of the use of the part 75 certified CEMS 

for the Klamath Energy plant? 

A3: Yes. EPA finds that under 40 CFR 

§ 60.334(b) the owner or operator may, 

as an alternative to water-to-fuel 

injection monitoring, install, certify, 

maintain, operate, and quality assure a 

CEMS if the provisions of 40 CFR 

§ 60.334(b) are followed. 

Q4: Does EPA approve the use of 

vendor analyses under 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart GG, for monitoring sulfur 

content of the fuel oil burned for the 

Klamath Energy plant? 

A4: Yes. EPA conditionally approves 

the use of vendor analyses since it finds 

that under 40 CFR 60.334(i)(1), the fuel 

oil sampling for total sulfur content can 

be done at each delivery. Oil sampling 

may be performed by a fuel supplier, 

provided that the sampling is performed 

according to either the single tank 

composite sampling procedure or the 

all-levels sampling procedure in ASTM 

D4057–88. 

Abstract for [0700038] 

Q: Does EPA approve the request from 

the St. Luke’s Meridian Medical Center 

(SLMMC) facility in Meridian, Idaho, for 

a reduction in the submittal frequency 

of the fuel emission reports from 

semiannually to annually, for two 

boilers (Boilers No. 1 and No. 2) at the 

facility under 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

Dc? 

A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves a 

reduction in the submittal frequency of 

the fuel emission reports from 

semiannually to annually on the basis 

that SLMMC receives only one 

shipment of distillate oil per year. 

SLMMC shall submit all fuel supplier 

certifications as described in 40 CFR 

60.48(f)(1), postmarked by the last day 

of January of each year. If any additional 

shipments of fuel are received during 

the year, the fuel supplier certification 

will be submitted to the Idaho 

Department of Environmental Quality 

within 30 days. Each annual report shall 

include a certified statement signed by 

the owner or operator of SLMMC’s 

facility that the fuel supplier 

certifications attached to the report 

represent all of the distillate oil received 

by SLMMC for the purposes of fueling 

the above-referenced boilers during the 

reporting period. 

Abstract for [0700039] 

Q1: Does EPA approve a request from 

Gossner Foods (Gossner) for a reduction 

in the fuel usage recordkeeping 

requirement in 40 CFR 60.48c from 

daily to monthly for Gossner’s two 

boilers in Heyburn, Idaho, which fire 

natural gas as the primary fuel and 

propane as a backup fuel? 

A1: Yes. EPA approves this request 

based on a memorandum dated 

February 20, 1992, from the EPA Office 

of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

which states that there is little value in 

requiring daily recordkeeping of the 

amounts of fuel combusted for an 

affected unit that fires only natural gas 

under NSPS subpart Dc. This is because 

subpart Dc does not have any emission 

limitations for units that fire only 

natural gas. Therefore, the purpose of 

this recordkeeping is to verify that only 

natural gas is fired. Propane is 

considered to be a type of natural gas. 

Q2. Does EPA approve a request from 

Gossner to use one gas meter to record 

monthly natural gas and/or propane 

usage for Gossner’s two boilers? 

A2: Yes. EPA approves this request. 

EPA finds that the Gossner proposal to 

divide each boiler design heat input 

capacity by the total of the design heat 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
44730 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 148 / Thursday, July 31, 2008 / Notices 

input capacities of each boiler, and use 

this to prorate the natural gas and/or 

propane usage of each boiler on a 

monthly basis, when more than one 

boiler is firing natural gas and/or 

propane simultaneously, will 

adequately determine the natural gas 

and/or propane usage by each boiler. 

Abstract for [0700040] 

Q: Does EPA approve an alternative 

plan for monitoring opacity at the Basic 

American Foods (BAF) facility in 

Blackfoot, Idaho, in lieu of a Continuous 

Opacity Monitoring System (COMS), 

under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, 

where the COMS will not provide 

accurate measurements due to water 

vapor from a proposed wet scrubber? 

A: Yes. According to the provisions of 

40 CFR 60.13(h)(i)(1), a written 

application for alternative opacity 

monitoring requirements can be 

submitted when ‘‘installation of a 

continuous emission monitoring system 

or monitoring device specified by this 

part would not provide accurate 

measurement due to liquid water or 

other interferences caused by substances 

with the effluent gasses.’’ EPA has 

previously approved similar requests, 

which are posted on EPA’s applicability 

determination index. (See EPA 

Determination Control Numbers 

0000010 and 0300073.) In previous 

requests, EPA has determined that the 

continuous monitoring of the scrubbing 

liquid flow rate and the pressure drop 

of the gas stream across the scrubber is 

acceptable as an alternative monitoring 

to the COMS. EPA approves the 

alternative monitoring plan that the 

Idaho Department of Environmental 

Quality has recommended and BAF has 

agreed to. 

Abstract for [0700041] 

Q1: Does EPA approve monthly 

instead of daily monitoring of exclusive 

use of low-sulfur distillate oil in a 40 

CFR part 60, subpart Dc affected boiler 

operated by Hampton Lumber Mill at a 

facility in Darrington, Washington? 

A1: Yes. EPA approves monthly 

instead of daily monitoring of exclusive 

use of low-sulfur distillate oil in an 

NSPS subpart Dc affected boiler. 

Q2: For this same facility, does EPA 

approve the use of fuel receipts from a 

low-sulfur distillate oil supplier as a 

monthly monitoring method under 40 

CFR part 60, subpart Dc? 

A2: Yes. EPA approves the use of fuel 

receipts from a low-sulfur distillate oil 

supplier as a monthly monitoring 

method under NSPS subpart Dc. 

Q3: Does EPA find that the amount of 

low-sulfur distillate oil used at that 

facility can be divided evenly between 

two similar boilers under 40 CFR part 

60, subpart Dc? 

A3: Yes. EPA finds that the amount of 

low-sulfur distillate oil used at a facility 

can be divided evenly between two 

similar boilers under NSPS subpart Dc, 

as long as they have the same rated 

capacity and operate in a way that 

emissions from either boiler are 

substantially similar if based on the 

same amount of fuel. 

Abstract for [0700042] 

Q: Do changes proposed by Roseburg 

Forest Products (RFP) to two large 

boilers in Dillard, Oregon, result in the 

boilers being derated under 40 CFR part 

60, subpart D? RFP has eliminated the 

capacity of both boilers to burn oil and 

made changes to the boilers that reduce 

the total heat input capacity for both 

boilers to less than 245.7 MMBtu/hr for 

natural gas. RFP proposed to conduct 

additional monitoring and performance 

testing to verify that the capacity of the 

boilers has been reduced. 

A: Although the changes RFP has 

made to its boilers appear to meet many 

of the criteria for derating boilers, EPA 

requires submission of source test data 

verifying that the capacity of the boilers 

has been reduced before EPA will 

determine that the RFP boilers have 

been derated. Any such verification 

testing should be conducted while each 

boiler is operating at its maximum 

capacity for a 24-hour period for each 

fossil fuel that the boiler has the 

capability of burning. EPA expects RFP 

to monitor the gas pressure during the 

performance test to verify the 

correlation of gas pressure to heat input. 

In addition, to ensure reliability of the 

performance test results, RFP should 

submit a performance test plan to EPA 

for approval prior to the test and follow 

the general provisions of 40 CFR part 

60, subpart A, for performance tests, 

such as notifying EPA in advance of the 

test. 

Abstract for [0700043] 

Q1: Does EPA approve monthly 

instead of daily monitoring of natural 

gas usage in a 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

Dc affected boiler at the proposed J. R. 

Simplot Company facility near 

Mountain Home, Idaho? 

A1: Yes. EPA approves monthly 

instead of daily monitoring of natural 

gas usage in this NSPS subpart Dc 

affected boiler. 

Q2: Does EPA approve the use of fuel 

receipts from a gas supplier to serve as 

a monthly monitoring method under 40 

CFR part 60, subpart Dc, for an affected 

boiler at the proposed J. R. Simplot 

Company facility near Mountain Home, 

Idaho? 

A2: Yes. EPA approves the use of fuel 

receipts from a gas supplier to serve as 

monthly monitoring method under 

NSPS subpart Dc. 

Q3: Does EPA find that all of the 

natural gas used at a facility can be 

attributed to the 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

Dc affected boilers, if there is some gas 

used by a unit that is a facility not 

covered by any other regulation, as 

proposed by the J. R. Simplot Company 

facility near Mountain Home, Idaho? 

A3: Yes. EPA finds that all of the 

natural gas used at a facility can be 

attributed to the NSPS subpart Dc 

affected boilers, even if there is some 

gas used by another unit, as long as that 

other unit is a facility not covered by 

any other regulation. 

Q4: Does EPA find that the amount of 

natural gas used at a facility can be 

divided evenly between two similar 

boilers under 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

Dc, as proposed by the J. R. Simplot 

Company facility near Mountain Home, 

Idaho? 

A4: Yes. EPA finds that the amount of 

natural gas used at a facility can be 

divided evenly between two similar 

boilers under NSPS subpart Dc, as long 

as they have the same rated capacity 

and operate in a way that emissions 

from either boiler are substantially 

similar if based on the same amount of 

fuel. 

Abstract for [0700044] 

Q: Is the Anchorage Water and 

Wastewater Utility (AWWU) subject to 

40 CFR part 60, subpart O, based on 

changes and upgrades that are planned 

for the emission control system on 

AWWU’s multiple hearth sludge 

furnace (MHF) at the Asplund 

Wastewater Treatment Facility? 

A: EPA determines that the MHF 

continues to be subject to NSPS subpart 

O. The MHF was constructed in 1986 

and is subject to NSPS subpart O, which 

is applicable to a facility constructed 

after June 11, 1973. The upgrades to 

AWWU’s facility do not affect 

applicability status because the facility 

is already subject to NSPS subpart O 

based on the date of construction. 

Abstract for [0700045] 

Q: Does EPA grant a waiver to Flint 

Hills Resources Alaska of the 30-day 

notification of performance evaluation 

for recently installed sulfur dioxide 

(SO2) Continuous Emission Monitoring 

System according to 40 CFR 60.7(a)(5) 

and 60.8(d)? 

A: Yes. EPA grants a waiver of the 30- 

day notification of performance 

evaluation, under 40 CFR 60.19(f)(3), 

because of the need to meet deadlines 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 148 / Thursday, July 31, 2008 / Notices 44731 

that have been laid out in a Compliance 

Order by Consent. 

Abstract for [0700046] 

Q: Is Anadarko Petroleum 

Corporation’s incineration unit at the 

Jacobs Ladder Exploration Drilling 

Project on the North Slope, Alaska, 

exempted from the requirements of 40 

CFR part 60, subpart CCCC? 

A: Based on the information 

submitted in the notification required to 

claim the exemption under 40 CFR 

60.2020(c)(2), EPA finds that this 

incinerator would meet the exemption 

criteria in 40 CFR 60.2020(c)(2), and is 

therefore required to meet the 

recordkeeping requirements established 

in this provision. Under 40 CFR 

60.2020(c)(2), an exemption is provided 

for units that burn greater than 30 

percent municipal solid waste or refusederived fuel (as defined in NSPS 

subparts Ea, Eb, AAAA, and BBBB) in 

their fuel feed stream. This incinerator 

will burn primarily residential-type 

waste generated by a housing camp and 

cafeteria facilities that is associated with 

the Anadarko facility, along with some 

industrial packing and other nonhazardous waste materials from drilling 

support activities on site. 

Abstract for [0700047] 

Q: Does EPA approve a reduction in 

the submittal frequency of the fuel 

emission reports to annually for two 

boilers using natural gas, except for 

approximately eight hours per month 

when diesel fuel is used as a backup, 

under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, at the 

St. Luke’s Regional Medical Center in 

Boise, Idaho? 

A: Yes. EPA approves a reduction in 

the submittal frequency of the fuel 

emission reports to annually. For a 

boiler that only fires natural gas and 

distillate oil with sulfur content of less 

than 0.5 percent, these reports consist 

only of fuel oil suppliers’ certifications 

and a certified statement of the owner 

or operator. Because this facility 

receives only one shipment of distillate 

oil per year, it would be redundant to 

require more than annual submittal of 

this information. As long as the facility 

receives only one shipment of distillate 

oil a year, it shall submit all fuel 

supplier certifications as described in 40 

CFR 60.48(f)(1), postmarked by the last 

day of January of each year. 

Abstract for [0700048] 

Q1: Does EPA approve a reduction in 

the fuel usage recordkeeping 

requirement in 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

Dc, from daily to monthly when only 

pipeline quality natural gas is and will 

be fired in two boilers operated by Boise 

Paper Solutions of Boise Cascade 

Corporation? 

A1: Yes. EPA approves a reduction in 

the fuel usage recordkeeping 

requirement in 40 CFR 60.48c from 

daily to monthly when only pipeline 

quality natural gas is and will be fired 

in the boilers. 

Q2: Does EPA approve the use of 

monthly natural gas bills to fulfill the 

recordkeeping requirement in 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart Dc as proposed by Boise 

Paper Solutions of Boise Cascade 

Corporation? 

A2: Yes. EPA approves the use of 

monthly natural gas bills to fulfill the 

recordkeeping requirement of 40 CFR 

60.48c, provided that all natural gas on 

the fuel receipt is attributed to use in 

the two boilers, regardless of the small 

amount that may be used for other 

purposes, such as space heating, and 

that the amount of natural gas used in 

each boiler is apportioned in equal 

proportions. 

Abstract for [0700049] 

Q: Does EPA approve a reduction in 

the monitoring schedule for fuel gas 

sulfur content from quarterly to 

semiannually under 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart GG, at Calpine Hermiston Power 

Plant in Oregon, based upon 

demonstrated compliance and low 

variability for six quarters? 

A: Yes. EPA approves this alternative 

fuel monitoring request. In addition, 

based on amendments to NSPS subpart 

GG, promulgated on July 8, 2004, the 

requirement to monitor the sulfur 

content of natural gas may be waived. 

Abstract for [0700050] 

Q: Does EPA approve a source test 

protocol for determinations of the 

maximum heat input for use in a boiler 

derate demonstration, under 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart D, at the Roseburg 

Forest Products facility in Roseburg, 

Oregon? 

A: Yes. Based upon a review of the 

source test protocol and the Piping and 

Instrument Diagram for the natural gas 

systems for both boilers, EPA concludes 

that, under NSPS subpart D, if the 

source test is conducted according to 

the protocol, it should provide the 

information required to verify the 

maximum heat input, namely, gas flow 

rate, calorific value, and supply 

pressure. 

Abstract for [0700051] 

Q: May a ‘‘bag counting’’ surrogate 

method for determining the weight of 

incinerated waste be used to determine 

whether the co-fired combustor 

exemption of 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

Ec, applies to a BP Exploration Alaska 

Incorporated waste incinerator located 

at the Northstar Development Facility in 

the Beaufort Sea? 

A: No. EPA finds that the surrogate 

method described will not provide the 

accuracy required by the recordkeeping 

requirements of NSPS subpart Ec. It is 

not clear from the request whether a 

distinction is made between the 

differences in the weight of a typical bag 

of hospital and medical/infectious waste 

and the weight of a typical bag of other 

waste. Also, if an average weight of a 

bag of hospital and medical/infectious 

waste is used, this may underestimate 

the actual amount of hospital and 

medical/infectious waste that is being 

burned. Thus, EPA has determined that 

the proposed surrogate method cannot 

be used for the determination of 

whether the co-fired combustor 

exemption in 40 CFR 60.50c(c) is met. 

EPA will consider a different weight 

surrogate method that adequately 

ensures that the exemption is met with 

a margin for error. 

Abstract for [0700052] 

Q1: Does the addition of storage 

capacity, which did not increase the 

hourly grain handling capacity, trigger 

applicability of 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

DD, for the Busch Agricultural 

Resources, Incorporated (BARI) Malt 

Plant Facility in Idaho Falls, Idaho? 

A1: Yes. EPA determines that the 

increase in storage capacity triggers 

NSPS subpart DD applicability. The 

grain storage capacity exceeded 2.5 

million bushels in 2002 when the 

permanent storage capacity was 

increased to 4 million bushels. Because 

the permanent storage capacity for this 

facility exceeds 2.5 million bushels, the 

facility meets the definition of a grain 

terminal elevator, as defined in NSPS 

subpart DD, and is subject to the NSPS. 

In addition, 60.304(b)(4) of subpart DD, 

which states that ‘‘the installation of 

permanent storage capacity without an 

increase in hourly grain handling 

capacity by itself would not be 

considered a modification of an existing 

facility’’, does not apply to BARI. 

Section 60.304(b)(4) of subpart DD does 

not apply to those affected facilities that 

are constructed at the time applicability 

was triggered or subsequent to that time. 

Q2: Is 40 CFR part 60, subpart DD, 

applicable to the following activities 

and equipment at the BARI Idaho Falls 

Malt Plant Facility in Idaho Falls, Idaho: 

(1) Malt load out operations; 

(2) Residual/byproduct storage and 

load out operations; 

(3) Conveyors located inside the malt 

house that are used to move barley and 

off-kiln malt through the malt house 

operation; and 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
44732 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 148 / Thursday, July 31, 2008 / Notices 

(4) A baghouse filter that is dedicated 

solely to controlling dust emissions 

from grain and malt handling within the 

malt house operation. 

A2: EPA determines the applicability 

for each of the specific activities and 

equipment at BARI, as follows: 

(1) NSPS subpart DD is not applicable 

to malt load out operations. 

(2) NSPS subpart DD is not applicable 

to the storage and load out operations of 

residuals or byproducts provided it is 

not possible for these operations to 

handle grain. Reject hulls, grain 

fragments or dirt that is handled and 

stored separately, as well as malted 

barley and malting by-products, are not 

considered grain. 

(3) Equipment being used is subject to 

NSPS subpart DD if it handles unmalted 

barley part of the time, and malted and 

unmalted barley at the same time 

because it is handling some amount of 

grain, as well as conveyors located 

inside the malt house that are used to 

move unmalted barley. However, 

conveyors located inside the malt house 

that are used to move off-kiln malt are 

not subject to NSPS subpart DD. 

(4) Emissions from a baghouse that is 

controlling dust from grain and malt 

handling within the malt house 

operation are subject to NSPS subpart 

DD, because the commingled emissions 

include grain handling emissions that 

are subject to NSPS subpart DD. 

Abstract for [0700053] 

Q: Does the incineration of 

pharmaceutical wastes disposed of by 

Providence Alaska Medical Center, a 

hospital in Alaska, require an 

incineration facility, under 40 CFR part 

60, subpart Ec, or 40 CFR part 62, 

subpart HHH, to demonstrate 

compliance with Hospital/Medical/ 

Infectious Waste Incinerator (HMIWI) 

rules? 

A: Yes. EPA finds the HMIWI 

regulation applies to the incineration of 

hospital, medical, and infectious wastes. 

EPA defines ‘‘hospital waste’’ broadly, 

and it includes any waste or discarded 

materials generated at a hospital, except 

unused items returned to the 

manufacturer. Thus, pharmaceutical 

wastes generated at a hospital and 

disposed of by the hospital are 

considered ‘‘hospital waste’’ under the 

rules, and a facility that incinerates such 

waste is subject to HMIWI. 

Abstract for [0700054] 

Q: Does EPA approve an alternative 

monitoring plan in lieu of the 

continuous opacity monitoring (COMS) 

requirements of 40 CFR 60.105(a)(1) and 

corresponding requirements of 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart UUU, where a wet 

scrubber is to be installed on Puget 

Sound Refining’s (PSR’s) fluidized 

catalytic cracking unit (FCCU) in 

Anacortes, Washington? 

A: Yes. EPA approves the monitoring 

of the liquid flow rate and gas flow rate 

for the wet gas scrubber, which is a jetejector design. Calculation of the liquidto-gas ratio must be done as outlined in 

Tables 2 and 3 of Maximum Achievable 

Control Technology (MACT) subpart 

UUU, except that for purposes of 

determining and reporting excess 

emissions for the FCCU, a 3-hour rolling 

average of the liquid-to-gas ration will 

be used. 

Abstract for [0700055] 

Q: Does EPA allow the use of an 

alternate performance test method for 

stationary gas turbines, under 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart GG, at ConocoPhillips 

Alaska Incorporated’s Alpine 

Development Project in North Slope 

Alaska? 

A: Yes. EPA approves the use of an 

alternate performance test method, 

under NSPS subpart GG, only if the 

probe is designed and conforms to the 

tests specified in EPA Guidance 

Document CG–031. 

Abstract for [0700056] 

Q1: Should an incinerator used to 

dispose of camp wastes at a remote, 

temporary work camp in Nuiqsut, 

Alaska, and operated by Alaska 

Interstate Construction, LLC (AIC), be 

subject to 40 CFR part 62, subpart III, 

the Federal Plan Requirements for 

Commercial Industrial Solid Waste 

Incinerators (CISWI)? 

A1: Yes. EPA determines that the 

work camp is an integral part of a 

commercial operation, the AIC facility, 

and would not be there but for 

generating profit as a commercial 

operation under 40 CFR part 62, subpart 

III. The term ‘‘commercial facility’’ is 

not defined in the CISWI regulation, but 

the American Heritage Dictionary 

defines commercial as ‘‘having profit, 

success, or immediate results as [a] chief 

aim.’’ Thus, the work camp incinerator 

would be considered to be located at a 

‘‘commercial or industrial facility’’ and 

would be subject to CISWI. 

Q2: Should AIC’s work camp 

incinerator, which burns primarily 

municipal solid waste, be regulated 

under 40 CFR part 62, subpart III? 

A2: Yes. EPA finds that the 

incinerator should be regulated under 

CISWI. The fact that the waste 

incinerated is considered to be 

municipal solid waste does not mean 

that the incinerator would not be 

considered to be a CISWI unit. This is 

apparent because of the exemption that 

is provided for CISWI units under 40 

CFR 62.14525(c)(2) for units that burn 

greater than 30 percent municipal solid 

waste. AIC’s work camp incinerator is 

considered to be a CISWI, but because 

it burns greater than 30 percent 

municipal solid waste, it has an 

exemption under NSPS subpart III. 

Abstract for [0700057] 

Q: Does EPA find that a coal 

transloader located in Port Wentworth, 

Georgia, next to Georgia Power’s Plant 

Kraft Steam-Electric Generating Plant, 

and a coal preparation plant, which 

provides coal to the Plant Kraft units, 

are subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

Y? 

A: No. EPA has determined that the 

transloader is not part of the coal 

preparation plant on the property since 

it not connected to any of its breaking, 

crushing, screening, wet or dry cleaning, 

or thermal drying equipment, and thus 

is not subject to NSPS subpart Y. Since 

the coal preparation plant was 

constructed prior to the applicability 

date of October 24, 1974, it is not 

subject to NSPS subpart Y. 

Abstract for [0700058] 

Q: Is the installation of three solventbased laminators at the Catalyst 

International’s rotogravure urethane 

coating line and printing operations, 

located in Delaware County, 

Pennsylvania, subject to 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart FFF? 

A: Yes. EPA has determined that 

because the two new laminators to be 

installed at Catalyst’s Pennsylvania 

facility will coat a urethane web, on a 

continuous basis, with an adhesive that 

meets the definition of ink given in the 

NSPS subpart FFF rule using a gravure 

cylinder, these laminators are subject to 

NSPS subpart FFF. 

Abstract for [0700059] 

Q: Does EPA approve an alternative 

monitoring plan for boilers 1 and 2 that 

fire fuels with low sulfur content at the 

Hercules’ Franklin, Virginia plant under 

40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc? 

A: EPA approves the alternative fuel 

sampling methodology for Hercules’

boiler 2. Hercules may use fuel supplier 

certifications in lieu of a continuous 

opacity monitor (COM) to prove that 

very low sulfur fuels are being 

combusted, and get relief from 

particulate emission monitoring 

pursuant to 40 CFR 60.47c(a). EPA 

disapproved the alternative monitoring 

proposal for Hercules’ boiler 1 to use 

scrubber parametric monitoring in lieu 

of installing a COM. Hercules will need 

to install a particulate matter (PM) 

continuous emission monitoring system 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 148 / Thursday, July 31, 2008 / Notices 44733 

(CEMS) unless it can show that this is 

not a viable alternative to a COM. 

Abstract for [0700060] 

Q1. Does EPA approve a request to 

deviate from the assumption that a 

violation of the hydrogen chloride (HCl) 

emission occurs if the Curtis Bay Energy 

facilities in Baltimore, Maryland, 

operate their Hospital/Medical/ 

Infectious Waste Incinerators (HMIWIs) 

above the maximum charge rate and 

below the minimum HCl sorbent flow 

rate simultaneously, as stated in 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart Ec, at § 60.56c(e)(3)? 

The facilities have actual hydrogen 

chloride (HCl) emissions data from an 

EPA compliant continuous HCl 

emissions monitor on a real-time basis. 

A1. Yes. EPA agrees that the actual 

data, obtained from an EPA compliant 

continuous HCl monitor on a real-time 

basis, that shows HCl emissions are 

within the allowable limit of either 100 

parts per million by volume adjusted to 

7 percent oxygen measured on a dry 

basis at standard conditions or 93 

percent reduction, is superior to using 

surrogate parameter of HCl sorbent flow 

rate. An EPA compliant continuous HCl 

monitor must meet Performance 

Specification 2 in 40 CFR part 60, 

specifically the Specifications and Test 

Procedures for SO2 and NOX

Continuous Emission Monitoring 

Systems in Stationary Sources in 

Appendix B, and the quality assurance 

procedures specified in Appendix F, 

including the revised Relative Accuracy 

Test Audit (RATA) calculation 

procedures in Enclosure 1 of the 

response letter. In addition, a CEMS for 

oxygen must be installed, calibrated, 

maintained, and operated in accordance 

with the requirements of Appendices B 

and F of part 60. EPA describes 

additional requirements applicable for 

CEMS in the EPA response letter and its 

Enclosure 1. 

Q2. Does EPA approve a request to 

eliminate the operating parameter 

monitoring requirements for maximum 

charge rate as specified in § 60.57c(a) 

and Table 3 of 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

Ec, at the Curtis Bay Energy Hospital/ 

Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators 

(HMIWIs) located in Baltimore, 

Maryland? 

A2. No. EPA finds that the maximum 

charge rate is an operating parameter 

used to determine compliance with 

other applicable emission limits in 

addition to HCl emission limits. The 

definition for maximum charge rate 

given in § 60.51c of 40 CFR for a 

continuous and intermittent HMIWI is 

‘‘* * * 110 percent of the lowest 3-hour 

average charge rate measured during the 

most recent performance test 

demonstrating compliance with all 

applicable emission limits.’’ By 

definition, the maximum charge rate is 

linked to compliance with all applicable 

emission limits which include 

particulate matter (PM), carbon 

monoxide (CO), dioxins/furans, HCl, 

lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd), mercury (Hg), 

sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides 

(NOX), and opacity. EPA will not grant 

approval to eliminate monitoring of the 

maximum charge rate as an operating 

parameter since it is linked to all 

emission limits and not linked only to 

HCl emissions. 

Q3. Does EPA approve a request to 

eliminate the operating parameter 

monitoring requirements for minimum 

hydrogen chloride (HCl) sorbent flow 

rate as specified in § 60.57c(a) and Table 

3 of 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ec, at the 

Curtis Bay Energy Hospital/Medical/ 

Infectious Waste Incinerators (HMIWIs) 

located in Baltimore, Maryland? 

A3. Yes. EPA conditionally approves 

the request to eliminate monitoring the 

minimum HCl sorbent flow rate as an 

operating parameter when the HCl 

emissions are measured using an EPA 

compliant continuous HCl monitor, as 

described in the EPA response letter. 

Q4. Does EPA approve a request to 

eliminate the recordkeeping 

requirements for HMIWI charge dates, 

times, and weights and hourly charge 

rates as specified in § 60.58c(b)(2)(iii) in 

40 CFR part 60, subpart Ec, at the Curtis 

Bay Energy HMIWIs, located in 

Baltimore, Maryland? 

A4. No. EPA finds that, as previously 

stated in the answer to question 2 of this 

determination, the maximum charge 

rate parameters are linked to other 

emission limits besides HCl emission 

limits. 

Q5. Does EPA approve a request to 

eliminate the recordkeeping 

requirements for the amount and type of 

HCl sorbent used during each hour of 

operation as specified in 

§ 60.58c(b)(2)(vii) in 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart Ec, at the Curtis Bay Energy 

HMIWIs located in Baltimore, 

Maryland? 

A5. Yes. EPA agrees that actual data 

from an EPA compliant continuous HCl 

monitor, as described in the EPA 

response letter, will provide HCl 

emissions information better than using 

surrogate parameters such as amount 

and type of HCl sorbent. 

Abstract for [0700061] 

Q: Does EPA approve an alternative 

opacity monitoring procedure, under 40 

CFR part 60, subpart Db, for an auxiliary 

boiler at the Cardinal Power Plant, 

located in Brilliant, Ohio, that has a 

design heat input capacity of 652.58 

million British Thermal Units per hour 

and that combusts only number 2 fuel 

oil? 

A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves 

this alternative opacity monitoring 

procedure under NSPS subpart Db, and 

states the conditions and requirements 

of the approval in the EPA response 

letter. 

Abstract for [0700062] 

Q: Does EPA find that condition three 

of the March 15, 2006, Approval, related 

to visible emission readings by a 

certified observer using Method 9 at the 

auxiliary boiler stack, apply to four 

hours of continuous operation or 

cumulative operation under CFR part 

60, Appendix A, at the Cardinal 

Operating Company’s facility in 

Brilliant, Ohio? 

A: Yes. EPA finds that condition three 

applies to four hours of continuous 

operation under NSPS subpart A. 

Abstract for [0700064] 

Q: Is the proposed reduction in the 

monitoring frequency for the 321–M 

machining room at the Savannah River 

Company’s facility in Aiken, South 

Carolina, acceptable under 40 CFR part 

60, subpart H? 

A: Yes. EPA finds that replacing 

continuous monitoring with quarterly 

confirmatory sampling to verify low 

emissions is acceptable under NSPS 

subpart H, based upon review of data 

submitted with the proposal. 

Abstract for [0700065] 

Q: Is the procedure that United 

Distillers proposed for derating a boiler 

at its plant in Louisville, Kentucky in 

order to avoid applicability under 40 

CFR part 60, subpart Db acceptable? 

A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves 

the boiler derate since the proposal 

meets the criteria that a derate must be 

permanent and cannot be reversed with 

shutting down the boiler. For this unit, 

a derate that involves replacing a 

natural gas control valve with a smaller 

valve and changing the internal 

components in the fuel oil control valve 

to restrict the oil firing rate are 

acceptable under NSPS subpart Db 

because they cannot be reversed without 

shutting the unit down. As a condition 

for approval for this derate, United 

Distillers must monitor fuel usage in 

order to verify that the actual heat input 

for the unit never exceeds 100 million 

British thermal units per hour. 

Abstract for [0700066] 

Q1: Are the alternative parameter 

operating limits that Knauf Fiberglass 

has proposed to use for defining excess 

emissions at its Lanett, Alabama, plant 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
44734 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 148 / Thursday, July 31, 2008 / Notices 

acceptable under 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart PPP? 

A1: Yes. Based upon information 

provided by the manufacturer of the 

electrostatic precipitator (ESP) installed 

on Knauf’s wool fiberglass insulation 

line, EPA finds that the requirement to 

monitor ESP primary current, primary 

voltage, and secondary current can be 

waived since monitoring secondary 

voltage, inlet water flow, and inlet water 

solids content will provide adequate 

information about ESP performance 

under NSPS subpart PPP. 

Q2. Would EPA approve the Knauf 

Fiberglass request to use an alternative 

definition of excess emissions with 

respect to the certain operating 

parameters for which monitoring is 

required under subpart PPP. 

Specifically, Knauf Fiberglass requests 

that scrubber pressure drops, scrubber 

water flows, ESP secondary voltages, 

and ESP inlet water flows greater than 

130 percent of baseline levels during a 

successful performance test and ESP 

inlet water solids content less than 70 

percent of the baseline during a 

successful performance test not be 

considered periods of excess emissions. 

The term, excess emissions, is defined 

under NSPS subpart PPP as any 

monitoring data that is less than 70 

percent of the lowest value or more than 

130 percent of the highest value of each 

operating parameter recorded during the 

most recent performance test. 

A2. Yes. Knauf Fiberglass request is 

acceptable. EPA agrees that control 

device efficiency should improve when 

operating in these ranges. 

Abstract for [0700067] 

Q: Does EPA allow emissions 

reductions that occurred at the Ashland 

Oil facility in Catlettsburg, Kentucky, 

when installing controls in order to 

comply with 40 CFR part 61, subpart 

FF, be used as emission offsets to avoid 

applicability under 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart QQQ, by offsetting emission 

increases resulting from the installation 

of new drains to an existing aggregate 

system? 

A: No. EPA finds that emission 

reductions achieved through activities 

which are for the purpose of attaining 

compliance with another rule cannot be 

used as emission offsets to avoid 

applicability under this rule. This 

position has been stated in a previous 

EPA determination issued by Region 10 

under NSPS subpart 60. [SEE ADI 

Control Number 9700065.] 

Abstract for [0700068] 

Q: Does EPA approve an alternative 

test method and operating limit, under 

40 CFR part 60, subpart XX and 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart R, for the Philtex/Ryton 

Complex (Philtex) in Borger, Texas? 

A: Yes. EPA approves an alternative 

testing and operating limits specified in 

§ 60.502(h) of subpart XX and 

§ 63.425(e) of subpart R on the basis of 

specific stipulations, which address: 

The maximum flow of vapors from 

loading operations; the heat content of 

vapors routed to the flare during loading 

operations; the leak tightness of rail 

cars; detecting leaks and repairing the 

vapor manifold system; verifying that 

excess emissions will not occur from 

storage tanks at the maximum pressures 

during loading; ensuring gasoline is 

loaded into only rail cars which pass the 

leak test; and monitoring the pressure 

continuously in the vapor collection 

manifold system. 

Abstract for [0700069] 

Q: Should vapor combustors be 

considered incineration devices or 

process flares under 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart XX? 

A: EPA determines that the vapor 

combustor is an incinerator and thus 

should be tested as such. Vapor 

combustors do not meet the design 

criteria of any one of the three flare 

types listed in § 60.18 of the General 

Provisions. Additionally, vapor 

combustors can be emission tested using 

EPA reference methods. 

Abstract for [0700070] 

Q: Does EPA approve an alternative 

monitoring plan for gasoline loading 

racks and a hydrogen plant, under 40 

CFR part 60, subpart J, located at TPI 

Petroleum’s Ardmore petroleum 

refinery? TPI wants to install a 

continuous monitoring system for 

periodic fuel gas sampling, instead of a 

continuous emission monitoring system. 

A: EPA Headquarters is reviewing the 

applicability of NSPS part 60, subpart J 

to refinery generated gas streams that 

are combusted in refinery combustion 

devices, such as in product loading rack 

systems and hydrogen production 

facilities. That review is currently ongoing at a national level. These 

nationally significant NSPS part 60, staff 

in EPA Headquarters office in 

Washington, D.C. EPA Region 6 office 

does not have the authority to process 

this request until a national 

determination has been made. 

Abstract for [0700071] 

Q1: Does EPA find that any materials 

used as a feedstock on the Spherical 

Catalyst Manufacturing (SCM) Line 1 at 

UOP’s Shreveport, Louisiana plant meet 

the 40 CFR part 60, subpart UUU usage 

of the term ‘‘mineral’’ (such as 

‘‘alumina’’)? 

A1: No. EPA finds none of the feed 

materials used on SCM Line 1 (pure 

aluminum, hydrochloric acid, and/or 

aluminum hydroxychloride solution) 

are a ‘‘mineral,’’ as the term is used in 

the definition of ‘‘mineral processing 

plant,’’ located in NSPS subpart UUU at 

§ 60.731. 

Q2: Is synthetic alumina produced on 

the SCM Line 1 at UOP’s Shreveport, 

Louisiana plant, using a combination of 

pure aluminum, hydrochloric acid, and/ 

or aluminum hydroxychloride solution, 

a process that meets that applicability 

criteria in § 60.730 of 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart UUU? 

A2: No. EPA finds that the synthetic 

alumina produced on SCM Line 1 does 

not meet the applicability criteria in 

§ 60.730 of 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

UUU. 

Q3: Is SCM Line 1, located at UOP’s 

Shreveport, Louisiana plant, not 

processing a ‘‘mineral,’’ as the term is 

used in 40 CFR part 60, subpart UUU, 

and not producing a ‘‘mineral,’’ as the 

term is used in the definition of the 

affected facility (each calciner and dryer 

at a ‘‘mineral processing plant’’) in 

subpart UUU, potentially subject to 

NSPS subpart UUU? 

A3: No. EPA determines SCM Line 1 

cannot be subject to NSPS subpart UUU, 

because it neither processes a 

‘‘mineral,’’ nor does it produce a 

‘‘mineral,’’ and, therefore, it does not 

meet the NSPS subpart UUU definition 

of a ‘‘mineral processing plant’’. 

Abstract for [0700073] 

Q: Does EPA consider the gas 

processing system which includes two 

turbines at the DFW Recycling and 

Disposal Facility in Lewisville, Texas, to 

be treatment under 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart WWW, pursuant to 40 CFR 

60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C)? 

A: Yes. EPA considers the specified 

compression, filtration, and moisture 

removal from the landfill gas for use in 

an energy recovery device to be 

treatment under NSPS subpart WWW, 

pursuant to 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C). 

Because the turbines will be exempt 

from monitoring, they do not have to be 

included in the Startup, Shutdown, and 

Malfunction (SSM) Plan required by 40 

CFR part 63, subpart AAAA. However, 

the treatment system supplying gas to 

the turbines will have to be included in 

the SSM Plan. 

Abstract for [0700074] 

Q: Does EPA consider the gas 

processing system which includes 

reciprocating internal combustion (IC) 

engines at the Austin Community 

Landfill in Austin, Texas, to be 

treatment under 40 CFR part 60, subpart 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 148 / Thursday, July 31, 2008 / Notices 44735 

WWW, pursuant to 40 CFR 

60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C)? 

A: Yes. EPA considers the specified 

compression, filtration, and moisture 

removal from the landfill gas for use in 

an energy recovery device to be 

treatment under NSPS subpart WWW, 

pursuant to 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C). 

Because the engines will be exempt 

from monitoring, they do not have to be 

included in the Startup, Shutdown, and 

Malfunction (SSM) Plan required by 40 

CFR part 63, subpart AAAA. However, 

the treatment system supplying gas to 

the IC engines will have to be included 

in the SSM Plan. 

Abstract for [0700075] 

Q: Does EPA consider the thermal 

desorber and pollution control system 

which treats diesel-contaminated 

drilling cuttings, under construction by 

Pollution Management, Incorporated in 

Beebe, Arkansas, to be subject to 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart CCCC? 

A: No. EPA does not consider the 

specified treatment of this material, 

diesel-contaminated drilling cuttings, by 

low temperature thermal desorption 

followed by a pollution control system, 

to be subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

CCCC. 

Abstract for [0700076] 

Q: Morton Custom Plastics Company 

in Harrisburg, North Carolina is subject 

to 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTT and 

requests a change in the due dates for 

its semiannual compliance statements. 

Does EPA allow an adjustment in the 

due dates? 

A: No. The NSPS General Provisions 

at § 60.19 allow an adjustment in the 

postmark deadline for semiannual 

compliance statements when 

information is provided which indicates 

that an adjustment is warranted. Since 

Morton Custom Plastics has provided no 

information to support a change in the 

deadline, EPA does not approve the 

company’s request. 

Abstract for [0700077] 

Q: The City of Winston-Salem, North 

Carolina, operates an emergency 

generator which is subject to 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart IIII and is required by 

§ 60.4207(a) to use diesel fuel meeting 

the requirements of 40 CFR 80.510(a), 

beginning October 1, 2007. Does EPA 

approve the request that the City use the 

remaining non-compliant fuel in its 

inventory for six months following 

October 1, 2007, pursuant to 

§ 60.4207(c)? 

A: Yes. EPA approves the City of 

Winston-Salem’s request under NSPS 

subpart IIII. Based on EPA’s review of 

the information provided, the City’s 

petition is approved pursuant to 

§ 60.4207, and the City may use the 

remaining non-compliant fuel in the 

emergency generator for a period of six 

months past the deadline of October 1, 

2007. 

Abstract for [0700078] 

Q1: Does EPA approve a request to 

deviate from the assumption that a 

violation of the dioxin/furan (CDD/CDF) 

emission occurs if the Curtis Bay Energy 

(CBE) facilities in Baltimore, Maryland, 

operate their Hospital/Medical/ 

Infectious Waste Incinerator (HMIWI) 

above the maximum fabric filter inlet 

temperature, above the maximum 

charge rate, and below the minimum 

dioxin/furan sorbent flow rate 

simultaneously as stated in 40 CFR part 

60, subpart Ec, at § 60.56c(e)(2)? 

A1: Yes. EPA conditionally approves 

the request under NSPS subpart Ec to 

deviate from the assumption that a 

violation of the CDD/CDF emission limit 

occurs, if the facility simultaneously 

operates above the maximum fabric 

filter inlet temperature, above the 

maximum charge rate, and below the 

minimum dioxin/furan sorbent flow 

rate, provided five conditions are met 

pertaining to fabric inlet temperature, 

incinerator carbon monoxide emissions, 

opacity limits, the feed rate for the 

powdered activated carbon system, and 

the compliance characteristics of the 

incinerator’s operation. 

Q2: Does EPA approve a request to 

eliminate the operating parameter 

monitoring requirements for maximum 

charge rate, as specified in § 60.57c(a) 

and Table 3 of 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

Ec, at the CBE facilities in Baltimore, 

Maryland? 

A2: No. EPA finds the maximum 

charge rate is an operating parameter 

used to determine compliance with 

other applicable emission limits in 

addition to dioxin/furan emission 

limits. EPA’s rationale for this 

determination is explained in its August 

7, 2006 letter to CBE regarding this 

matter. A brief explanation is that the 

definition for maximum charge rate 

given in § 60.51c of 40 CFR for a 

continuous and intermittent HMIWI is 

‘‘* * * 110 percent of the lowest 3-hour 

average charge rate measured during the 

most recent performance test 

demonstrating compliance with all 

applicable emission limits.’’ By 

definition, the maximum charge rate is 

linked to compliance with all applicable 

emission limits which includes 

particulate matter (PM), carbon 

monoxide (CO), dioxins/furans, HCl, 

lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd), mercury (Hg), 

sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides 

(NOX), and opacity. EPA will not grant 

approval under NSPS subpart Ec to 

eliminate monitoring the maximum 

charge rate as an operating parameter 

since it is linked to all emission limits 

and not linked only to dioxin/furan 

emissions. 

Q3: Does EPA approve a request to 

eliminate the operating parameter 

monitoring requirements for maximum 

fabric filter inlet temperature as 

specified in § 60.57c(a) and Table 3 of 

40 CFR part 60, subpart Ec, at the CBE 

facilities in Baltimore, Maryland? 

A3: Yes. EPA conditionally approves 

the request under NSPS subpart Ec, 

provided that requirements are met 

pertaining to inlet fabric filter 

temperature, carbon monoxide 

emissions, and COMS operation. 

Q4: Does EPA approve a request to 

eliminate minimum dioxin/furan 

sorbent flow rate as specified in 

§ 60.57c(a) and Table 3 of 40 CFR part 

60, subpart Ec, at the CBE facilities in 

Baltimore, Maryland? 

A4: Yes. EPA conditionally approves 

the request under NSPS subpart Ec, 

provided that the facilities install, 

calibrate, and maintain the powdered 

activated carbon (PAC) flow rate at a 

rate of at least 90 percent of the highest 

sorbent feed rate based on a 3-hour 

rolling average (readings taken at least 

once every hour) measured during the 

most recent performance test 

demonstrating compliance with 

mercury emission limit. 

Q5: Does EPA approve a request to 

eliminate the recordkeeping 

requirements for HMIWI charge dates, 

times, and weight and hourly charge 

rates, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ec, 

at the CBE facilities in Baltimore, 

Maryland? 

A5: No. EPA does not approve CBE’s 

request to eliminate the recordkeeping 

requirements for HMIWI charge dates, 

times, and weights and hourly charge 

rates under NSPS subpart Ec. This 

determination is consistent with EPA’s 

previous determination letters of July 13 

and August 7, 2006 to CBE regarding 

this matter. 

Q6: Does EPA approve a request to 

eliminate the recordkeeping 

requirements for the amount and type of 

dioxin/furan and sorbent used during 

each hour of operation under 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart Ec, at the CBE facilities 

in Baltimore, Maryland? 

A6: Yes. EPA conditionally approves 

the request to eliminate the sorbent flow 

rate recordkeeping requirements for the 

primary control system for CDD/CDF 

emissions provided CBE maintains 

records of the date and time of 

identified bag failures including the 

date and time that failed bags were 

replaced. In addition, CBE shall 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
44736 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 148 / Thursday, July 31, 2008 / Notices 

maintain hourly records of PAC flow 

rate as required by Maryland’s 111(d)/ 

129 Plan (COMAR 26.11.08.08–1) 

provision relating to the main operating 

parameter for controlling mercury 

emissions. For the CBE incinerator 

units, the PAC system provides 

incidental or secondary control of CDD/ 

CDF. Also, as a final condition, EPA is 

requiring that the approved CBE 

alternative monitoring and 

recordkeeping requirements (including 

an approved SOP under Item 1) in this 

letter and in the other two (2) approval 

letters (to date July 13, 2006 and August 

7, 2006) be included in a revised CBE 

Title V Operating Permit Application 

and be submitted in a timely manner to 

the Maryland Department of the 

Environment for incorporation into the 

Title V Operating Permit. Summary 

tables are in letter. 

Abstract for [0700079] 

Q1: Does EPA approve Curtis Bay 

Energy (CBE) alternative monitoring 

request to deviate from the assumption 

that a violation of the dioxin/furan 

(CDD/CDF) emission occurs if the 

facility operates their Hospital/Medical/ 

Infectious Waste Incinerator (HMIWI) 

above the maximum fabric filter inlet 

temperature, above the maximum 

charge rate, and below the minimum 

dioxin/furan sorbent flow rate 

simultaneously as stated in 40 CFR part 

60, subpart Ec § 60.56c(e)(2), for its two 

existing, large-sized, continuous HMIWI 

Operations located in Baltimore, 

Maryland? 

A1: Yes, EPA conditionally approves 

the request to deviate from the 

assumption that a violation of the CDD/ 

CDF emission limit occurs, if the facility 

simultaneously operates above the 

maximum fabric filter inlet temperature, 

above the maximum charge rate, and 

below the minimum dioxin/furan 

sorbent flow rate provided CBE meets 

the five conditions described in the EPA 

response letter. The five conditions 

were established based on EPA’s review 

of the Remedia Catalytic Filter System 

performance guarantee conditions of W. 

L. Gore and Associates, Incorporated; 

the CBE standard operating procedure 

for Baghouse Operations; and 

summaries of five consecutive annual 

CDD/CDF stack tests (15 stack test run 

summaries) conducted during the 

period from February 2002 through 

February 2006. 

Q2: Does EPA approve a request to 

eliminate the operating parameter 

monitoring requirements for maximum 

charge rate as specified in 40 CFR 

60.57c(a) and Table 3 of 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart Ec? 

A2: No. As indicated in a previous 

EPA response dated August 7, 2006 to 

CBE, the maximum charge rate is an 

operating parameter used to determine 

compliance with other applicable 

emission limits in addition to dioxin/ 

furan emission limits. The definition for 

maximum charge rate given in 40 CFR 

60.51c for a continuous and intermittent 

HMIWI is ‘‘* * * 110 percent of the 

lowest 3-hour average charge rate 

measured during the most recent 

performance test demonstrating 

compliance with all applicable emission 

limits.’’ By definition, the maximum 

charge rate is linked to compliance with 

all applicable emission limits which 

includes particulate matter (PM), carbon 

monoxide (CO), dioxins/furans, HCl, 

lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd), mercury (Hg), 

sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides 

(NOX), and opacity. EPA will not grant 

approval to eliminate monitoring the 

maximum charge rate as an operating 

parameter since it is linked to all 

emission limits and not linked only to 

dioxin/furan emissions. This 

determination is consistent with a 

previous EPA response to CBE dated 

August 7, 2006. 

Q3: Does EPA approve a request to 

eliminate the operating parameter 

monitoring requirements for maximum 

fabric filter inlet temperature as 

specified in § 60.57c(a) and Table 3 of 

40 CFR part 60, subpart Ec? 

A3: Yes, EPA conditionally approves 

the request provided that the 

requirements described in the EPA 

response letter are met. This 

determination is consistent with two 

previous EPA responses to CBE dated 

July 13, 2006 and August 7, 2006. 

Q4: Does EPA approve a request to 

eliminate minimum dioxin/furan 

sorbent flow rate as specified in 

§ 60.57c(a) and Table 3 of 40 CFR part 

60, subpart Ec? 

A4: Yes, EPA conditionally approves 

the request provided that the 

requirement described in the EPA 

response letter is met. 

Q5: Does EPA approve a request to 

eliminate the recordkeeping 

requirements for HMIWI charge dates, 

times, and weight and hourly charge 

rates? 

A5: No. EPA will not approve the 

request to eliminate the recordkeeping 

requirements for HMIWI charge dates, 

times, and weights and hourly charge 

rates since these records are needed to 

demonstrate continuous compliance. 

This determination is consistent with 

two previous EPA responses to CBE 

dated July 13, 2006 and August 7, 2006. 

Q6: Does EPA approve a request to 

eliminate the recordkeeping 

requirements for the amount and type of 

dioxin/furan and sorbent used during 

each hour of operation of the control 

equipment? 

A6: Yes. EPA conditionally approves 

the request to eliminate the sorbent flow 

rate recordkeeping requirements for the 

primary control system for CDD/CDF 

emissions, as specified in § 60.57c(a) 

and Table 3 of 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

Ec, provided CBE meets the conditions 

for alternative monitoring and 

recordkeeping requirements, and 

submits a timely revised Title V 

Operating Permit Application 

incorporating such conditions, as 

specified in the EPA response letter. 

Abstract for [0700080] 

Q: Does EPA approve an alternative 

opacity monitoring procedure, under 40 

CFR part 60, subpart Db, for a limited 

time period due to construction of new 

boilers and having to bypass the existing 

continuous opacity monitors at the 

University of Virginia’s main heating 

plant in Charlottesville, Virginia? 

A: Yes. Under the circumstances, EPA 

approves the use of Method 9 

procedures, under NSPS subpart Db, for 

the short period that the existing 

continuous opacity monitor must be 

bypassed to tie in two new boilers. 

Abstract for [0800001] 

Q: Is a proposal to monitor fuel usage 

on a monthly basis, rather than a daily 

basis, acceptable under 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart Dc, for seven natural gas fired 

boilers at the Department of the Army’s 

base in Fort Benning, Georgia? 

A: Yes. Since there are no applicable 

emission limits under 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart Dc for boilers that combust 

natural gas, EPA determines compliance 

for these affected facilities can be 

adequately verified with monthly fuel 

usage records. NSPS subpart Dc 

contains emissions limits for sulfur 

dioxide and particulate, but these limits 

are only applicable to units that 

combust coal, oil, and/or wood. 

Abstract for [0800002] 

Q: Is the initial performance 

particulate testing requirement at a 

baghouse that controls emissions from a 

crusher, which runs for approximately 

15 to 20 minutes per day, waived under 

40 CFR part 60, subpart OOO (Standards 

of Performance for Nonmetallic Mineral 

Processing Plants) for the Carbo 

Ceramics Company in McIntyre, 

Georgia? 

A: EPA conditionally approves 

waiving the initial performance test for 

particulate matter testing requirement 

under § 60.11(b). Carbo Ceramics 

Company must conduct the visible 

emission observation testing, required 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 148 / Thursday, July 31, 2008 / Notices 44737 

under § 60.11(b), for a period of at least 

one hour (10 six-minute averages) at the 

exit of the baghouse, which is approved 

by EPA under § 60.8(b)(5) due to the 

intermittent use of the crusher. 

Abstract for [0800003] 

Q: Is the reduced hydrogen sulfide 

monitoring frequency that Shell 

Chemical proposed for a fuel gas stream 

generated in No. 1 Naphtha Splitter at 

their Mobile, Alabama refinery 

acceptable for 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

J? 

A: Yes. EPA determines that Shell’s 

proposal to reduce the monitoring 

frequency from four times per day to 

once per quarter is acceptable, based on 

the review of historical monitoring data 

submitted with the request which 

confirms that hydrogen sulfide is not 

present in the fuel gas stream. 

Abstract for [0800004] 

Q1: Are alternative hydrogen sulfide 

monitoring procedures and frequencies 

proposed for three fuel gas streams 

subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart J, at 

the Hunt Refining Company facility in 

Tuscaloosa, Alabama acceptable? 

A1: Yes. EPA finds all three of the 

proposed alternatives are acceptable 

because the hydrogen sulfide content of 

these streams is inherently low. 

Q2: Is the alternative monitoring 

proposal to monitor the continuous 

presence of a pilot flame at an enclosed 

flare, subject to NESHAP subpart R, in 

lieu of temperature monitoring at the 

firebox, acceptable under 40 CFR part 

60, subpart J, for the Hunt Refining 

Company facility in Tuscaloosa, 

Alabama? 

A2: No. EPA denies the alternative 

monitoring proposal since monitoring 

the pilot flame at an enclosed flare alone 

is not adequate to demonstrate 

continuous compliance. This 

conclusion is based upon several 

previous EPA determinations and the 

revisions to NESHAP subpart R, 

promulgated by EPA in 2003. 

Abstract for [0800005] 

Q: Do the natural gas processing steps 

for gas collected for combustion in 

internal combustion engines to produce 

electricity at three landfills located in 

Florida including Trail Ridge Landfill 

(Baldwin), Brevard County Landfill 

(Cocoa), and Seminole County Landfill 

(Geneva), constitute ‘‘treatment’’ under 

40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW? 

A: Yes. EPA finds that this 

combination of processing steps 

constitutes treatment, as stated in 

several previous EPA determinations. In 

addition, the treated gas would not be 

subject to control requirements under 

subpart WWW since the gas from all 

three landfills is filtered to one micron, 

dewatered, and compressed. 

Abstract for [0800006] 

Q: What is the required frequency for 

relative accuracy test audits (RATAs) on 

sulfur dioxide continuous emission 

monitoring systems installed on sulfuric 

acid plants subject to 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart H as referred to in the letter 

from Koogler and Associates? 

A: EPA finds that the only RATA that 

part 60 specifically requires for sulfur 

dioxide monitors installed under 

subpart H is the one conducted during 

the initial performance test on the 

facility. It would also be appropriate to 

require an additional RATA when 

existing monitors are being recertified. 

In addition, state and local agencies may 

require more frequent RATAs on a caseby-case basis. 

Abstract for [0800007] 

Q: Does EPA approve the use an 

alternative performance test method, 

under 40 CFR part 60, subpart UUU, to 

verify compliance with the applicable 

opacity limit for rotary sand dryers 

located inside of buildings at two 

Triangle Brick Company plants in 

Moncure, North Carolina and 

Wadesboro, North Carolina, if no visible 

emissions are detected during a 75- 

minute EPA Method 22 observation 

period on the exterior of the buildings? 

A: Yes. EPA finds that the proposed 

performance testing procedures, 

consisting of Method 22 observations 

made on the exterior of the buildings 

where they are located, would be 

acceptable in lieu of EPA Method 9 for 

rotary sand dryers located inside of 

buildings. The EPA Method 22 

procedures are similar to a compliance 

option under 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

OOO (Standards of Performance for 

Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plants), 

allow for affected facilities located 

inside buildings. 40 CFR 60.8(b)(4) 

allows for the requirement for an initial 

performance test to be waived when an 

owner or operator demonstrates through 

other means that an affected facility is 

in compliance. 

Abstract for [0800008] 

Q: Does EPA approve the Duke Energy 

Corporation request for a waiver of the 

requirement to conduct Method 5 

testing on forced air mechanical vents 

on limestone transfer towers and reagent 

preparation buildings at three power 

plants at the Marshall, Belews Creek, 

Allen, and Cliffside Stations in North 

Carolina under 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

OOO? 

A: Yes. EPA finds that, based upon 

the design and operation of the affected 

facilities within the transfer towers and 

reagent preparation buildings, 

particulate emissions should be 

extremely low. Due to the low potential 

for emissions, waiving the Method 5 

testing requirement for any forced air 

mechanical vent where no visible 

emissions are detected over the course 

of a one-hour Method 9 observation 

period would be acceptable to EPA. 

Abstract for [0800009] 

Q: Is monitoring the strength of the 

solution in the caustic scrubber for a 

fuel gas stream at the Chevron Products 

Company refinery in Pascagoula, 

Mississippi an acceptable alternative to 

continuously monitoring the hydrogen 

sulfide content of the fuel gas stream? 

A: Yes. EPA approves the alternative 

monitoring plan with the condition that 

Chevron amends it to specify what steps 

the company will take if monitoring 

data indicates that the caustic solution 

is more than 80 percent spent, the 

maximum allowable strength. 

Abstract for [0800010] 

Q1: Is a proposal to delay the 

installation of gas collection wells in 

active areas that have held waste for five 

years or more at the Three Rivers 

Landfill in Aiken County, South 

Carolina, acceptable under 40 CFR part 

60, subpart WWW? 

A1: No. EPA finds that the proposal 

is not acceptable under NSPS subpart 

WWW since the collection system 

would be less effective than that 

required under provisions in 40 CFR 

60.753. The use of the leachate 

collection system only to extract gas 

from active areas that have held waste 

for five years or more will result in a 

less effective system than one that 

incorporates both the leachate system 

components and properly located 

extraction wells. 

Q2: Does EPA allow quarterly 

methane surface concentration 

monitoring to be waived for roads, 

active areas, truck traffic areas, and 

areas with slopes greater than 3:1, at the 

Three Rivers Landfill located in Aiken 

County, South Carolina under 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart WWW? 

A2: EPA waives the monitoring for 

roads, but not for the other areas 

covered by the request under NSPS 

subpart WWW. Based upon previous 

EPA determinations, surface methane 

monitoring requirements cannot be 

waived for active areas, truck traffic 

areas, or areas with slopes less than 4:1. 

Q3: Does EPA find that a probe may 

be placed near the tops of vegetation as 

an alternative to placing the methane 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
44738 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 148 / Thursday, July 31, 2008 / Notices 

surface concentration monitoring probe 

within five to ten centimeters of the 

landfill surface, at the Three Rivers 

Landfill in Aiken County, South 

Carolina under 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

WWW? 

A3: No. EPA finds this proposal is not 

acceptable under NSPS subpart WWW 

because dilution of the sample will 

result in the methane concentration 

being lower at the top of vegetation than 

it is at the landfill surface. 

Q4: Does EPA waive the requirement 

to monitor the temperature of internal 

combustion engines used as control 

devices at the Three Rivers Landfill be 

waived under 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

WWW? 

A4: No. Although EPA finds that the 

combustion temperature monitoring 

requirement cannot be waived under 

NSPS subpart WWW, EPA has approved 

temperature monitoring alternatives in 

the past. Therefore, Three Rivers 

Landfill may want to consider approval 

of a similar alternative for its site. 

Q5: Does EPA approve the use of an 

orifice plate for measuring the flow rate 

to the flare that serves as backup control 

device at the Three Rivers Landfill 

under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW? 

A5: Yes. The use of orifice plates are 

commonly used for measuring process 

flow rates, therefore, such practice is 

appropriate and does not require prior 

EPA approval for use at the Three Rivers 

Landfill. 

Q6: Does EPA approve the use of a 

continuous relighter as an alternative to 

a heat sensing device, such as an 

ultraviolet beam sensor or thermocouple 

at the pilot light or in the flame, for a 

backup flare expected to operate for 120 

days or less per year at the Three Rivers 

Landfill under 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

WWW? 

A6: No. EPA determines that a 

continuous relighter is not an acceptable 

substitute for a heat sensing device 

under NSPS subpart WWW, as stated in 

a previous EPA determination. 

Abstract for [0800011] 

Q: Are the alternative locations that 

Montenay Charleston proposed for 

installing the carbon monoxide (CO) 

continuous emission monitoring 

systems on its municipal waste 

combustor units in Charleston, South 

Carolina acceptable under 40 CFR part 

60, subpart Cb? 

A: Yes. Based upon information 

supplied with the request, EPA finds 

that the CO concentration at the 

proposed alternative monitoring sites is 

representative of the concentration at 

the monitoring site specified in NSPS 

subpart Cb. 

Abstract for [0800012] 

Q: Does EPA approve delaying 

implementation of the pressure, 

temperature, and oxygen monitoring 

requirements under 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart WWW until September 2010, 

for seven wells that are located in an 

active area that first received waste in 

September 2005, at the Chestnut Ridge 

Landfill in Heiskell, Tennessee? 

A: EPA finds that the proposal to 

delay monitoring for these wells would 

be consistent with the intent of § 60.753 

in NSPS subpart WWW provided that 

the area of the landfill where the wells 

are located is not closed or does not 

reach final grade prior to September 

2010. 

Abstract for [0800013] 

Q1: Is the shortened test duration that 

the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) 

proposed for the initial nitrogen oxides 

performance test on two auxiliary 

boilers at the Cumberland Fossil Plant 

in Cumberland, Tennessee acceptable 

under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db? 

A1: Yes. EPA finds that the TVA 

proposal to shorten the initial 

performance test to three hours is 

acceptable under NSPS subpart Db 

because of the high cost of conducting 

a 24-hour test outweighs any benefit 

associated with a test of this duration. 

Q2: Is the TVA proposal to conduct 

future performance tests every 400 

hours of operation instead of conducting 

annual performance tests at the 

Cumberland Fossil Plant in 

Cumberland, Tennessee acceptable 

under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db? 

A2: No. EPA finds that the proposal 

to base the schedule for future 

performance testing only on hours of 

operation is not acceptable under NSPS 

subpart Db due to the lack of historical 

information regarding the frequency of 

operation and the margin of compliance 

for the units in question. Since burning 

fuel in order to operate the auxiliary 

boilers only for testing purposes would 

be a waste of resources, the requirement 

to conduct annual tests may be waived 

during any year when the auxiliary 

units are not used for starting up the 

power boilers at the Cumberland Fossil 

Plant. 

Abstract for [0800014] 

Q: Is the Duke Energy proposal to use 

quality assurance (QA) procedures and 

schedules from 40 CFR part 75 to satisfy 

QA requirements for the combustion 

turbines at its electric power peaking 

plant in Brownsville, Tennessee 

acceptable under 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart GG? 

A: Yes. EPA approves this request 

because the turbines in question operate 

intermittently, and the proposed 

alternative procedures reduce the 

likelihood that Duke will need to 

operate the turbines only for testing 

purposes during some calendar quarters 

under NSPS subpart GG. EPA has 

approved similar proposals in the past. 

Abstract for [0800015] 

Q: Is the proposal to use a predictive 

emission monitoring system (PEMS) as 

a substitute for a nitrogen oxides 

continuous emission monitoring system 

on Boiler No. 6 at the Oak Ridge 

National Laboratory (ORNL) acceptable? 

A: No. EPA does not approve using a 

PEMS to measure nitrogen oxides 

emissions for Boiler No. 6 at this time. 

EPA would be willing to consider this 

proposal if ORNL submits additional 

information for the PEMS based on a 

relative accuracy test and provides a 

description of the quality assurance 

program for the PEMS. 

Abstract for [0800016] 

Q1: Does EPA find that 40 CFR part 

60, subpart Db applies to a wood 

burner/thermal oil heater/rotary dryer 

system at the Norbord Georgia 

Incorporated (Norbord) oriented strand 

board manufacturing facility in Cordele, 

Georgia? 

A1: Yes. EPA finds that the wood 

burner/thermal oil heater/rotary dryer 

system is a steam generating unit, and 

is therefore subject to NSPS subpart Db. 

Q2: Does EPA approve an alternative 

opacity monitoring procedure for the 

wood burner/thermal oil heater/rotary 

dryer system for Norbord facility located 

in Cordele, Georgia, since the formation 

of condensate may interfere with a 

continuous opacity monitoring system 

(COMS) under 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

Db? Norbord proposes that the exhaust 

from the system be ducted through a 

wet electrostatic precipitator and then 

through two regenerative thermal 

oxidizers (RTOs). 

A2: No. EPA finds that Norbord has 

not provided information to justify an 

alternative monitoring procedure under 

NSPS subpart Db. The temperature of 

the exhaust exiting the RTOs should 

exceed the dew point of the steam, 

therefore, there is no reason to assume 

that water droplets will interfere with a 

COMS. 

Abstract for [M070016] 

Q: Does EPA approve an alternative 

monitoring request under 40 CFR part 

63, subpart EEE, for Veolia ES Technical 

Solutions, L.L.C. of Sauget, Illinois, to 

use an extractive hydrogen chloride 

(HCl) continuous emission monitoring 

system (CEMS) to demonstrate 

compliance with the hydrogen chloride/ 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 148 / Thursday, July 31, 2008 / Notices 44739 

chlorine gas emission standard and 

waive the monitoring requirements 

pertaining to spray dryer scrubbers set 

forth in 40 CFR 63.1209(o)(4)(i), (ii) and 

(iii)? 

A: No. EPA finds the request does not 

include any data or information to 

demonstrate the HCl CEMS initial 

accuracy, precision, and reliability 

under MACT subpart EEE. Further, the 

request does not document periodic 

(daily, quarterly, and annually) quality 

assurance and quality control 

procedures for each HCl CEMS. 

Abstract for [M070017] 

Q: Does EPA approve an alternative 

monitoring plan in lieu of the 

continuous opacity monitoring 

requirements of 40 CFR 60.105(a)(1) and 

corresponding requirements of 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart UUU, where a wet 

scrubber is to be installed on Puget 

Sound Refining’s fluidized catalytic 

cracking unit (FCCU) in Anacortes, 

Washington? 

A: Yes. EPA approves the monitoring 

of the liquid flow rate and gas flow rate 

for the wet gas scrubber, which is a jetejector design. Calculation of the liquidto-gas ratio must be done as outlined in 

Tables 2 and 3 of 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart UUU, except that for purposes 

of determining and reporting excess 

emissions for the FCCU, a 3-hour rolling 

average of the liquid-to-gas ration will 

be used. 

Abstract for [M070018] 

Q: Does EPA approve an alternative 

monitoring application (AMA), 

submitted in conjunction with the 

Comprehensive Performance Test (CPT) 

plan, for the Celanese Clear Lake Plant 

(Celanese) located in Pasadena, Texas, 

consisting of the use of minimum liquid 

levels in the condenser/absorber and 

entrainment separator in conjunction 

with minimum blowdown rate from the 

quench receiver to monitor solids 

content of the scrubber liquid under 40 

CFR part 63, subpart EEE? 

A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves 

the AMA under MACT subpart EEE if 

Celanese incorporates specific 

conditions into the CPT and 

automatically controls the flow of 

demineralized water, as specified in the 

EPA response letter. 

Abstract for [M070019] 

Q1: Does EPA find that Train I and 

Train II Rotary Kiln Incinerators (RKI) at 

the Clean Harbors facility in Deer Park, 

Texas, with shrouds constructed at both 

ends, can be used as an alternative 

measure to control combustion gas leaks 

under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE? 

A1: Yes. EPA conditionally approves 

the alternative monitoring request for 

RKI at the Clean Harbors facility, under 

MACT subpart EEE. The additional 

requirements that RKI would need to 

meet are set out in the EPA response 

letter. 

Q2: Does EPA find that Train I and 

Train II RKIs at the Clean Harbors 

facility in Deer Park, Texas, which 

monitor stack gas flow rate, can be used 

instead of flue gas flow rate under 40 

CFR part 63, subpart EEE? 

A2: Yes. EPA determines that stack 

gas flow rate can be used instead of flue 

gas flow rate under MACT subpart EEE. 

Q3: Does EPA approve that a 

measurement of pressure drop across 

the low energy wet scrubber be waived 

under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE for 

Train I and Train II RKIs at the Clean 

Harbors facility in Deer Park, Texas? 

A3: Yes. EPA approves waiving a 

measurement of pressure drop across 

the wet scrubber, under MACT subpart 

EEE, provided that a minimum liquid to 

gas ratio is established and a scrubber is 

operated in accordance with design 

specifications set out in the EPA 

response letter. 

Q4: Does EPA find that the liquid 

flow rate may be monitored in lieu of 

liquid feed pressure for a wet scrubber 

under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE, at 

the Clean Harbors facility in Deer Park, 

Texas? 

A4: EPA determines that liquid flow 

rate may be monitored in lieu of liquid 

feed pressure under MACT subpart EEE, 

provided that the conditions specified 

in response A3, above are met, as 

specified in the EPA response letter. 

Q5: Does EPA approve a 10-second 

delay if the pressure in the combustion 

zone remain positive for 30 continuous 

seconds to indicate a combustion 

system leak before an Automatic Waste 

Feed Cut-off (AWFCO) is engaged under 

40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE for Train 

I and Train II RKIs at the Clean Harbors 

facility in Deer Park, Texas? 

A5: No. EPA does not approve the 10- 

second delay since the justification 

provided is not acceptable. EPA 

determines that for purposes of MACT 

subpart EEE, an AWFCO must be 

engaged any time the pressure in the 

combustion system is positive for more 

than one second. 

Abstract for [M070020] 

Q: Does EPA approve a revision to the 

alternative monitoring plan that the 

Agency previously approved on 

December 12, 2003 for the Chalmette 

Refinery in Chalmette, Louisiana, to 

allow the facility the options under 40 

CFR part 63, subpart G to reduce 

hazardous air pollutant emissions either 

by greater than 98 weight-percent or to 

a concentration of 20 parts per million 

by volume, whichever is less stringent? 

A: Yes. EPA approves the revision to 

the alternative monitoring plan under 

NSPS subpart G, providing the facility 

both options offered by the regulations. 

The original conditions in the December 

12, 2003 letter for application to EPA to 

reduce the frequency of monitoring still 

apply. 

Abstract for [M070021] 

Q1: The Dow Freeport Plant (Dow) 

Rotary Kiln Incinerator (RKI) located in 

Freeport, Texas has an IP.21 (data 

historian system) to calculate the hourly 

rolling average (HRA) and 12-hour 

rolling average. Is it allowed to continue 

burning hazardous waste while IP.21 is 

down, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

EEE? 

A1: Yes. EPA finds that the RKI can 

continue burning hazardous waste 

while IP.21 is down if the Automatic 

Waste Feed Cut-off (AWFCO) is 

initiated based on an instantaneous 

data, as indicated in the EPA response 

letter. 

Q2: Can the DOW RKI have positive 

pressure in the combustion zone for 30 

seconds to indicate a combustion 

system leak and before the AWFCO is 

engaged, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

EEE? 

A2: No. EPA denies the request for 

any time delay before triggering an 

AWFCO since pressure in the 

combustion chamber is higher than 

ambient pressure. 

Q3: Can a freshwater make-up rate to 

the scrubber system be used as an 

alternative to measure blowdown rate 

and tank level to control and monitor 

solids content of the scrubber liquid at 

the Dow RKI, under 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart EEE? 

A3: Yes. EPA finds that the freshwater 

make-up rate to the scrubber system can 

be used as an alternative to blowdown 

rate and tank level with requirements to 

establish and monitor the liquid to gas 

(L/G)ratio, as specified in the EPA 

response letter. 

Q4: For a scrubber, along with 

minimum liquid and maximum flue gas 

flow, a minimum liquid feed pressure 

and minimum scrubber pump amperage 

are monitored. Can hazardous waste be 

allowed to burn if one of the three 

parameters is out of control at the Dow 

RKI, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE? 

A4: Yes. However, EPA finds that the 

AWFCO will be instituted if any two of 

the parameters exceed the operating 

parameter limits (OPL) established 

during the Comprehensive Performance 

Testing (CPT). 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
44740 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 148 / Thursday, July 31, 2008 / Notices 

Q5: Can an AWFCO be instituted 

when there is a loss in any two states 

of Ionizing Wet Scrubber (IWS) at the 

Dow RKI, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

EEE? 

A5: EPA will evaluate the results of 

the initial CPT with any three of the 

four IWS units operating shows, and if 

these are acceptable, then Dow will be 

allowed to set an AWFCO for power loss 

when more than one IWS units is ‘shutdown’, as specified in the EPA response 

letter. 

Q6: Can a requirement to establish an 

OPL for the temperature in the 

secondary combustion chamber (SCC) 

be waived at the Dow RKI, under 40 

CFR part 63, subpart EEE? 

A6: No. EPA finds that the 

requirement to establish an OPL for the 

temperature cannot be waived since the 

AWFCO must be triggered anytime the 

pressure in the SCC is higher than the 

ambient pressure. 

Q7: Can a manufacturer’s 

specification be used to establish a limit 

on the carbon bed’s inlet temperature at 

the Dow RKI, under 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart EEE? 

A7: EPA finds that the manufacturer’s 

specification can be used if the facility 

operates the carbon bed in accordance 

with the manufacturer’s specifications. 

Q8: Can a requirement to monitor pH 

be waived for the acid absorber at the 

Dow RKI, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

EEE? 

A8: A requirement to monitor pH can 

be waived if the absorber is operated 

within the HRA limits on L/G ration, 

minimum freshwater makeup flow rate, 

and total pressure drop across the 

scrubber. 

Q9: Can pH be monitored on scrubber 

system comprising of an ionizing wet 

scrubber and a pre-scrubber and set it as 

AWFCO at the Dow RKI, under 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart EEE? 

A9: Yes. EPA finds that the pH can be 

monitored on scrubber system and set it 

as AWFCO. 

Q10: Can the Automatic Waste Feed 

Cut-off (AWFCO) be based on liquid 

feed pressure for individual scrubbers 

on the scrubber system at the Dow RKI, 

under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE? 

A10: Yes. EPA finds that the AWFCO 

can be based on liquid feed pressure for 

individual scrubbers. 

Abstract for [M070022] 

Q: Does EPA approve an alternative 

test method and operating limit, under 

40 CFR part 60, subpart XX and 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart R, for the Philtex/Ryton 

Complex in Borger, Texas? 

A: Yes. EPA approves an alternative 

testing and operating limits specified in 

§ 60.502(h) of MACT subpart XX and 

§ 63.425(e) of subpart R on the basis of 

specific stipulations, which address: 

The maximum flow of vapors from 

loading operations; the heat content of 

vapors routed to the flare during loading 

operations; the leak tightness of rail 

cars; detecting leaks and repairing the 

vapor manifold system; verifying that 

excess emissions will not occur from 

storage tanks at the maximum pressures 

during loading; ensuring gasoline is 

loaded into only rail cars which pass the 

leak test; and monitoring the pressure 

continuously in the vapor collection 

manifold system. 

Abstract for [M070023] 

Q1: Should ANR Pipeline Company 

(ANR), which owns and operates 

reciprocating internal combustion 

engines (RICE) at a pipeline compressor 

station be required, under 40 CFR part 

63, subpart ZZZZ, to start up the RICE 

for the sole purpose of recording the 

pressure drop across the catalyst as 

required by 40 CFR 63.6640(a) if it is not 

operating during a particular month? 

Does EPA approve ANR request to not 

start up the RICE under the condition 

described above for three compressor 

stations: The Woolfolk Compressor and 

the Reed City Compressor Stations in 

Michigan, and the Saint John 

Compressor Station in Indiana. 

A1: Yes. EPA conditionally approves 

this request. ANR must document 

periods when the RICE is not operating, 

as required under § 63.6650 of MACT 

subpart ZZZZ. 

Q2: ANR requests that EPA clarify the 

requirements at 40 CFR 63.6640(a) as 

they relate to its three compressor 

stations, the Woolfolk Compressor and 

the Reed City Compressor Stations in 

Michigan, and the St. John Compressor 

Station in Indiana. Specifically, ANR 

asks whether a RICE that is operated 

during a given month below the target 

window for percent load is required, 

under 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ, to 

increase the load for the sole purpose of 

measuring the pressure drop? 

A2: No. ANR is not required to 

increase the load for the sole purpose of 

measuring pressure drop across the 

compressor stations. However, the ANR 

will be required to measure the pressure 

drop once the load is increased to the 

target window, or when operations 

exceed 30 days (regardless of load), and 

to document the time periods when the 

RICE is operated below the target 

window in its semi-annual report, as 

required under MACT subpart ZZZZ. 

Q3: Does EPA approve that RICE, 

which does not have the ability to 

operate at full load due to restrictive 

operating parameters associated with 

the gas service that they support, be 

tested at a reduced load to establish the 

target window for measuring pressure 

drop across the catalyst, under 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart ZZZZ, at ANR 

facilities? ANR requests clarification in 

regards to three compressor stations, the 

Woolfolk Compressor and the Reed City 

Compressor Stations in Michigan, and 

the St. John Compressor Station in 

Indiana. 

A3: EPA approves the alternative 

testing procedures for setting the target 

window for measuring pressure drop, 

under MACT subpart ZZZZ, provided 

that ANR establishes a lower maximum 

load rate and appropriate differential 

pressure ranges for the reduced load. 

Q4: For a RICE that can never be 

operated at the target window, should 

ANR monitor the pressure drop when 

an established lower-load baseline is 

achieved in any given month, under 40 

CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ? ANR 

requests clarification in regards to three 

compressor stations, the Woolfolk 

Compressor and the Reed City 

Compressor Stations in Michigan, and 

the St. John Compressor Station in 

Indiana. 

A4: Yes. EPA recommends that ANR 

measure monthly pressure drop when 

the units are operating to assure catalyst 

performance, even if the units are 

operating at a reduced load below the 

target window. 

Abstract for [M070024] 

Q1: Does EPA approve a waiver of the 

requirement under 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart EEE to establish operating 

parameter limits for waste viscosity, 

waste fuel delivery pressure, 

atomization pressure, etc., which ensure 

good operation of the firing system for 

a fluidized bed incinerator (FBI) with 

waste feeding through simple lances at 

the Eastman Chemical Company in 

Longview, Texas? 

A1: EPA conditionally approves this 

waiver, with the condition that 

Automatic Waste Feed Cut-off (AWFCO) 

be instituted on minimum stack gas 

flow to ensure proper operation of 

fluidized bed, and amend the 

Comprehensive Performance Test plan, 

as detailed in the EPA response letter. 

Q2: Does EPA approve a waiver of the 

requirement in 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

EEE, to monitor the liquid feed pressure 

for a hydrochloric acid and chlorine gas 

scrubber? 

A2: EPA approves this waiver with 

the conditions that a minimum liquid to 

gas ratio for the scrubber must be 

established during the CPT and the 

scrubber must be operated in 

accordance with the manufacturer’s 

design specifications. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 148 / Thursday, July 31, 2008 / Notices 44741 

Q3: Does EPA approve a waiver to 

establish a maximum combustion 

chamber pressure in an FBI? 

A3: EPA approves this waiver with a 

condition to establish an upper limit for 

the pressure at the inlet end of the heat 

exchanger as an AWFCO operating 

parameter limit, based on historical 

data. 

Abstract for [M070025] 

Q1: Does EPA approve hourly rolling 

average (HRA) feed rate limitations in 

lieu of calculating 12-hour rolling 

average limits for ash, mercury, total 

chlorine, chlorides, and metals at 

Reynolds Metals Company Gum Springs 

Plant (Reynolds) in Arkadelphia, 

Arkansas, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

EEE? 

A1: Yes. EPA conditionally approves 

the use of HRA based upon Reynolds 

establishing maximum feed rates during 

the Comprehensive Performance Test 

(CPT) for the pot liner mix, mercury, 

semi-volatile metals, low-volatile 

metals, and chlorine/chlorides, under 

MACT subpart EEE. 

Q2: Can Reynolds use maximum inlet 

temperature at the baghouse inlet based 

on operating practice and engineering 

judgment instead of actual temperature 

measurement during CPT, under 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart EEE? 

A2: Yes. EPA approves that Reynolds 

use maximum inlet temperature under 

MACT subpart EEE based on an 

operating practice and an engineering 

judgment instead of actual temperature 

during CPT. 

Q3: Does EPA approve that Reynolds 

use instantaneous pressure limitations 

of minimum baghouse differential 

pressure (dp) along with continuous 

opacity monitoring system (COMS) 

reading of 15 percent to trigger an alarm 

and alert the operators for potential bag 

leak events at its facility, under 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart EEE? 

A3: Yes. EPA conditionally approves 

the use of minimum dp, but with a 10 

percent, rather than the requested 15 

percent, COMS opacity reading on a 6- 

minute rolling average basis. Reynolds 

is required to maintain a minimum dip 

across the baghouse of 0.5 inches of 

water column on an instantaneous basis, 

as specified in the EPA response letter. 

Q4: Does Reynolds get a waiver of the 

requirement to select operating 

parameter limits for the cyclones and 

instead use an existing operation and 

maintenance (O&M) plan for inspecting, 

maintenance, and performing corrective 

measures under 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

EEE? 

A4: Yes. EPA approves the use of the 

existing O&M plan until proper OPLs 

are identified by EPA or the Arkansas 

Department of Environmental Quality, 

and limits are established under MACT 

subpart EEE. 

Q5: Does EPA approve a request to 

waive the requirements to select 

parameters to ensure good operation of 

the waste firing system in the case 

where liquid waste is not atomized or 

injected into a flame zone at the 

Reynolds Metals Company Gum Springs 

Plant in Arkadelphia, Arkansas, under 

40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE? 

A5: EPA finds that a waiver under 

MACT subpart EEE is not needed 

because combustible liquid waste is not 

atomized or injected into a flame zone, 

so the requirement to establish 

parameter limits to ensure good 

operation of the liquid waste firing 

system is not applicable. 

Abstract for [M070026] 

Q1: Does EPA approve the use of data 

from Kiln 1, under 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart EEE, to show compliance and 

set operating parameter limits for Kiln 2 

at the Ash Grove Cement Company 

Foreman Arkansas Plant (Ash Grove)? 

Note that Kiln 1 and Kiln 2 are identical 

in design, construction, and process 

operations. Kilns burn the same waste 

feed streams. 

A1: Yes. EPA approves this request 

under MACT subpart EEE, because Kiln 

1 and Kiln 2 are identical in every 

respect, including design, construction, 

and process operations. Both Kilns burn 

the same waste feed streams. 

Q2: Does EPA approve that the Ash 

Grove use stack test data from mode 1 

(hazardous waste in combustion 

chamber) to establish operating 

parameter limits (OPLs) for mode 2 

(hazardous waste not in combustion 

chamber), under 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

EEE? 

A2: Yes. EPA conditionally approves 

the request to use stack test data from 

mode 1 to establish OPLs for mode 2 

under MACT subpart EEE. The OPLs 

developed using mode 1 should be 

based upon a worst case scenario, as 

mentioned in the EPA response letter. 

Q3: Does EPA approve that the Ash 

Grove show destruction and removal 

efficiency (DRE) compliance for Kiln 3 

(larger capacity unit) based on DRE test 

results from Kiln 1 (smaller capacity 

unit), under 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

EEE? 

A3: Yes. EPA approves this request 

under MACT subpart EEE. Since the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA) permit temperature 

requirements have been found to ensure 

compliance with the standard, stack 

testing of Kiln 1 will validate that no 

changes in the systems have occurred 

that will impact this proven 

relationship. The request to base 

minimum temperature OPLs on prior 

RCRA permit provisions will be 

determined following submittal and 

review of the Ash Grove’s 

Comprehensive Performance Test (CPT) 

data results. 

Q4: Does EPA approve extrapolation 

of metal feed rates under 40 CFR part 

63, subpart EEE, for Kiln 2 based on 

results from a stack test conducted on 

Kiln 1 at the Ash Grove Cement 

Company Foreman Arkansas Plant? 

A4: EPA is not able to make a 

determination under MACT subpart EEE 

until it has reviewed and accepted the 

CPT data results. 

Q5: Does EPA find that the Ash Grove 

can compute the hourly rolling average 

based on the available clock minutes of 

data rather than lengthening the period 

of time over which an average is 

calculated when there are missing 

minutes within the clock period hour, 

under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE? 

A5: Yes. EPA approves the alternative 

calculation method, which is specified 

in the current RCRA permit, under 

MACT subpart EEE. The proposed 

calculation method will provide 

equivalent performance to the method 

specified in the hazardous waste 

combustors (HWC) MACT rule since it 

is the same as the method used to 

establish OPLs. As required by the HWC 

MACT, the continuous monitoring 

system (CMS) must have 95 percent data 

availability to continue feeding 

hazardous waste. An Automatic Waste 

Feed Cut-off will take place should less 

than 95 percent data availability occur, 

or should the CMS fail to operate. 

Abstract for [M070027] 

Q1: Does EPA approve monitoring of 

combustion air and vent gas flow rates 

in lieu of stack gas flow rate as a 

measure of residence time, under 40 

CFR part 63, subpart EEE, at the BASF 

facility located in Geismar, Louisiana? 

A1: No. EPA finds that the 

information provided is insufficient to 

make any determination. The facility 

must provide mass balance and 

calculation of residence time for the 

three units as well as provide a variety 

of Piping and Instrument Diagrams. 

Q2: Does EPA waive a requirement to 

monitor pH of the scrubber liquid as an 

operating parameter limit, under 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart EEE, at the BASF 

facility located in Geismar, Louisiana? 

A2: No. EPA finds that the 

information provided is insufficient to 

make any determination. The facility 

must provide analysis of all feed 

streams including the process vents, and 

show the Maximum Theoretical 

Emission Concentration (MTEC) 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
44742 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 148 / Thursday, July 31, 2008 / Notices 

approach for chlorine/chloride (MTEC) 

calculations. 

Abstract for [M070028] 

Q1: Does EPA approve a request to 

waive the requirement under 40 CFR 

part 63 subpart 1209(l)(2) and 

1209(o)(3)(iii) to monitor liquid feed 

pressure for the low energy wet scrubber 

on the Toluene Diisocyanate (TDI) Unit 

at the Lyondell Chemical Company in 

Lake Charles, Louisiana? 

A1: No. EPA does not approve the 

waiver request. If the combustor is 

equipped with a low energy wet 

scrubber, Lyondell must establish a 

limit on minimum liquid feed pressure 

to the wet scrubber based on 

manufacturer’s specifications and 

comply with the limit on an hourly 

rolling average. 

Q2: Does EPA approve the facility’s 

proposal to use hourly rolling average in 

lieu of 12-hour rolling average for ash, 

chloride, and metals, as required by 40 

CFR part 63, subpart 1209(c)(4) Analysis 

of Feedstreams? 

A2: Yes. EPA approves the request 

because Lyondell treats only a limited 

number of on-site generated waste 

streams in the TDI Process Incinerator. 

The waste streams generated from the 

on-site processes are of a relatively 

consistent composition. 

Q3: Does EPA approve use of fail-safe 

system with a local pressure indicator 

gauge (non-CMS) to ensure proper 

atomizing air pressure and institute 

waste feed cutoff when pressure falls 

below 30 psig, in accordance with 40 

CFR part 63, subpart 1209(j)(4), 

destruction and removal efficiency 

(DRE)? 

A3: Yes. EPA approves the request 

because although this fail-safe system is 

not part of the continuous monitoring 

system or the Automatic Waste Feed 

Cut-off system, it provides equivalent 

compliance. 

Q4: Does EPA approve pump speed/ 

pump curves (extrapolation) as a backup 

feed rate measurement methodology to 

the mass flow rate to meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

1209(j)(3) and 1209(k)(4), destruction 

and removal efficiency DRE? 

A4: Yes. EPA approves the request 

because with either method, the TDI 

residue feed rate data is displayed in the 

control room and recorded by the 

production unit’s data historian. 

Abstract for [M070029] 

Q1: Does EPA approve monitoring of 

total freshwater makeup rate in lieu of 

blowdown rate and tank level to control 

and monitor solids content of the 

scrubber liquid, under 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart EEE, concerning the Thermal 

Treatment Unit (TTU) at the Dow plant 

located in Plaquemine, Louisiana? 

A1: Yes. EPA conditionally approves 

the alternative monitoring request under 

MACT subpart EEE, subject to 

conditions about freshwater make-up 

rate, minimum liquid levels, and 

scrubber characteristics and 

performance, as specified in the EPA 

response letter. 

Q2: Does EPA approve the request to 

waive the requirement to monitor the 

liquid feed pressure for the scrubbers, 

under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE, 

concerning the TTU at the Dow plant 

located in Plaquemine, Louisiana? 

A2: Yes. EPA conditionally approves 

the waiver request to not monitor the 

liquid feed pressure for the scrubbers at 

TTU, under MACT subpart EEE since 

the liquid feed pressure limit is not a 

critical parameter for the performance of 

the ‘low energy’ scrubbers for the TTU. 

However, EPA requires further 

evaluation of mercury data and scrubber 

performance to make a final 

determination about the waiver request 

and to determine the need for a 

freshwater distributor in the caustic 

scrubber. 

Q3: Does EPA grant a waiver to the 

TTU at the Dow plant located in 

Plaquemine, Louisiana, to measure the 

flue gas as a measure of residence time 

during Comprehensive Performance 

Testing, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

EEE? 

A3: No. EPA finds that the 

information provided is insufficient to 

make a determination. 

Q4: Does EPA find that the TTU at the 

Dow plant located in Plaquemine, 

Louisiana, can continue to burn waste 

while date historian system (IP.21) is 

down, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

EEE? IP.21 is used to calculate the 

Hourly Rolling Average (HRA) and 12- 

Hour Rolling Average. 

A4: Yes. EPA conditionally approves 

the request under MACT subpart EEE, 

which would require that the facility 

manually calculates HRA, submits this 

information to EPA, and complies with 

all applicable monitoring and reporting 

requirements, specified in the EPA 

response letter. 

Abstract for [M070030] 

Q1: Does EPA approve monitoring of 

total freshwater makeup rate in lieu of 

blowdown rate along with tank level to 

control and monitor solids content of 

the scrubber liquid, under 40 CFR part 

63, subpart EEE, for the Rotary Kiln 

Incinerator (RKI) at the Dow plant 

located in Plaquemine, Louisiana? 

A1: Yes. EPA conditionally approves 

the request under MACT subpart EEE, 

as described in the EPA response letter. 

EPA finds that measurement of 

freshwater make-up, maintaining 

minimum sump level, and maintaining 

liquid to gas ratio in the scrubbers will 

ensure proper operation of the scrubber 

system. It will also ensure a maximum 

limit for the solids in the scrubber 

liquid. 

Q2: Does EPA waive the requirement 

to monitor the liquid pressure drop 

across the scrubber, under 40 CFR part 

63, subpart EEE, for the RKI at the Dow 

plant located in Plaquemine, Louisiana? 

A2: No. EPA finds that the provided 

information is insufficient to make a 

determination. 

Q3: Does EPA approve a waiver to 

monitor the liquid feed pressure for the 

scrubbers, under 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart EEE, for the RKI at the Dow 

plant located in Plaquemine, Louisiana? 

A3: Yes. EPA conditionally approves 

the request under MACT subpart EEE, 

as specified in the EPA response letter. 

An effective performance of a wet 

scrubber requires proper distribution, 

and mixing of both liquid and gas in the 

scrubber. The packed-bed scrubbers in 

the RKI system are cross-current flow. 

The scrubber liquid is fed via pumps, 

through strainers, and into a header 

system that uses spray nozzles to 

distribute the liquid across packing. The 

liquid flow is currently measured and 

monitored using flow meters and 

transmitters. A loss of liquid flow and/ 

or interference with the spray nozzle 

distribution can be detected by a change 

in flow to the header. 

Q4: Does EPA approve instituting an 

Automatic Waste Feed Cut-off (AWFCO) 

after pressure remaining positive for 30 

seconds as an indicative of combustion 

system leak, under 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart EEE, for the RKI at the Dow 

plant located in Plaquemine, Louisiana? 

A4: No. EPA does not approve a time 

delay of 30 seconds for instituting 

AWFCO. The information provided for 

justification is insufficient. 

Q5: Does EPA approve that the Dow 

facility located in Plaquemine, 

Louisiana, burns waste while the date 

historian system (IP.21) is down, under 

40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE? IP.21 is 

used to calculate the Hourly Rolling 

Average (HRA) and 12–Hour rolling 

average. 

A5: EPA approves this request under 

MACT subpart EEE, provided that the 

facility manually calculates HRA, 

submits this information to EPA, and 

complies with all applicable monitoring 

and reporting requirements as 

mentioned in the EPA response letter. 

Abstract for [M080004] 

Q: Is Spartech’s process in Stamford, 

Connecticut, which manufactures poly 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 148 / Thursday, July 31, 2008 / Notices 44743 

methyl methacrylate (PMMA) acrylic 

sheet subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

FFFF? 

A: Yes. EPA determines Spartech’s 

operations produce a material (PMMA) 

classified using the United States 

Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 

code 282 or North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS) code 325, 

and its operations meet all the other 

criteria for applicability under 40 CFR 

63.2435. 

Abstract for [Z070002] 

Q1: Is Anadarko’s double-chamber 

cyclonator forced-air solid waste 

incinerator with a capacity of 2.4 tons 

per day, constructed after November 

1999, that has been seasonally located 

and intermittently operated at remote 

oil and gas exploration sites on the 

North Slope of Alaska since January 

2003, subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

CCCC? 

A1: Yes, EPA concludes that a waste 

incinerator with a capacity of 2.4 tons 

per day, constructed after November 

1999, that has been seasonally located 

and intermittently operated at remote 

oil and gas exploration sites on the 

North Slope of Alaska is subject to 

NSPS subpart CCCC. EPA considers this 

incinerator to be located at an industrial 

facility, and regardless of the fact that 

the incinerator may be moved from one 

location to the next, it will be a distinct 

operating unit of an industrial facility. 

Q2: Is 40 CFR part 61, subpart E, 

applicable to an incineration unit that 

incinerates untreated sanitary waste 

(solids) collected from Pacto toilets? 

A2: No. EPA considers the Mercury 

NESHAP to apply to ‘‘those stationary 

sources which * * * incinerate or dry 

wastewater treatment plant sludge.’’

Under 40 CFR 61.51, sludge is defined 

as ‘‘sludge produced by a treatment 

plant that processes municipal or 

industrial waste waters.’’ The practice of 

incinerating sanitary waste composed of 

untreated solids from Pacto toilets does 

not meet the description of incinerating 

sludge under the Mercury NESHAP. 

Thus, the Mercury NESHAP would not 

apply. 

Abstract for [Z080001] 

Q: Does EPA consider the gas 

processing system which includes 

reciprocating internal combustion (IC) 

engines at the Austin Community 

Landfill in Austin, Texas, to be 

treatment under 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

WWW, pursuant to 40 CFR 

60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C)? 

A: Yes. EPA considers the specified 

compression, filtration, and moisture 

removal from the landfill gas for use in 

an energy recovery device to be 

treatment under NSPS subpart WWW, 

pursuant to 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C). 

Because the engines will be exempt 

from monitoring, they do not have to be 

included in the Startup, Shutdown, and 

Malfunction (SSM) Plan required by 40 

CFR part 63, subpart AAAA. However, 

the treatment system supplying gas to 

the IC engines will have to be included 

in the SSM Plan. 

Abstract for [Z080002] 

Q: Does EPA consider the gas 

processing system which includes two 

turbines at the DFW Recycling and 

Disposal Facility in Lewisville, Texas, to 

be treatment under 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart WWW, pursuant to 40 CFR 

60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C)? 

A: Yes. EPA considers the specified 

compression, filtration, and moisture 

removal from the landfill gas for use in 

an energy recovery device to be 

treatment under NSPS subpart WWW, 

pursuant to 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C). 

Because the turbines will be exempt 

from monitoring, they do not have to be 

included in the Startup, Shutdown, and 

Malfunction (SSM) Plan required by 40 

CFR part 63, subpart AAAA. However, 

the treatment system supplying gas to 

the turbines will have to be included in 

the SSM Plan. 

Lisa C. Lund, 

Director, Office of Compliance. 

[FR Doc. E8–17489 Filed 7–30–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

Notice of Public Information 

Collection(s) Being Reviewed by the 

Federal Communications Commission 

for Extension Under Delegated 

Authority, Comments Requested 

July 25, 2008. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications 

Commission, as part of its continuing 

effort to reduce paperwork burdens, 

invites the general public and other 

Federal agencies to take this 

opportunity to comment on the 

following information collection(s), as 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law No. 104–

13. An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid 

control number. Subject to the PRA, no 

person shall be subject to any penalty 

for failing to comply with a collection 

of information that does not display a 

valid control number. Comments are 

requested concerning (a) Whether the 

proposed collection of information is 

necessary for the proper performance of 

the functions of the Commission, 

including whether the information shall 

have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of 

the Commission’s burden estimate; (c) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information collected; and 

(d) ways to minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on the 

respondents, including the use of 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

DATES: Written PRA comments should 

be submitted on or before September 29, 

2008. If you anticipate that you will be 

submitting comments but find it 

difficult to do so within the period of 

time allowed by this notice, you should 

advise the contact listed below as soon 

as possible. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may 

submit all PRA comments by e-mail or 

U.S. post mail. To submit your 

comments by e-mail, send them to 

PRA@fcc.gov and/or to 

Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov. To submit your 

comments by U.S. mail, mark them to 

the attention of Cathy Williams, Federal 

Communications Commission, Room 1–

C823, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, 

DC 20554. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

additional information about the 

information collection(s), contact Cathy 

Williams at (202) 418–2918 or send an 

e-mail to PRA@fcc.gov and/or 

Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

OMB Control Number: 3060–0010. 

Title: Ownership Report for 

Commercial Broadcast Station. 

Form Number: FCC Form 323. 

Type of Review: Extension of a 

currently approved collection. 

Respondents: Business or other forprofit entities. 

Number of Respondents and 

Responses: 2,000 respondents; 2,000 

responses. 

Estimated Time per Response: 0.5–1.5 

hours. 

Frequency of Response: On occasion 

reporting requirement; Biennial 

reporting requirement; On renewal 

requirement. 

Obligation to Respond: Required to 

obtain or retain benefits. Statutory 

authority for this collection of 

information is contained in 154(i), 303, 

310 and 533 of the Communications Act 

of 1934, as amended. 

Total Annual Burden: 2,750. 

Total Annual Cost: $2,166,800. 

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No 

impact(s). 

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: 

There is no need for confidentiality. 

Needs and Uses: Each permittee of a 

commercial AM, FM, TV and 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES