Document ID: EPA_FRDOC_0001-16189
Agency: epa
Document Type: Notice
Title: Standards under the Clean Air Act: Database System of Agency Applicability Determinations, Alternative Monitoring Decisions and Regulatory Interpretations
Posted Date: 2014-09-03T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 170 (Wednesday, September 3, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52319-52334]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-20895]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9916-20-OECA]

Recent Postings to the Applicability Determination Index Database 
System of Agency Applicability Determinations, Alternative Monitoring 
Decisions, and Regulatory Interpretations Pertaining to Standards Under 
the Clean Air Act

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice announces applicability determinations, 
alternative monitoring decisions, and regulatory interpretations that 
EPA has made under the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); the 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP); and/
or the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Program.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: An electronic copy of each complete 
document posted on the Applicability Determination Index (ADI) database 
system is available on the Internet through the Office of Enforcement 
and Compliance Assurance (OECA) Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/caa/adi.html. The letters and memoranda 
on the ADI may be located by control number, date, author, subpart, or 
subject search. For questions about the ADI or this notice, contact 
Maria Malave at EPA by phone at: (202) 564-7027, or by email at: 
malave.maria@epa.gov. For technical questions about individual 
applicability determinations or monitoring decisions, refer to the 
contact person identified in the individual documents, or in the 
absence of a contact person, refer to the author of the document.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The General Provisions of the NSPS in 40 Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) part 60 and the General Provisions of the NESHAP in 
40 CFR part 61 provide

[[Page 52320]]

that a source owner or operator may request a determination of whether 
certain intended actions constitute the commencement of construction, 
reconstruction, or modification. EPA's written responses to these 
inquiries are commonly referred to as applicability determinations. See 
40 CFR 60.5 and 61.06. Although the NESHAP part 63 regulations [which 
include Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards] and 
section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) contain no specific 
regulatory provision providing that sources may request applicability 
determinations, EPA also responds to written inquiries regarding 
applicability for the part 63 and section 111(d) programs. The NSPS and 
NESHAP also allow sources to seek permission to use monitoring or 
recordkeeping that is different from the promulgated requirements. See 
40 CFR 60.13(i), 61.14(g), 63.8(b)(1), 63.8(f), and 63.10(f). EPA's 
written responses to these inquiries are commonly referred to as 
alternative monitoring decisions. Furthermore, EPA responds to written 
inquiries about the broad range of NSPS and NESHAP regulatory 
requirements as they pertain to a whole source category. These 
inquiries may pertain, for example, to the type of sources to which the 
regulation applies, or to the testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, or 
reporting requirements contained in the regulation. EPA's written 
responses to these inquiries are commonly referred to as regulatory 
interpretations. EPA currently compiles EPA-issued NSPS and NESHAP 
applicability determinations, alternative monitoring decisions, and 
regulatory interpretations, and posts them to the Applicability 
Determination Index (ADI). 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 three thousand EPA letters and memoranda pertaining 
to the applicability, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements of the NSPS, NESHAP, and stratospheric ozone regulations. 
Users can search for letters and memoranda by date, office of issuance, 
subpart, citation, control number, or by string word searches. Today's 
notice comprises a summary of 64 such documents added to the ADI on 
August 6, 2014. This notice lists the subject and header of each letter 
and memorandum, as well as a brief abstract of the letter or 
memorandum. Complete copies of these documents may be obtained from the 
ADI through the OECA Web site at: www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/caa/adi.html.

Summary of Headers and Abstracts

    The following table identifies the database control number for each 
document posted on the ADI database system on August 6, 2014; the 
applicable category; the section(s) and/or subpart(s) of 40 CFR parts 
60, 61, or 63 (as applicable) addressed in the document; and the title 
of the document, which provides a brief description of the subject 
matter.
    We have also included an abstract of each document identified with 
its control number after the table. These abstracts are provided solely 
to alert the public to possible items of interest and are not intended 
as substitutes for the full text of the documents. This notice does not 
change the status of any document with respect to whether it is ``of 
nationwide scope or effect'' for purposes of CAA section 307(b)(1). For 
example, this notice does not convert an applicability determination 
for a particular source into a nationwide rule. Neither does it purport 
to make a previously non-binding document binding.

                                  ADI Determinations Uploaded on August 6, 2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Control No.                    Categories               Subparts                    Title
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1200009............................  NSPS..................  OOO, UUU..............  Request for Force Majeure
                                                                                      Delay for an Initial
                                                                                      Performance Test for a
                                                                                      Crusher and Calciner
                                                                                      Facility.
1200024............................  NSPS..................  J.....................  Request for Exemption in
                                                                                      Lieu of AMP for Combusting
                                                                                      an Inherently Low Sulfur
                                                                                      Gas Vent Stream from a
                                                                                      Continuous Catalytic
                                                                                      Reformer at a Refinery.
1200033............................  NSPS..................  JJJJ, KKK.............  Request for Clarification
                                                                                      of Applicability to Fuel
                                                                                      Gas Treatment Unit at
                                                                                      Compressor Station.
1200043............................  NSPS..................  J.....................  Request for Alternate
                                                                                      Monitoring Plan for
                                                                                      Monitoring H2S AMP in Lieu
                                                                                      of CEMS at a Refinery.
1200047............................  NSPS..................  EEEE, FFFF............  Request for Exemption of
                                                                                      Contraband Incinerator
                                                                                      Based on the Owner and
                                                                                      Operator Definition.
1200048............................  NSPS..................  J.....................  Request for Exemption in
                                                                                      Lieu of AMP for Combusting
                                                                                      an Inherently Low Sulfur
                                                                                      Gas Vent Stream at a
                                                                                      Refinery.
1200049............................  NSPS..................  D.....................  Boiler Derate not Approved
                                                                                      for Changes only on Fuel
                                                                                      Feed System.
1200052............................  NSPS..................  VVa...................  Request for Clarification
                                                                                      of Initial Monitoring
                                                                                      Requirement for Pumps and
                                                                                      Valves for New Process
                                                                                      Units.
1200053............................  NSPS..................  J.....................  Request for Alternate
                                                                                      Monitoring Plan for Vented
                                                                                      Gas Stream with an
                                                                                      Inherently Low and Stable
                                                                                      Amount of H2S.
1200056............................  NSPS..................  J.....................  Request for Exemption in
                                                                                      Lieu of AMP for Combusting
                                                                                      an Inherently Low Sulfur
                                                                                      Gas Vent Stream from a
                                                                                      Cyclic Reformer Caustic
                                                                                      Scrubber at a Refinery.
1200058............................  NSPS..................  J.....................  Request for Exemption in
                                                                                      Lieu of AMP for Combusting
                                                                                      an Inherently Low Sulfur
                                                                                      Gas Vent Stream at a
                                                                                      Refinery.
1200059............................  NSPS..................  J.....................  Exemption in Lieu of AMP-
                                                                                      Merox Disulfide Separator
                                                                                      Vent Stream--NSPS Subpart
                                                                                      J--Chalmette Refining--
                                                                                      Chalmette, Louisiana
                                                                                      Refinery.
1200064............................  NSPS..................  J.....................  Request for Exemption in
                                                                                      Lieu of AMP for Combusting
                                                                                      an Inherently Low Sulfur
                                                                                      Gas Vent Stream from a
                                                                                      Continuous Catalytic
                                                                                      Reformer at a Refinery.
1200074............................  NSPS..................  J.....................  Request for Exemption in
                                                                                      Lieu of AMP for Combusting
                                                                                      an Inherently Low Sulfur
                                                                                      Gas Vent Stream at a
                                                                                      Refinery.

[[Page 52321]]

 
1200080............................  NSPS..................  J.....................  Request for Alternate
                                                                                      Monitoring Plan for Sour
                                                                                      Water Tanks at a Refinery.
1200086............................  NSPS..................  OOO...................  Initial Performance Testing
                                                                                      Waiver for an NSPS
                                                                                      Facility that Operates
                                                                                      Very Infrequently.
1200088............................  NSPS..................  WWW...................  Request for Approval to
                                                                                      Continue Operating Wells
                                                                                      at a Closed Landfill
                                                                                      Despite Instances of
                                                                                      Positive Pressure.
1200093............................  NSPS..................  LL....................  Request for Applicability
                                                                                      Determination for Dust
                                                                                      Collector Emissions at
                                                                                      Conveyor Belt Transfer
                                                                                      Points in a Metallic
                                                                                      Mineral Processing
                                                                                      Facility.
1200094............................  NSPS..................  WWW...................  Alternative Monitoring Plan
                                                                                      for Higher Operating
                                                                                      Temperatures for Five Gas
                                                                                      Wells.
1400001............................  NSPS..................  WWW...................  Request for Use of
                                                                                      Alternative Span Value for
                                                                                      Nitrogen Oxide CEMs at
                                                                                      Landfill.
1400002............................  NSPS..................  KKKK, ZZZZ............  Request to Determine if
                                                                                      Stationary Reciprocating
                                                                                      Internal Combustion
                                                                                      Engines (RICE) Meet
                                                                                      Institutional Emergency
                                                                                      Definition.
1400004............................  NSPS..................  Ce, WWW...............  Request for Applicability
                                                                                      Determination on Landfill
                                                                                      Thresholds.
1400006............................  NSPS..................  J, Ja.................  Request for Alternative
                                                                                      Monitoring Plan for
                                                                                      Monitoring Hydrogen
                                                                                      Sulfide (H2S) in Tank
                                                                                      Degassing Vapors Combusted
                                                                                      in Portable Thermal
                                                                                      Oxidizers at Petroleum
                                                                                      Refineries.
1400007............................  MACT, NSPS............  J, UUU................  Alternative Monitoring Plan
                                                                                      for Opacity for a Fluid
                                                                                      Catalytic Cracking Unit
                                                                                      Regenerator.
1400008............................  NSPS..................  WWW...................  Request for Alternative
                                                                                      Compliance Remedy/Schedule
                                                                                      to Correct Surface
                                                                                      Emissions Exceedances at
                                                                                      Landfill.
1400009............................  NSPS..................  WWW...................  Request for Alternative
                                                                                      Monitoring using a Higher
                                                                                      Operating Value for Oxygen
                                                                                      for a Landfill Gas
                                                                                      Collector.
1400010............................  NSPS..................  Db....................  Alternative Span Value for
                                                                                      Nitrogen Oxide CEMs.
1400011............................  NSPS..................  J.....................  Request for Exemption in
                                                                                      Lieu of Alternative
                                                                                      Monitoring Plan for Fuel
                                                                                      Gas Streams Routed From
                                                                                      Caustic Regeneration Unit
                                                                                      to Furnaces.
1400012............................  NSPS..................  J, Ja.................  Alternative Monitoring Plan
                                                                                      for Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S)
                                                                                      in Tank Degassing Vapors
                                                                                      Combusted in Portable
                                                                                      Thermal Oxidizers at
                                                                                      Petroleum Refineries.
1400013............................  NSPS..................  WWW...................  Request for Alternative
                                                                                      Compliance Timeline for
                                                                                      Landfill Gas Extraction
                                                                                      Well.
1400014............................  MACT, NSPS............  EEEEE, UUU............  Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                      Request for a New Sand
                                                                                      Cooler at an Iron Foundry.
1400015............................  MACT, NSPS............  EEEEE, UUU............  Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                      Request for a New Sand
                                                                                      Cooler at an Iron Foundry.
1400017............................  NSPS..................  EEEE..................  Request for Alternative
                                                                                      Monitoring Plan for a
                                                                                      Continuous Emission
                                                                                      Monitoring System for a
                                                                                      Commercially Operated
                                                                                      Contraband Incinerator.
1400018............................  MACT, NSPS............  EEEE, HHHHH, JJJJ, KK,  Request for Several MACT/
                                                              RR, SSSS, TT.           NSPS Applicability
                                                                                      Determinations for
                                                                                      Different Process at a
                                                                                      Print Station Facility.
1400020............................  NSPS..................  WWW...................  Request for Alternative
                                                                                      Remedy and Compliance
                                                                                      Timeline for a Landfill
                                                                                      Gas Extraction Well.
A140001............................  Asbestos..............  M.....................  Applicability of Test
                                                                                      Methods to Asbestos-
                                                                                      Containing Bulk Samples.
A140002............................  Asbestos..............  M.....................  Request for Determination
                                                                                      on whether maintenance of
                                                                                      High Voltage Electric
                                                                                      Transmission Towers is
                                                                                      Renovation or Demolition.
M110009............................  MACT..................  XXXXXX................  Request for Clarification
                                                                                      of Applicability of Metals
                                                                                      Processing Operations at
                                                                                      an Orthopedic Components
                                                                                      Manufacturer.
M110010............................  MACT..................  ZZZZ..................  Request for Exemption as
                                                                                      Emergency Engines for
                                                                                      Stationary Reciprocating
                                                                                      Internal Combustion
                                                                                      Engines.
M110011............................  MACT, NESHAP..........  TTTTTT................  Request for Clarification
                                                                                      of Applicability of Rule
                                                                                      to a Precious Metals
                                                                                      Melting Operation.
M110012............................  MACT..................  JJJJJ.................  Request for Clarification
                                                                                      of Wood-Fired Boiler
                                                                                      Source Categorization.
M110013............................  MACT..................  WWWWWW................  Alternative Monitoring Plan
                                                                                      for Batch Electrolytic
                                                                                      Process Tanks at a Media
                                                                                      Replication Facility.
M110014............................  MACT..................  WWWW..................  Clarification on Monthly
                                                                                      Compliance Demonstration
                                                                                      for Hazardous Air
                                                                                      Pollutants for Open
                                                                                      Moulding Operations.
M110016............................  MACT, NESHAP..........  JJJJJJ................  Request for Clarification
                                                                                      of Applicability to
                                                                                      Electric Boilers when
                                                                                      Burning Fuel Oil as a
                                                                                      Backup Fuel.
M110017............................  MACT..................  EEE...................  Request to Revise
                                                                                      Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                      Plan for Deactivation
                                                                                      Furnace System of a
                                                                                      Hazardous Waste Combustor.
M110018............................  MACT..................  CCCCCCC, VVVVVV.......  Request for Alternative
                                                                                      Compliance Methods for
                                                                                      Hazardous Air Pollutants
                                                                                      for an Area Source.

[[Page 52322]]

 
M120009............................  MACT..................  LLL...................  Request for Approval of
                                                                                      Alternate Test Method for
                                                                                      Demonstrating Compliance
                                                                                      with Particulate Emissions
                                                                                      Standards for a Portland
                                                                                      Cement Facility.
M120013............................  MACT..................  MMM, NNNNN............  Request to Waive pH
                                                                                      Monitoring Requirement for
                                                                                      Control of Emissions from
                                                                                      Tank Truck Loading and
                                                                                      Storage Tanks.
M120026............................  MACT..................  JJJJ..................  Use of Alternative
                                                                                      Comparative Monitoring in
                                                                                      lieu of Calibration
                                                                                      Verification Requirements.
M120034............................  MACT, NSPS............  IIII, JJJJ, ZZZZ......  Reciprocating Internal
                                                                                      Combustion Engine Overhaul
                                                                                      does not trigger
                                                                                      Reconstruction and
                                                                                      Modification because of
                                                                                      Costs and Unaltered
                                                                                      Emissions.
M120035............................  MACT..................  MMMM, XXXXXX..........  Clarification on
                                                                                      Applicability of Area
                                                                                      Source Requirements for a
                                                                                      Metal Fabrication and
                                                                                      Finishing Source Facility.
M130003............................  MACT..................  ZZZZ..................  Request to Waive an Initial
                                                                                      Performance Test for
                                                                                      Identical RICEs at a HAP
                                                                                      Area Source.
M140001............................  MACT..................  EEE...................  Request Alternative
                                                                                      Operating Parameter Limit
                                                                                      for Liquid Waste Firing
                                                                                      System.
M140002............................  MACT, NESHAP, NSPS....  EEEE, JJJJJJ..........  Energy Recovery and Syngas
                                                                                      Exemption Request for a
                                                                                      Gasification Unit.
M140003............................  MACT, NESHAP..........  DDDDD, JJJJJJ, PPPPP,   Exemption of Halogenated
                                                              T, ZZZZ.                Solvent Cleaning,
                                                                                      Stationary RICE, and
                                                                                      Institutional Boilers for
                                                                                      Vehicle Facility.
M140004............................  MACT..................  UUU...................  Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                      Method for Sulfur Dioxide
                                                                                      Emissions During Emission
                                                                                      Control Device
                                                                                      Malfunctions or Down Time.
M140005............................  MACT..................  UUU...................  Alternative Monitoring Plan
                                                                                      for Calculation of Flue
                                                                                      Gas Flow Rate in Lieu of
                                                                                      Direct Measurement.
M140007............................  NESHAP, NSPS..........  DDDDD, A, Db..........  Force Majeure Determination
                                                                                      for a new biomass-fired
                                                                                      cogeneration boiler.
Z120003............................  NESHAP................  FF....................  Request for Clarification
                                                                                      on Applicability to Sour
                                                                                      Water Streams Managed
                                                                                      Upstream of a Refinery
                                                                                      Sour Water Stripper.
Z130002............................  NESHAP................  JJJJJJ................  Request for Clarification
                                                                                      of Steam Boiler Exemption
                                                                                      for Mixed Residential and
                                                                                      Commercial Use.
Z130003............................  NESHAP................  N.....................  Request for Approval of the
                                                                                      Use of Closed/Covered
                                                                                      Electroplating and
                                                                                      Anodizing Tanks in order
                                                                                      to Satisfy Physical
                                                                                      Barrier Requirements.
Z140001............................  MACT, NESHAP, NSPS....  BBBBBB, Kb, R, WW.....  Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                      Request for Use of Top-
                                                                                      side in-service Inspection
                                                                                      Methodology for Internal
                                                                                      Floating Roof Storage
                                                                                      Tanks.
Z140002............................  MACT, NESHAP..........  EEEE, GGGG............  Regulatory Interpretation
                                                                                      of Solvent Transfer Racks
                                                                                      and Equipment for
                                                                                      Vegetable Oil Production
                                                                                      Plant.
Z140003............................  NESHAP, NSPS..........  IIII..................  Petition for Additional
                                                                                      Testing Hours for an
                                                                                      Emergency Generator.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abstracts

Abstract for [1200009]

    Q1: Does EPA consider, as force majeure, certain weather conditions 
that prevented initial stack tests from being conducted before the 
compliance deadline under 40 CFR part 60, subparts OOO and UUU, at a 
Cadre Material Products (Cadre) in Voca, Texas?
    A1: Yes. EPA finds that certain events, such as an ice storm, may 
be considered, dependent upon the circumstances specific to each event, 
as force majeure under 40 CFR part 60 subpart A. The ice storm, and the 
resultant amount of time necessary to complete repairs to equipment 
damaged solely as a result of the weather event, is beyond the control 
of the company. EPA will grant a one-week extension.
    Q2: Does EPA consider, as force majeure, certain contract disputes 
between the company and its contractor over production testing and 
plant operation at the same facility.
    A2: No. EPA does not consider that this qualifies as a force 
majeure event since it was not beyond the control of the company. EPA 
will not grant an extension.

Abstract for [1200024]

    Q: Does EPA approve an exemption in lieu of an Alternative 
Monitoring Plan (AMP) for combusting the off gas vent stream from a 
continuous catalytic reformer (PtR-3) as an inherently low-sulfur 
stream under 40 CFR part 60 subpart J, at the ExxonMobil Beaumont 
Refinery located in Beaumont, Texas?
    A: Yes. EPA determined that a monitoring exemption is appropriate 
for the vent stream combusted in the continuous catalytic reformer 
(PtR-3), and therefore, the AMP request is no longer needed, based on 
the process operating and monitoring data submitted by the company and 
in light of changes made to Subpart J on June 24, 2008 (73 FR 35866). 
EPA agreed that the vent stream combusted in the fuel gas combustion 
device (FGCD) is inherently low in sulfur, and thus, meets the 
exemption criteria in 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(C). EPA agreed that the 
FGCD is exempt from monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 60.l05(a)(3) and 
(4). If the sulfur content or process operating parameters for the vent 
stream change from representations made for the exemption 
determination, the company must document the changes, re-evaluate the 
vent stream characteristics, and follow the appropriate steps outlined 
in 60.105(b)(3)(i) through (iii). The exemption determination should 
also be referenced and attached to the facility's new source review and 
Title V permit for federal enforceability.

[[Page 52323]]

Abstract for [1200033]

    Q: The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (OK DEQ) has 
requested a determination on whether a fuel gas treatment unit at the 
Atlas Pipeline Mid-Continent Herron Compressor Station in Oklahoma is 
subject to NSPS Subpart KKK if it extracts heavy hydrocarbons from 
field gas prior to its use as a fuel for engines subject to 40 CFR part 
60 subpart JJJJ, but does not sell the field gas?
    A: Based on the information provided by OK DEQ, EPA has determined 
that a facility does not have to sell liquids to be considered a 
natural gas processing plant under 40 CFR part 60 subpart KKK, and 
there is no specific operating temperature criteria for a facility to 
be considered as engaged in the extraction of natural gas liquids. The 
only temperature criteria mentioned in 40 CFR part 60 subpart KKK is in 
the definition of equipment in light liquid service.

Abstract for [1200043]

    Q: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for 
monitoring hydrogen sulfide (H2S) in lieu of installing a continuous 
emission monitoring system (CEMS) for a refinery truck loading rack 
off-gas vent stream combusted at a thermal oxidizer under 40 CFR part 
60 subpart J at the Valero Refining Corpus Christi, Texas West 
refinery?
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves Valero AMP, based on the 
description of the process vent stream, the design of the vent gas 
controls, and the H2S monitoring data furnished. Valero AMP approval is 
conditioned on following the seven step process detailed in EPA's 
guidance for Alternative Monitoring Plans for 40 CFR part 60 subpart J 
relative to monitoring the facility's proposed operating parameter 
limits (OPLs).

Abstract for [1200047]

    Q: Does Kippur Corporation's El Paso, Texas Other Solid Waste 
Incinerator (OSWI), which is used to combust contraband, qualify for 
the exclusion from 40 CFR part 60 subpart EEEE or subpart FFFF under 40 
CFR 60.2993(p), if the unit is owned and operated by a non-government 
(commercial) entity, but where a government agency representative 
maintains a supervisory and oversight role of handling of the 
contraband feed while the owner/operator's employees start and operate 
the incinerator?
    A: No. EPA further clarified the exclusion of 40 CFR 60.2993(p) in 
the preamble to the OSWI final rule, published on December 16, 2005, to 
state that the exclusion applies only to goods confiscated by a 
government agency. In addition, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has 
defined the term supervisor in the context of the definition of owner 
or operator provided in the Clean Air Act. The court held that 
substantial control is the governing criterion when determining if one 
is a supervisor. The Court elaborated that significant and substantial 
control means having the ability to direct the manner in which work is 
performed and the authority to correct problems. Based on review of the 
information provided, EPA did not consider USCBP to be an operator of 
the incinerator. The training requirements of 40 CFR 60.3014 for OSWI 
unit operators also demonstrate that EPA intended the operator of an 
OSWI incinerator be physically in control of the system or the direct 
supervisor of someone who is physically operating the incinerator. U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (USCBP) is only in control of feeding the 
contraband to the incinerator, presumably for custody control, but not 
for any operative purpose. Since USCBP is not in control of the 
incinerator itself, the Kippur OSWI unit is not exempt and must comply 
with either 40 CFR part 60 subpart EEEE or subpart FFFF.

Abstract for [1200048]

    Q: Does EPA approve an exemption in lieu of an Alternative 
Monitoring Plan (AMP) for combusting a vent stream from a hydrogen 
plant's steam methane reformer (SMR) degassifier knockout drum as an 
inherently low-content sulfur stream under 40 CFR part 60 subpart J, at 
the Valero Corpus Christi East Plant (Valero) in Corpus Christi, Texas?
    A: Yes. EPA determined that a monitoring exemption is appropriate 
for the vent stream, and EPA voided the AMP request based on the 
process and monitoring data provided, and in light of changes made to 
subpart J on June 24, 2008 (73 FR 35866). EPA agreed that the flare is 
exempt from monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 60.105(a)(3) and (4). The 
vent stream combusted in the flare is inherently low in sulfur because 
it is produced in a process unit intolerant to sulfur contamination, 
and thus, meets the exemption in 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(C). If 
refinery operations change from representations made for this exemption 
determination, then Valero must document the change(s) and follow the 
appropriate steps outlined in 40 CFR 60.105(b)(3)(i) through (iii).

Abstract for [1200049]

    Q: Does EPA approve the request from Domtar Paper Company (Domtar), 
LLC, in Plymouth, North Carolina to derate the capacity of a boiler 
(HFBI) to less than 250 mmBtu/hr in order that it will no longer be 
subject to 40 CFR part 60 subpart D?
    A: No. EPA has determined that Domtar's proposed derate for coal 
firing procedure is not acceptable, as it does not meet EPA's criteria 
for derate of boilers based on the description in Domtar's request, as 
indicated to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural 
Resources. The proposed derate procedure is based only on changes to 
the fuel feed system and does not reduce the capacity of the boiler. 
Domtar indicates that they must maintain the ability to use hog fuel at 
a heat input greater than 250 million Btu/hr for HFB1 and cannot make 
changes to the induced draft fan to reduce the boiler capacity.

Abstract for [1200052]

    Q1: The Alabama Department of Environmental Management (AL DEM) 
requests clarification of the initial monitoring requirements for pumps 
and valves for new process units subject to 40 CFR part 60 subpart VVa. 
Under 40 CFR part 60 subpart VVa, is a new facility required to 
initially monitor pumps and valves within 30 days of startup of a new 
process unit or within 180 days of startup of the process unit?
    A1: The NSPS Subpart VVa requires initial monitoring of pumps and 
valves for a new process unit to be conducted within 30 days after the 
startup of a new process unit. Section 60.482-2a(a)(1) requires monthly 
monitoring to detect leaks from pumps in light liquid service. Section 
60.482-7a(a) requires monthly monitoring to detect leaks from valves in 
gas/vapor service and in light liquid service. Further, Sec.  60.482-
1a(a) requires an initial compliance demonstration within 180 days of 
initial startup of the valve or pump, and does not provide a grace 
period during which a facility is exempt from the work practice 
standards of Subpart VVa and the requirement to conduct monthly 
monitoring of pumps and valves.
    Q2: Under 40 CFR part 60 subpart VVa, what is the initiation of 
monthly monitoring for pumps and valves which do not begin service at 
the initial startup of a process unit but are placed in service over 
time?
    A2: For both pumps and valves, 40 CFR part subpart VVa requires 
that monthly monitoring of the pump or valve is to begin within 30 days 
after the end of its startup period to ensure

[[Page 52324]]

proper installation. This requirement is addressed in 40 CFR 60.482-
2a(a)(1) for pumps in light liquid service and in 40 CFR 60.482-
7a(a)(2) for valves in gas/vapor service or light liquid service.

Abstract for [1200053]

    Q: Does EPA approve an Alternate Monitoring Plan for an inherently 
low-sulfur gas stream from the Caustic Vent Degasser vented to a flare 
at the Marathon Petroleum Company LLC (MPC) in Robinson, Illinois?
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves MPC's Alternate Monitoring Plan 
for the Caustic Tank Degasser vent to flare based on the process 
description and the data showing the low and stable H2S content of the 
stream. MPC will continue to monitor the NaOH (caustic strength) in the 
spent caustic wash streams in lieu of continuously monitoring this 
combined stream, and the proposed sampling schedule will be implemented 
quarterly until December 2013, and thereafter EPA requires sampling 
frequency on a biannual basis. The biannual sampling will be performed 
with a minimum of three months between the collections of the samples. 
If at any time the sample results from a single detector tube are equal 
to or greater than 81 ppm H2S, MPC must follow the procedures and 
notification requirements established in the EPA response letter.

Abstract for [1200056]

    Q: Does EPA approve an exemption in lieu of an Alternative 
Monitoring Plan (AMP) for combusting a vent stream from a cyclic 
reformer caustic scrubber in a process furnace as an inherently low-
sulfur stream under 40 CFR part 60 subpart J, at the British 
Petroleum's Texas City, Texas refinery?
    A: Yes. EPA determined the cyclic reformer caustic scrubber vent 
stream, and therefore the AMP request is no longer needed, based on the 
process operating parameters and monitoring data submitted by the 
company and in light of changes made to Subpart J on June 24, 2008 (73 
FR 35866). EPA agreed that the process furnace is exempt from 
monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 60.105(a)(3) and (4). The vent stream 
combusted in the furnace is inherently low in sulfur because it is 
produced in a process unit intolerant to sulfur contamination, and 
thus, meets the exemption criteria in 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(C). If it 
is determined that the stream is no longer exempt, continuous 
monitoring must begin within 15 days of the change, in accordance with 
40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv).

Abstract for [1200058]

    Q: Does EPA approve an exemption in lieu of an Alternative 
Monitoring Plan (AMP) for combusting vent streams from two continuous 
catalytic reformer unit lock hoppers in a flare as an inherently low-
sulfur stream under 40 CFR part 60 subpart J, at the Chalmette 
Refining, Chalmette), Louisiana refinery?
    A: Yes. EPA determined that a monitoring exemption is appropriate 
for the continuous catalytic reformer unit lock hopper vent streams, 
and EPA voided the AMP request based on the process operating 
parameters and monitoring data submitted by Chalmette and in light of 
changes made to subpart J on June 24, 2008 (73 FR 35866). EPA agreed 
that the flare is exempt from monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 
60.105(a)(3) and (4). The vent streams combusted in the flare are 
inherently low in sulfur because they are produced in a process unit 
intolerant to sulfur contamination, and thus, meet the exemption 
criteria in 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(C). If Chalmette determines that 
the streams no longer meet the exempt criteria as a result of refinery 
operations change(s), then Chalmette must document the change(s) and 
must begin continuous monitoring within 15 days of the change, in 
accordance with 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv).

Abstract for [1200059]

    Q: Does EPA approve an exemption in lieu of an Alternative 
Monitoring Plan (AMP) for combusting a vent stream from an alkylation 
unit Merox disulfide separator in a reboiler heater as an inherently 
low-sulfur stream under 40 CFR part 60 subpart J, at the Chalmette 
Refining, Chalmette, Louisiana refinery?
    A: Yes. EPA determined that a monitoring exemption is appropriate 
for the alkylation unit Merox separator vent stream, and therefore the 
AMP request is no longer needed, based on the process operating 
parameters and monitoring data submitted by Chalmette and in light of 
changes made to subpart J on June 24, 2008 (73 FR 35866). EPA agreed 
that the reboiler heater is exempt from monitoring requirements of 40 
CFR 60.l05(a)(3) and (4). The vent stream combusted in the heater is 
inherently low in sulfur because it is produced in a process unit 
intolerant to sulfur contamination, and thus, meets the exemption 
criteria in 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(C). EPA also clarified that, if 
refinery operations change such that the sulfur content for the vent 
stream changes such that it no longer meets the exemption criteria, 
continuous monitoring must begin within 15 days of the change, in 
accordance with 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv).

Abstract for [1200064]

    Q: Does EPA approve an exemption in lieu of an Alternative 
Monitoring Plan (AMP) for combusting the vent stream from a continuous 
catalytic reformer unit lock hopper in two reformer heaters as an 
inherently low-sulfur stream under 40 CFR part 60 subpart J, at the 
ExxonMobil's Beaumont, Texas refinery?
    A: Yes. EPA determined that a monitoring exemption is appropriate 
for the continuous catalytic reformer unit lock hopper vent stream, and 
EPA voided the AMP request based on the process operating parameters 
and monitoring data submitted by ExxonMobil and in light of changes 
made to subpart J on June 24, 2008 (73 FR 35866). Based on review of 
the information provided, EPA agreed that the reformer heaters are 
exempt from monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 60.105(a)(3) and (4). The 
vent stream combusted in the heaters is inherently low in sulfur 
because it is produced in a process unit intolerant to sulfur 
contamination, and thus, meets the exemption in 40 CFR 
60.105(a)(4)(iv)(C). If it is determined that the stream is no longer 
exempt, continuous monitoring must begin within 15 days of the change, 
in accordance with 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv).

Abstract for [1200074]

    Q: Does EPA approve an exemption in lieu of an Alternative 
Monitoring Plan (AMP) for combusting the off gas vent stream from a 
hydrogen plant pressure swing adsorption (PSA) unit in a flare as an 
inherently low-sulfur stream under 40 CFR part 60 subpart J, at the 
Valero Refining East Refinery in Corpus Christi, Texas?
    A: Yes. EPA determined that a monitoring exemption is appropriate 
for the hydrogen plant PSA vent stream, and EPA voided the AMP request 
based on the process operating parameters and monitoring data submitted 
by Valero and in light of changes made to subpart J on June 24, 2008 
(73 FR 35866). Based on review of the information provided, EPA agreed 
that the flare is exempt from the monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 
60.105(a)(3) and (4). The vent stream combusted in the flare is 
inherently low in sulfur because it is produced in a process unit 
intolerant to sulfur contamination, and thus, meets the exemption in 40 
CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(C). If it is determined that the vent stream is no 
longer exempt, continuous monitoring must begin within 15 days

[[Page 52325]]

of the change, in accordance with 40 CFR 60.105(a)(4)(iv).

Abstract for [1200080]

    Q: Does EPA approve the Alternative Monitoring Plans (AMPs) for 
monitoring hydrogen sulfide (H2S) in lieu of installing a continuous 
emission monitoring system (CEMS) for three sour water tank off-gas 
vent streams, subject to 40 CFR part 60 subpart J, that are combusted 
in two sulfur recovery unit tail gas incinerators at the Valero 
Refining facility in Houston, Texas?
    A: No. EPA does not approve Valero's proposed AMPs for the off-gas 
vent streams from the three sour water tank off-gas vent streams 
because the necessary fuel gas system and stream sampling data was not 
provided to demonstrate that the fuel gas streams are sufficiently low 
in sulfur content or to establish appropriate alternative monitoring 
methods, parameters, and frequencies to ensure inherently low and 
stable H2S content of the off-gas vent streams to be combusted at the 
incinerators.

Abstract for [1200086]

    Q: Does EPA approve a waiver of the initial performance test under 
the NSPS for Non-metallic Mineral Processing Plants for the Emission 
Unit PO 14 at the Carmeuse Industrial Sands, Millwood Operation in 
Howard, Ohio? The Emission Unit PO 14 is operated infrequently and for 
short durations, and the plant lacks testing facilities.
    A: Yes. EPA approves this waiver request because the facility is 
operated for small amounts of time per day, which is not sufficient to 
implement a Method 5 or 17 performance test meeting the requirements in 
this standard. However, EPA does not consider a lack of testing 
facilities as a valid reason to waive a test and points out that 
construction of a source subject to testing requirements in a manner 
that prevents it from being tested might be considered circumvention 
under the General Provisions. In addition, EPA approves all 
determinations on a case-by-case basis and is not necessarily bound by 
previous determinations.

Abstract for [1200088]

    Q1: Does EPA approve the continued operation of several gas wells 
at the closed Willowcreek Landfill in Atwater, Ohio without expansion 
of the gas collection system, despite instances of positive pressure 
and oxygen exceedance under the NSPS for Landfills?
    A1: Yes. EPA approves the continued operation of the Willowcreek 
wells without expansion of the collection system because they are 
showing signs of declining gas quality and expansion of the system is 
expected to be of little to no value.
    Q2: Does EPA approve the continued operation of other wells that in 
the future may experience the same conditions at the Willowcreek 
Landfill?
    A2: EPA does not provide a blanket approval for all future wells 
experiencing the same conditions. Expansion of this alternative 
monitoring approval will require subsequent requests.

Abstract for [1200093]

    Q: Are the emissions from AIRS ID 060 and 079 from dust collectors 
at the top of enclosed conveyor belt transfer points ``process fugitive 
emissions'' subject to the standard outlined in 40 CFR 60.382(b) or 
``stack emissions'' subject to the standards in 40 CFR 60.382(a) of 
NSPS Subpart LL, which are located at the Climax Molybdenum facility in 
Leadville, CO?
    A. The EPA determines that the fugitive emissions from the dust 
collectors utilized by AIRS ID 060 and 079 are ``stack emissions,'' as 
these are being released through a ``stack, chimney, or flue'' and will 
be ``released to the atmosphere.'' In addition, the process fugitive 
emission standard applies to ``emissions from an affected facility that 
are not collected by a capture system.'' Therefore, the emissions from 
the dust collectors are not ``process fugitive emissions'' since these 
emissions are being captured and controlled and are not emissions that 
have escaped control.

Abstract for [1200094]

    Q: Does EPA approve Elk River Landfill, Incorporated's alternative 
monitoring request under 40 CFR 60.753(c) of the Landfill NSPS, Subpart 
WWW, for a variance of the operating temperature for five gas wells at 
Elk River Landfill in Elk River, Minnesota?
    A: Yes. EPA approves Elk's request for an alternative operating 
temperature for the five gas wells. Based on the supporting 
information, the higher operating gas temperatures do not significantly 
inhibit anaerobic decomposition by killing methanogens and do not cause 
subsurface landfill fire at the site. Therefore, EPA approves Elk River 
Landfill's request for an operating temperature of 155 [deg]F for gas 
well numbers EREW35R2, EREW0042, EREW045R, EREW0066, and ERHC0010.

Abstract for [1400001]

    Q: Does EPA approve a request from Advanced Disposal Service (ADS) 
to use an alternate span value of 50 parts per million by Volume (ppmV) 
in lieu of 500 ppmV required by 40 CFR 60.48b(e)(2) for the nitrogen 
oxide continuous emission monitors (CEMs) on each of two process 
heaters at the Rolling Hills Landfill (RHLF) in Buffalo, Minnesota?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the use of the alternate span value for the 
two process heaters' CEMs. EPA concludes that the span will be more 
appropriate for the typical range of emission concentrations and that 
the span will yield more accurate measurement(s) during normal 
operating conditions.

Abstract for [1400002]

    Q. Do the Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 
(RICE) powering floodwater pumps and associated generators at the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), W.G. Huxtable Pumping Plant, Lee 
County, Arkansas, meet the definition of an institutional emergency 
RICE under 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ?
    A. Yes. EPA determines that the RICE SN-01 through SN-13 pumps and 
associate generators meet the definition of institutional emergency at 
40 CFR 63.6675 because these are located at an area source facility for 
HAPs and are only used when significant flooding occurs. Specifically, 
pumping does not begin until the water level on the downstream 
(Mississippi River) side of the facility is higher than the water on 
the upstream side, a condition that would only happen in the case of 
significant flooding. Also, these engines are located at a facility 
with a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code of 
924110. This NAICS code is on the list of codes that identifies the 
types of facilities that would be considered residential, commercial, 
or institutional, provided as guidance by the EPA after the RICE NESHAP 
was published. Therefore, the engines are existing institutional 
emergency stationary RICE located at an area source of hazardous air 
pollutant (HAP) emissions, not subject to the RICE NESHAP per the 
exemption in 40 CFR 63.6585(f)(3).

Abstract for [1400004]

    Q1: Does EPA concur that design capacity for municipal solid waste 
(MSW) of the Advanced Disposal Service (ADS) Rolling Hills Landfill 
(RHLF) in Buffalo, Minnesota, is less than 2.5 million megagrams (2.7 
million tons) and 2.5 million cubic meters (3.3 million cubic yards) 
for purposes of NSPS Subpart WWW rule?
    A1: No. EPA concludes that the design capacity of the ADS RHLF is 
greater than 2.5 million megagrams and

[[Page 52326]]

2.5 million cubic meters based on the definition of ``MSW landfill'' 
and of ``design capacity'' in Subpart WWW. EPA concludes that the 
RHLF's MSW landfill consists of the entire disposal facility in a 
contiguous geographical space. EPA calculated the RHLF's design 
capacity as the sum of the design capacity for each waste disposal area 
in the most recent permit, which lists the authorized waste disposal 
activities.
    Q2: Are the Landfill NSPS applicability thresholds based not only 
on physical volumes or masses but also upon the state regulatory 
environment, recycling mandates, and intercounty solid waste planning 
directives?
    A2: EPA determines that the state restrictions and limitations on 
the types of waste that the RHLF has been allowed to accept cannot 
reduce the design capacity below the Landfill NSPS applicability 
thresholds. The NSPS does not distinguish nonmethane organic compounds 
(NMOC) emissions generated from MSW and those generated from non-MSW. 
Consequently, even though restrictions on the types of waste that the 
RHLF has been allowed to accept may be federally enforceable under the 
federal SWDA, EPA concludes that ADS may not exclude the volume and 
mass of non-MSW from the calculation of the RHLF's design capacity.

Abstract for [1400006]

    Q: Can EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for Envent 
Corporation to conduct monitoring of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) emissions, 
in lieu of installing a continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS), 
when performing tank degassing and other similar operations controlled 
by portable, temporary thermal oxidizers, at refineries in Region 6 
States that are subject to NSPS subparts J or Ja?
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approved the AMP based on the description 
of the process, the vent gas streams, the design of the vent gas 
controls, and the H2S monitoring data furnished. EPA included proposed 
operating parameter limits (OPLs) and data which the refineries must 
furnish as part of the conditional approval. The approved AMP applies 
only to similar degassing operations conducted by ENVENT at refineries 
in EPA Region 6.

Abstract for [1400007]

    Q. Does EPA approve the Holly Frontier Corporation, Holly Refining 
& Marketing Company--Woods Cross's (Holly's) alternative monitoring 
plan (AMP) for monitoring opacity from the fluid catalytic cracking 
unit (FCCU) regenerator since moisture in the wet gas scrubbers to the 
FCCU causes interference with opacity monitors, making the results 
unreliable?
    A. Yes. EPA conditionally approves Holly's AMP request to monitor 
alternative operating parameters in its wet gas scrubber since these 
ensure optimum collection efficiency for particulates. The Holly AMP 
approval is conditional on maintaining liquid flow to the nozzles in 
the absorber tower vessel and the filtering modules, and ensuring a 
minimum pressure drop across the filtering modules.

Abstract for [1400008]

    Q: Does EPA approve the alternate compliance remedies to correct 
the surface scan emissions exceedances that occurred during the surface 
emissions monitoring (SEM) event at five designated locations at the 
Settle's Hill Recycling and Disposal Facility (Settle's Hill) and 
Midway Landfill in Batavia, Illinois?
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves this request for alternative 
compliance remedies that involve installing dewatering pumps in several 
gas extraction wells in the vicinity of the exceedances, further 
enhancement of the landfill gas collection and control system (GCCS), 
further enhancement of the landfill cap with the placement of 
additional soil cover and corresponding schedule for locations 
designated as EX-1, -2, -3, -5, and -6 at the Midway Landfill and 
Settler's Hill. The condition for approval requires that the remedies 
eliminate methane exceedances at the locations listed above. If such is 
not the case in subsequent SEM, beginning December 6, 2012, more 
aggressive measures will be required to reduce surface emissions at 
both the Midway Landfill and Settler's Hill to ensure compliance.

Abstract for [1400009]

    Q: Does EPA approve a higher operating value for oxygen 
concentration under NSPS Subpart WWW for a well collector at the Roxana 
Landfill, Incorporated facility located in Roxana, Illinois?
    A: No. EPA does not approve Roxana's request because the criteria 
for approval of a higher operating value for oxygen concentration at 
Roxana's Collector Well 0TD1 under the provisions in 40 CFR 60.753(c) 
of NSPS Subpart WWW has not been met. In order to approve a higher 
oxygen operating value, 40 CFR 60.753(c) requires, ``data that shows 
the elevated parameter does not cause fires or significantly inhibit 
anaerobic decomposition by killing methanogens.''

Abstract for [1400010]

    Q: Does EPA approve Flint Hills Resources' request to set the span 
value for the nitrogen oxide continuous emission monitors on each of 
two process heaters 25H1 and 25H3 at 50 parts per million by Volume 
(ppmV) rather than 500 ppmV as required by 40 CFR 60.48b(e)(2)?
    A: Yes. EPA concludes that the span will be more appropriate for 
the typical range of emission concentrations and that the span will 
yield more accurate measurements during normal operating conditions.

Abstract for [1400011]

    Q: Does EPA approve an exemption in lieu of Alternative Monitoring 
Plan (AMP) for monitoring hydrogen sulfide (H2S) rather than installing 
a continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) for a refinery caustic 
regeneration unit off-gas vent stream combusted at two process furnaces 
under 40 CFR part 60 subpart J at the ExxonMobil refinery in Baton 
Rouge, Louisiana?
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the exemption under the seven 
step process detailed in EPA's guidance for Alternative Monitoring 
Plans for 40 CFR part 60 subpart J, based on the description of the 
process vent stream, the design of the vent gas controls, and the H2S 
monitoring data furnished. EPA included the facility's proposed 
operating parameter limits (OPLs), which the facility must continue to 
monitor, as part of the conditional approval.

Abstract for [1400012]

    Q: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for Gem 
Mobile Services to conduct monitoring of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) 
emissions, in lieu of installing a continuous emission monitoring 
system (CEMS), when performing tank degassing and other similar 
operations controlled by portable, temporary thermal oxidizers, at 
refineries located in EPA Region 6 states that are subject to NSPS 
Subparts J or Ja?
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the AMP, based on the 
description of the process, the vent gas streams, the design of the 
vent gas controls, and the H2S monitoring data furnished. EPA included 
proposed operating parameter limits (OPLs) and data which the 
refineries must furnish as part of the conditional approval. The 
approved AMP is only for degassing operations conducted at refineries 
in EPA Region 6.

[[Page 52327]]

Abstract for [1400013]

    Q: Does EPA allow an alternative compliance timeline for landfill 
gas extraction well at the American Disposal Services of Illinois, Inc. 
(ADSI)--Livingston Landfill facility located in Pontiac, Illinois?
    A: No. EPA does not approve the request for an alternative 
compliance timeline for correcting the operational parameter exceedance 
at the ADSI's landfill gas extraction well LIV-GW22 (GW22). EPA did not 
approve an alternative compliance timeline because the request was for 
a potential situation that may or may not happen and may or may not 
cause a delay in construction. Such approval will only be granted if 
ADSI can establish that forces beyond its control prevent on-time 
compliance.

Abstract for [1400014]

    Q: Does EPA approve a request to use a bag leak detection (BLD) 
system in lieu of continuous opacity monitoring (COM) or daily Method 9 
visible emissions (VE) readings, as required by 40 CFR part 60, subpart 
UUU for monitoring the new thermal sand reclamation system being 
installed at the Thyssenkrupp Waupaca, Inc. (Waupaca) foundry (Plant I) 
in Wisconsin?
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the use of the BLD system at the 
new sand cooler for monitoring in lieu of a COM or daily VE readings to 
comply with subpart UUU rule. This approval is conditioned upon the BLD 
system being subject to the same installation, operation, maintenance, 
monitoring, recordkeeping, and notification provisions of 40 CFR part 
63 subpart EEEEE, rule applicable to Waupaca since it is an iron and 
steel foundry.

Abstract for [1400015]

    Q: Does EPA approve a request to use a bag leak detection (BLD) 
system in lieu of continuous opacity monitoring (COM) or daily Method 9 
visible emissions (VE) readings, as required by 40 CFR part 60 subpart 
UUU for monitoring the new thermal sand reclamation system being 
installed at the Thyssenkrupp Waupaca, Inc. (Waupaca) foundry (Plants 2 
and 3) in Wisconsin?
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves use of the BLD system at the new 
sand cooler for monitoring in lieu of a COM or daily VE readings. This 
approval is conditioned upon the the BLD system being subject to the 
same installation, operation, maintenance, monitoring, recordkeeping, 
and notification provisions of 40 CFR part 63 subpart EEEEE, rule 
applicable to Waupaca since it is an iron and steel foundry.

Abstract for [1400017]

    Q: Does the EPA approve a petition for approval of operating 
parameter limits (OPLs) in lieu of installing a wet scrubber, an 
initial performance test plan, and an initial relative accuracy test 
audit (RATA) protocol for a continuous emission monitoring system 
(CEMS) at a dual chamber, commercial incinerator which thermally 
destroys contraband for U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) at the 
Southwest Border Incineration (SWBI) facility located in McAllen, 
Texas, and is subject to regulation as an ``other solid waste 
incineration'' (OSWI) unit under 40 CFR part 60 subpart EEEE?
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the SWBI's petition for 
establishing specific OPLs to be monitored, initial performance test 
plan, and the CEMS RATA protocol based on the information submitted to 
EPA since the rule requirements at 40 CFR 60.2917(a) through (e) and 40 
CFR 60.2940(a) through (d) were met. Final approval of SWBI's petition 
will be based on the OPL range values and other conditions that are 
established from the results of the performance testing and the CEMS 
RATA.

Abstract for [1400018]

    Q1. Is Coater A, part of a coating line that manufactures pressure 
sensitive tape and labels at the 3M print station facility in 
Hutchinson, Minnesota, which applies hot melt coating with zero 
potential VOC emissions and commenced construction after December 30, 
1980, subject to 40 CFR part 60 subpart RR?
    A1. Yes. Coater A meets the applicability criteria of affected 
facility in both 40 CFR 60.440(a) and (c), and is therefore subject to 
40 CFR part 60 subpart RR. Since Coater A applies coatings with zero 
potential VOC emissions, it is not subject to the emission limits of 40 
CFR 60.442(a). However, it is subject to the requirements of all other 
applicable provisions of 40 CFR part 60 subpart RR.
    Q2. Is Coater B at 3M print station, which coats webs, including 
paper, film, and metal at two coating application stations, each 
followed by a drying oven, and a print station with a small oven for 
making product markings, and was installed in 1985 at the 3M facility 
in Rockland, Massachusetts, subject to 40 CFR part 60 subpart TT?
    A2. Yes. Coater B meets the definitions in 40 CFR part 60 subpart 
TT of two affected facilities, a prime coat operation and a finish coat 
operation, and is thus subject to the rule requirements.
    Q3. Is Coater B, a coating line which is used in the manufacture of 
pressure sensitive tape and label materials and was installed in 1985, 
also subject to 40 CFR part 60 subpart RR?
    A3. Yes. Coater B meets the criteria in 40 CFR 60.440 and is, 
therefore, a 40 CFR part 60 subpart RR affected source subject to the 
rule requirements.
    Q4. Is the 3M print station part of 40 CFR part 60 subpart TT or 
subpart RR affected facility?
    A4. The print station is an affected facility under both 40 CFR 
part 60 subpart TT and 40 CFR part 60 subpart RR. Under subpart TT, the 
print station is an affected facility, because it meets the definition 
of an application system applying an organic coating in 40 CFR 60.461. 
The print station is also an affected facility under 40 CFR part 60 
subpart RR, because it meets the definition of a precoat coating 
applicator in 40 CFR 60.441(a).
    Q5. How would the analysis and conclusions for 40 CFR part 60 
subpart RR change if the VOC input to the coating line had never 
exceeded 45 Mg VOC in any 12-month period?
    A5. EPA finds this question outside the scope of an applicability 
determination, because it is hypothetical and contrary to the stated 
facts. However, in general, a facility that does not input to the 
coating process more than 45 MG (50 tons) of VOC per 12-month period is 
not subject to the emission limits in 40 CFR part 60 subpart RR.
    Q6. When and how do the emissions limits of 40 CFR part 60 subpart 
TT and/or 40 CFR part 60 subpart RR apply?
    A6. EPA finds this question outside the scope of an applicability 
determination, because it does not address applicability. However, in 
general, an NSPS affected facility is subject to the requirements of a 
rule at all times while engaged in activity that causes it to meet the 
definition of an affected facility. So, a 40 CFR part 60 subpart TT 
affected facility is subject to the rule while engaged in the 
activities of a metal coil surface coating operation. Similarly, a 40 
CFR part 60 subpart RR affected facility is subject to the rule while 
engaged in the manufacture of pressure sensitive tape and labels. If a 
facility is subject to more than one NSPS, the facility must 
demonstrate compliance with each rule (i.e., keep records and calculate 
the emissions for activities in each applicable category).
    Q7. Is Coater C, a major source of HAP emissions that applies 
coatings to

[[Page 52328]]

several types of webs, including paper, film, and metal, and was 
installed in 1963 at the 3M facility in Hartford City, Indiana, subject 
to 40 CFR part 63 subpart SSSS?
    A7. Yes. Coater C is an existing affected source under 40 CFR part 
63 subpart SSSS, because it coats metal coil as defined in 40 CFR 
63.5110 and was constructed before July 18, 2000. It does not qualify 
for the exemption in 40 CFR 63.5090(b)(2) because more than 15 percent 
of the metal coil coated, based on surface area, is greater than 0.15 
millimeter (0.006 inch) thick.
    Q8. Is Coater C located at the 3M facility in Hartford City, 
Indiana, also subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ rule 
requirements?
    A8. No. Coater C is not subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJ 
requirements, as long as it meets the 40 CFR part 63 subpart SSSS rule 
requirements. In 40 CFR part 63 subpart SSSS, owners/operators of 
facilities are provided the option that, if they are subject to both 
subparts, they can choose to comply with the requirements of 40 CFR 
part 63 subpart SSSS, and have that constitute compliance with 40 CFR 
part 63 subpart JJJJ, rather than complying with the requirements of 
both rules.
    Q9. Is the 3M print station of Coater C an affected source under 
both 40 CFR part 63 subpart SSSS and 40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJ?
    A9. Yes. The print station of Coater C meets the applicability 
criteria of both 40 CFR part 63 subpart SSSS and 40 CFR part 63 subpart 
JJJJ. However, an owner/operator can choose to comply with the 
requirements of 40 CFR part 63 subpart SSSS and have that constitute 
compliance with 40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJ. The print station meets 
the applicability criteria of 40 CFR part 63 subpart SSSS, because the 
inks applied by the print station are included in the definition of a 
coating. This coating is applied by the print station which meets the 
definition of a work station that operates on a coil coating line. For 
40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJ, the inks applied at the print station of 
Coater C meet the definition of a coating material in 40 CFR 63.3310 
and are applied by the print station which meets the definition of a 
work station and operates on a web coating line.
    Q10. When and how do the emissions limits of 40 CFR part 63 subpart 
SSSS and/or 40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJ apply to 3M print station?
    A10. EPA finds this question outside the scope of an applicability 
determination, because it does not question applicability. However, in 
general, a 40 CFR part 63 subpart SSSS affected source is subject to 
the rule at all times while engaged in activity that causes the 
facility to meet the definition of an affected facility. If the owner/
operator does not choose to comply with 40 CFR part 63 subpart SSSS, or 
the affected facility is engaged in activities that do not meet the 
applicability criteria of 40 CFR part 63 subpart SSSS, then the 
affected facility could be subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJ. The 
affected facility would be subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJ only 
while engaging in activities that meet the definition of a 40 CFR part 
63 subpart JJJJ affected source.
    Q11. Is Coater D, located at the 3M facility in Hutchinson, 
Minnesota subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart KK? The facility is a major 
source of HAP emissions and it is in a collection of web coating lines 
that are an existing affected source under MACT subpart JJJJ. Also 
present at the facility is a collection of wide-web flexographic 
printing presses which are an existing affected source under MACT 
Subpart KK. A flexographic print station capable of printing onto webs 
that are greater than 18 inches wide was added to Coater D and more 
than 5 percent of all materials applied onto the web of Coater D in a 
month occur at the flexographic print station.
    A11. Yes. Coater D meets the definition of a wide-web flexographic 
press that is a Subpart KK affected source, unless it qualifies for the 
exclusion provided in 40 CFR 63.821(a)(2)(ii). Coater D does not 
qualify for the exclusion because more than 5 percent of the mass of 
all materials applied by Coater D is applied by the wide-web 
flexographic print station.
    Q12. Is Coater D a 40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJ affected source?
    A12. No. Coater D meets the MACT Subpart JJJJ definition of a web 
coating line in 40 CFR 63.3310; however, 40 CFR 63.3300(b) excludes any 
web coating line that is a ``wide-web flexographic press under Subpart 
KK.'' Since Coater D is included in a 40 CFR part 63 subpart KK 
affected source, it is not a 40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJ affected 
source.
    Q13. How does the analysis change if in a single month (or 
permanently) the total mass of materials applied by the print station 
of Coater D is no more than 5 percent of the total mass of materials 
applied?
    A13. EPA believes that 3M is asking if Coater D's status as a 40 
CFR part 63 subpart KK affected source changes if the mass of material 
applied by the print station in a month subsequently falls below 5 
percent of the total mass of materials applied by Coater D. Coater D 
remains a 40 CFR part 63 subpart KK affected source even if the mass of 
material applied by the print station in a month subsequently falls 
below 5 percent of the total mass of materials applied by Coater D. The 
word ``never'' in the exclusion at 40 CFR 63.821(a)(2)(ii)(A) means 
that once the total mass of materials applied in any month exceeds 5 
percent of the total mass of material applied in that month, the 
coating line continues to be a 40 CFR part 63 subpart KK affected 
source, even if percentage subsequently falls below 5 percent.
    Q14. When and how do the emissions standards of the applicable MACT 
rules apply to Coater D?
    A14. The EPA finds this question outside the scope of an 
applicability determination, because it does not question 
applicability. Also, EPA interprets the question as: (1) Do the 
emission standards apply to the entire coating line or just to the 
flexographic print station? and (2) If the standards apply to the 
entire line, do they continue to apply even when the flexographic print 
station is not operating? In general, the emission standards apply to 
the entire coating line, not just to the flexographic print station, 
because the print station is part of the flexographic press in 40 CFR 
63.822(a) which meets the definition of an affected source under 40 CFR 
part 63 subpart KK. The emissions standards apply while any part of the 
coating line is operating even if the flexographic print station is not 
operating.
    Q15. Does the analysis change if the total mass of materials 
applied by the print station of Coater D has never exceeded in a month 
5 percent of the total mass of materials applied by Coater D overall?
    A15. The EPA finds this question outside the scope of an 
applicability determination as it does not question applicability and 
is contrary to the stated facts. However, in general, Coater D, 
including the wide-web printing station, meets the definition of a web 
coating line in 40 CFR 63.3310 and is, therefore, a subpart JJJJ 
affected source. The section 40 CFR 63.3300(b) excludes any web coating 
line that is an affected source under 40 CFR part 63 subpart KK. 
However, an owner/operator could choose exclude Coater D from 40 CFR 
part 63 subpart KK if the sum of the total mass of materials applied by 
print stations in any month never exceeded 5 percent of the total mass 
of materials applied by Coater D in that same month. If the owner/
operator chooses to exclude Coater D from 40 CFR part 63 subpart KK, it 
would remain a 40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJ affected source. If

[[Page 52329]]

not excluded, it would be a subpart KK affected source.
    Q16. Would Coater D be a 40 CFR part 63 Subpart KK or 40 CFR part 
63 subpart JJJJ affected source if the print station were 
decommissioned or removed from the coating line?
    A16. The EPA finds this question outside the scope of an 
applicability determination. It is hypothetical and does not question 
applicability. To answer the question, we would need more information 
on which coating lines remain in operation. However, in general, upon 
decommissioning or removing the print station, Coater D would no longer 
meet the criteria for being a wide-web flexographic printing press and, 
therefore, would no longer be a subpart KK affected source. At that 
point, Coater D would be a subpart JJJJ affected source as it would no 
longer qualify for the exclusion in 40 CFR 63.3300(b).
    Q17. If an additional web coating line is constructed at the 
Springfield facility will it be subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJ?
    A17. The EPA finds this question outside the scope of an 
applicability determination, because it is hypothetical and does not 
have actual facts to address applicability. However, in general, 40 CFR 
part 63 subpart JJJJ, in 40 CFR 63.3300, defines an affected source as: 
``the collection of all web coating lines at your facility.'' 
Therefore, if a facility is subject to 40 CFR subpart JJJJ, all web 
coating lines, new or existing, at that facility would be subject to 
the requirements of the subpart.
    Q18. Are the components which are directly associated with Rack A 
at the 3M manufacturing facility in Hutchinson, Minnesota, while it is 
being used to unload solvent from Truck A into Tank A, part of an 
[organic liquid distribution] OLD and/or an miscellaneous coating 
manufacturing (MCM) affected source? Tank A at the facility is a bulk 
solvent storage tank where the solvent contains 5 percent weight or 
more of the organic HAP listed in Table 1 of 40 CFR 63 subpart EEEE. 
The solvent in Tank A is used exclusively to manufacture coatings and 
all coatings manufactured at the facility are used exclusively by the 
coating lines of the facility. Truck A is a tank truck that delivers 
the solvent to Tank A, and Rack A is a transfer rack that is used to 
unload the solvent from Truck A into Tank A.
    A18. Rack A is a 40 CFR part 63 subpart EEEE affected source when 
it is being used to unload Truck A because Truck A contains organic 
liquid (as defined in 40 CFR part 63 subpart EEEE). Therefore, the 
equipment leak components directly associated with Rack A are 40 CFR 
part 63 subpart EEEE affected sources when Rack A is being used to 
unload solvent from Truck A into Tank A. The section 40 CFR part 63 
subpart EEEE was written specifically to regulate the distribution of 
liquids containing 5 percent by weight or more of organic HAP and 
requires a commensurate level of control. By comparison, 40 CFR part 63 
subpart HHHHH was written to regulate liquids with a lower 
concentration of organic HAP. As a result, the emission limits for 40 
CFR part 63 subpart EEEE are more stringent than those in 40 CFR part 
63 subpart HHHHH. Because of this different level of stringency, the 
EPA believes that the facility is more properly subject to 40 CFR part 
63 subpart EEEE because the solvent distributed by the facility has 5 
percent weight or more of organic HAP, even though the liquid is used 
to manufacture coatings.
    Q19. Are any components directly associated with Truck A, while 
Truck A is unloading solvent into Tank A, part of an OLD and/or an MCM 
affected source?
    A19. Any equipment leak components directly associated with Truck A 
are part of an OLD affected source while Truck A is unloading solvent 
into Tank A. Because the equipment leak components directly associated 
with Truck A are part of an OLD affected source, they cannot be part of 
an MCM affected source.
    Q20. Is Rack A, while it is being used to unload solvent from Truck 
A into Tank A, part an OLD and/or an MCM affected source?
    A20. Rack A is part of an OLD affected source while it is being 
used to unload solvent from Truck A into Tank A. Because Rack A is part 
of an OLD affected source, it cannot be part of an MCM affected source.
    Q21. Is Truck A, while unloading solvent into Tank A, part of an 
OLD and/or an MCM affected source?
    A21. Truck A is part of an OLD affected source while unloading 
solvent into Tank A. Because Truck A is part of an OLD affected source, 
it cannot be part of an MCM affected source. Also, transport vehicles 
are not included in the MCM definition of affected sources.
    Q22. If either Truck A and/or Rack A are part of an MCM affected 
source, does the exclusion of affiliated operations at 40 CFR 
63.7985(d)(2) affect how the requirements of 40 CFR part 63 subpart 
HHHHH apply?
    A22. Neither Truck A nor Rack A are part of an MCM affected source 
while Rack A is being used to unload solvent from Truck A to Tank A.

Abstract for [1400020]

    Q: Does EPA allow an alternative remedy and corresponding schedule 
to address methane exceedances above 500 PPM for a landfill gas 
extraction well at the Settler's Hill Recycling and Disposal Facility 
(Settler's Hill)/Midway Landfill (Midway) facility located in Batavia, 
Illinois, subject to the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for 
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW?
    A: EPA approves the proposed alternative remedy to regrade and 
compact the clay patch in the area near landfill gas extraction well 
Midway EX-2, and to import and compact an additional foot of clean clay 
in that same area. EPA understands that the remedy was carried forth, 
surface emission monitoring was performed, and no methane exceedances 
were detected.

Abstract for [A140001]

    Q1: The Missouri Department of Natural Resources seeks EPA 
clarification on whether the 1991 Applicability Determination Index 
(ADI) document (ADI Number C112) represent EPA's current position on 
analysis of bulk for asbestos pursuant to the National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for asbestos?
    A1: Yes. The 1991 response for analysis of bulk under the asbestos 
NESHAP represents EPA's current position. A minimum of three slide 
mounts should be prepared and examined in their entirety by Polarized 
Light Microscopy (PLM) to determine if asbestos is present. If the 
amount by visual estimation appears to be less than 10 percent, the 
owner and/or operator ``may (1) elect to assume the amount to be 
greater than 1 percent and treat the material as regulated asbestos-
containing material or (2) require verification of the amount by point 
counting.'' If a result obtained by point count is different from a 
result obtained by visual estimation, the point count result will be 
used.
    Q2: Do the EPA interpretations contained in ADI Number C112 extend 
to non-friable materials that have been or will be rendered into 
Regulated Asbestos Containing Materials (RACM) by the forces acted on 
it?
    A2: Yes. EPA determined that the requirement for point counting 
extends to non-friable materials that have been or will be rendered 
into RACM.
    Q3: Would the EPA consider Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) 
analysis as being equally or more effective than Polarized Light

[[Page 52330]]

Microscopy (PLM) point counting and an acceptable substitute to PLM 
point counting?
    A3. Yes. In a Federal Register notice published on August 1, 1994, 
at 59 FR 38970, EPA announced that TEM analysis is more capable of 
producing accurate results than PLM, and thus serves as a preferred 
substitute to PLM point counting.

Abstract for [A140002]

    Q1: Are specific maintenance activities on high voltage electric 
transmission towers mentioned by URS Corporation facility in San 
Francisco, California, considered demolitions or renovations under the 
Asbestos NESHAP, 40 CFR part 61, subpart M?
    A1: Based on the provided descriptions, EPA finds that the 
maintenance activities URS listed in the request are renovations under 
40 CFR part 61, subpart M because the activities involve the 
replacement of lattice extensions and tower legs and not the permanent 
dismantling of the electrical transmission tower.
    Q2: For the described listed renovations, are notifications 
required for unpainted, galvanized steel?
    A2: No. Notifications are not required under the asbestos NESHAP if 
the owner and/or operator has thoroughly inspected the structure and, 
(1) determined that the work on the structure is a renovation operation 
and, (2) that the regulatory threshold amount of regulated asbestos-
containing material (RACM) will not be met.
    Q3: Would the 15 years of sampling and thousands of sampling 
results showing non-detection of RACM be sufficient to support no 
further sampling of towers for RACM?
    A3: No. EPA encourages representative sampling of various building 
materials that are part of a renovation or demolition operation, 
because such testing enables the owner and/or operator to identify and 
manage which building materials must be handled in accordance with the 
asbestos NESHAP. Relying solely on historical analysis and visual 
inspections may not provide the owner/operator with definitive 
knowledge, as to whether a specific tower was ever painted with 
asbestos-containing paint.

Abstract for [M110009]

    Q: Does 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXXXX apply to the metal 
processing operations at DePuy Orthopedics, Inc. in Raynham, MA 
(DePuy), which manufactures a broad range of orthopedic solutions, 
including hip and knee replacement components and operating room 
products?
    A: No. EPA has determined that DePuy is not subject to subpart 
XXXXXX because it is not primarily engaged in manufacturing products in 
one of the nine metal fabrication and finishing source categories 
listed in section 63.11514(a) and Table 1 of the regulation.

Abstract for [M110010]

    Q: Do the diesel engines operated at Massachusetts Water Resources 
Authority (MWRA) facilities in Cambridge, Massachusetts fit the 
definition of ``emergency engines'' under 40 CFR part 63 subpart ZZZZ?
    A: No. EPA has determined that the engines operated at MWRA's 
facilities do not meet the definition of emergency stationary for 
purposes of 40 CFR part 63 subpart ZZZZ, because these engines operate 
during typical large rainfall events and not only during emergencies or 
floods. However, the engines must meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 
63 subpart ZZZZ applicable to non-emergency engines.

Abstract for [M110011]

    Q: Are the precious metals melting operations at Morgan Mill Metals 
in Johnston, Rhode Island, subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart TTTTTT?
    A: No. EPA has determined that because Morgan Mill Metals only 
produces precious metal-bearing products and does not produce brass, 
bronze, or zinc ingots, bars, blocks or metal powders, it does not 
operate a secondary nonferrous metals processing facility as defined in 
subpart TTTTTT.

Abstract for [M110012]

    Q: The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NH DES) 
seeks clarification on whether a used wood-fired boiler installed at 
Pleasant View Gardens (PVG) in Loudon, New Hampshire, is an existing, 
new, or reconstructed source under 40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJJJ?
    A: EPA determines that PVG's wood-fired boiler is an existing 
affected source under 40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJJJ because the boiler 
was constructed prior to June 4, 2010, the effective date of the rule, 
and the removal and reinstallation of the boiler did not trigger 
reconstruction as defined at 40 CFR 63.2. This applicability 
determination is made in reliance on the accuracy of the information 
provided to EPA, and does not relieve PVG of the responsibility for 
complying fully with any and all applicable federal, state, and local 
laws, regulations, and permits.

Abstract for [M110013]

    Q: The Western North Carolina Regional Air Quality Agency (WNC 
RAQA) seeks EPA clarification on whether the alternative monitoring 
approach used by an area source in its electrolytic process demonstrate 
continuous compliance as required by 40 CFR 63.11508(d)(6)of 40 CPR 
part 63, subpart WWWWWW, Area Source Standards for Platting and 
Polishing Operations?
    A: EPA determines that the monitoring system is acceptable, 
assuming its operation is inspected and verified by NC RAQA, because 
the company uses a system that prevents plating from occurring when the 
tank covers are not in place. Specifically, the tank design and its 
interlock system ensure that the tank covers are in place at least 95 
percent of the electrolytic process operating time.

Abstract for [M110014]

    Q1: The West Tennessee Permit Program Division of Air Pollution 
Control Department of Environment and Conservation (APC DEC) seeks 
clarification from EPA on whether a facility engaged in open molding 
operations with mechanical resin and spray gel coat applications, 
demonstrating compliance under 40 CFR 63.5810(b) of subpart WWWW, 
NESHAP for Reinforced Plastics Composites Production, is required to 
demonstrate compliance at the end of a month in which no hazardous air 
pollutant (HAP) containing materials were applied since it was not 
operating due to lack of product orders?
    A1: Yes. The facility is required to demonstrate compliance at the 
end of a month in which no HAP containing materials were applied, since 
the calculation must be `` . . . based on the amounts of each 
individual resin or gel coat used for the last 12 months.''
    Q2: In the event that production does resume at the facility, will 
it be proper for the facility to include the months in which no HAP 
containing materials were applied as part of the 12-month period that 
ends in that month in which production has resumed, or should the 
facility use only the most recent 11 months in which HAP containing 
materials were applied plus the month in which production has resumed?
    A2: The facility is required to perform the calculation based on 
the last 12 months, regardless of whether HAP containing materials were 
applied during those months, whether or not production resumes.

[[Page 52331]]

Abstract for [M110016]

    Q: Are two electric boilers at the Elm River Lutheran Church in 
Galesburg, ND, which burn fuel oil as a backup fuel during power 
outages subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJJJ?
    A: No. The EPA believes that the intent of the rule is that 
electric boilers that only burn liquid fuel during a power outage would 
not be subject to the rule provided that the power outage is beyond the 
control of the boiler owner or operator.

Abstract for [M110017]

    Q: Does EPA approve a revision of the June 2, 2008 Alternative 
Monitoring Request (AMR) to waive metal, ash, and chlorine feed rate 
operating parameter limits for the Tooele Chemical Agent Disposal 
Facility (TOCDF) to allow the processing of 155-mm Projectile bursters?
    A: Yes. EPA approves revision of TOCDF's AMP request to process 
155-mm Projectile bursters in the deactivation furnace system and to 
limit and monitor the Projectile feed rate rather than 12 HRA feed rate 
for mercury, ash, semi- and low-volatile metals, and chlorine required 
by 40 CFR 63.1209(l), (m), (n), and (o), respectively.

Abstract for [M110018]

    Q1: Does EPA approve Huntsman demonstrating compliance with 40 CFR 
part 63 subpart VVVVVV's, NESHAP for Chemical Manufacturing Area 
Sources, management practices in 40 CFR 63.11495(a)(3) by inspecting 
the particulate matter (PM) collection system and baghouses in 
accordance with 40 CFR 63.11602(a)(2)(ii) of 40 CFR part 63 subpart 
CCCCCCC, NESHAP for Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing, at its 
Huntsman Advanced Materials facility in Los Angeles, California, which 
has several storage vessels subject to subpart VVVVVV and two storage 
vessels subject to subpart CCCCCCC?
    A1: No. EPA determines that the proposal to inspect the PM 
collection system and baghouses in lieu of inspecting the actual 
process vessel, cover, and equipment is not acceptable since these are 
not-overlapping rule requirements along the air emissions path. EPA 
believes that leaks can occur anywhere along the air emissions path 
from the mixing vessels to the stack. Therefore, process vessels, 
covers, and equipment subject to subpart VVVVVV must be inspected 
according to 40 CFR 63.11495(a)(3).
    Q2: Does EPA approve Huntsman's use of one of several proposed 
alternatives to comply with the ductwork inspection requirements at 40 
CFR 63.11495(a)(3) of subpart VVVVVV and 40 CFR 63.11602(a)(2)(ii) of 
subpart CCCCCCC?
    A2: Yes. EPA conditionally approves Huntsman use of Option 1(2) to 
meet the inspection requirements of the ductwork only, which state: 
``inspect flexible and stationary ductwork, according to 40 CFR 
63.11602(a)(2)(ii), as required, at the specified timeframes whether or 
not emissions are being actively controlled on every vessel that uses 
the common control device header.'' The condition for approval is that 
Huntsman must also record which process vessels were in operation 
during each inspection. Each mixing pot must be operational at least 
once a year during quarterly inspections and at least once a quarter 
during weekly inspections.
    Q3: Is the rigid cartridge filter Huntsman uses in its baghouses to 
control PM emissions excluded from the annual inspection requirements 
of 40 CFR 63.11602(a)(2)(ii)(B) since it does not meet the definition 
of ``fabric filter'' in 40 CFR 63.11607, and therefore may be excluded 
from the annual inspection requirement 40 CFR 63.11602(a)(2)(ii)(B) of 
subpart CCCCCCC?
    A3: Yes. EPA believes the rigid cartridge meets the definition of 
fabric filter in the rule. In addition, EPA believes that the Huntsman 
existing preventive maintenance program based on pressure differential 
established in Condition 5 of the South Coast Air Quality Management 
District ``Permit to Operate'' is an acceptable alternative to checking 
``the condition of the fabric filter.'' Huntsman is still required to 
conduct inspection of the rigid, stationary ductwork for leaks, and of 
the interior of the dry particulate control unit for structural 
integrity, according to 40 CFR 63.11602(a)(2)(ii)(B).

Abstract for [M120009]

    Q: Does EPA approve a change in test methods, from Method 5 to 
Methods 201 A and 202, for determining compliance with the particulate 
emissions standards in 40 CFR 63.1343(b)(1) of NESHAP Subpart LLL for 
Portland Cement Plants at the Cemex Construction Materials South 
(Cemex) Portland cement plant located in New Braunfels, Texas?
    A: No. EPA does not approve the Cemex request for a change in test 
methods for determining compliance with the particulate emissions 
standards in 40 CFR part 63 subpart LLL. Cemex retroactively requested 
that EPA Region 6 approve a change in test methods, from Method 5 to 
Methods 201A and 202 after the tests were conducted in January 2011. 
The use of alternate test methods must be approved in writing in 
advance of testing. Additionally, EPA Headquarters Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), who has the delegation to 
approve these types of changes in test methods, stated that it would 
not have approved this change in the test method because the alternate 
method was not acceptable for compliance demonstration under 40 CFR 
part 63 subpart LLL.

Abstract for [M120013]

    Q: Does EPA approve a waiver to monitor only the liquid flow rate 
(and not pH) through five water absorbers used to control emissions 
from tank truck loading and storage tanks subject to 40 CFR part 63 
subpart NNNNN, at the Dow Chemical Company's (Dow) production facility 
in Plaquemine, Louisiana?
    A: No. EPA believes that more than one parameter should be 
monitored to provide a more complete determination of control 
performance. Monitoring liquid flow alone is insufficient to determine 
control effectiveness. Even in once-through absorbers, measurement of 
effluent pH ensures that the effluent has not reached the acid 
saturation concentration limit and is capable of absorbing additional 
acid vapor. Although 40 CFR part 63 subpart MMM allows either liquid 
flow rate or pressure drop to be chosen as monitored operating 
parameters, EPA stated in the response to comments for promulgation of 
40 CFR part 63 subpart NNNNN in March 2006 that what applies in 40 CFR 
part 63 subpart MMM may not be appropriate for facilities subject to 40 
CFR part 63 subpart NNNNN.

Abstract for [M120026]

    Q: Does EPA approve of comparative temperature monitoring as a type 
of calibration verification that meets 40 CFR 63.3350(e)(9) of subpart 
JJJJ, Paper and Other Web Coating NESHAP, at the 3M's Medina, Ohio 
facility? If not, can this comparative monitoring technique be allowed 
as an alternative monitoring parameter to the calibration verification 
requirements?
    A: No. EPA finds that that this comparative monitoring is not the 
same as a calibration verification as specified by 40 CFR part 63 
subpart JJJJ. However, EPA can approve it as an alternative monitoring 
parameter to the calibration verification requirements in 40 CFR 
63.3350(e)(9).

[[Page 52332]]

Abstract for [M120034]

    Q. Will the overhaul of a 4400 horsepower Reciprocating Internal 
Combustion Engine (RICE) by Fairbanks Morse Engine (FME) facility in 
Beloit, Wisconsin, trigger reconstruction or modification under 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart IIII and JJJJ?
    A. No. FME overhaul costs of the engine are less than 50 percent of 
the cost of a comparable new facility, and modification will not be 
triggered because emissions will not be increased. After the engine is 
overhauled, the engine might be subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ 
depending on how much diesel fuel is used in a calendar year.

Abstract for [M120035]

    Q: Is Vesatas' facility in Pueblo, CO subject to the NESHAP Area 
Source Standards for Nine Metal Fabrication and Finishing Source 
Categories, 40 CFR part 63 subpart XXXXXX, and is Vestas subject to the 
notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the 
regulation?
    A. No. EPA finds that Vesatas' facility is not subject to 40 CFR 
part 63 subpart XXXXXX because it is not a major source of hazardous 
air pollutants (HAP), and the rule applies to area sources as specified 
at 40 CFR 63.11514. Because Vestas is not subject to 40 CFR part 63 
subpart XXXXXX, Vestas would not be subject to the notification, 
record-keeping, and reporting requirements of the regulation.

Abstract for [M130003]

    Q. Does EPA approve the petition to waive the initial performance 
testing for four identical reciprocating internal combustion engines 
(RICE) at the Saint-Gobian Containers, Inc., Burlington, Wisconsin 
plant?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the petition to waive the initial performance 
testing provided that the company can show the units are similar, burn 
the same fuel, and otherwise meet the criteria contained in EPA's stack 
testing guidance dated September 30, 2005.

Abstract for [M140001]

    Q: Does EPA approve a request to establish a minimum combustion air 
pressure of 20 inches of water column on an instantaneous basis based 
upon operating experience as the liquid waste firing system (WFS) 
operating parameter limit (OPL) at the Lubrizol Corporation's 
Painesville facility in Ohio?
    A: Yes. EPA approves Lubrizol's request to establish a minimum 
combustion air pressure of 20 inches of water on an instantaneous basis 
at all times while feeding liquid waste for its WFS OPL. EPA determined 
that the proposed waste firing system OPL ensures that the same or 
greater surface area of the waste is exposed to combustion conditions 
(e.g., temperature and oxygen) during normal operating conditions, as 
the incinerator demonstrated during the 2003 destruction and removal 
efficiency test.

Abstract for [M140002]

    Q1. Is the MSW Power gasification unit located at the MSW Power 
Corporation's (MSW Power's) Green Energy Machine located at the 
Plymouth County Correctional Facility in Plymouth, Massachusetts 
subject to 40 part 60 subpart EEEE?
    A1. No. EPA has determined that because of the energy recovery 
exemption in the definition of institutional waste, MSW Power 
gasification unit is not subject to 40 part 60 subpart EEEE while it is 
processing waste generated by the Plymouth County Correctional Facility 
and located on their grounds.
    Q2. Is the MSW Power boiler which combusts only syngas generated by 
the gasifier subject to 40 part 63 subpart JJJJJJ?
    A2. No. EPA has determined that because the MSW Power boiler burns 
only syngas, a gaseous fuel, the boiler is a gas-fired boiler as 
defined in the rule and therefore it is not subject to 40 part 63 
subpart JJJJJJ.

Abstract for [M140003]

    Q1. Is the Jacobs Vehicle Systems facility located in Bloomfield, 
Connecticut (Jacobs Vehicle), subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart T if it 
does not use and it has no present intention of using any of the listed 
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) solvents in its degreaser in the future?
    A1. No. EPA determines that because Jacobs Vehicle has certified 
that it no longer uses any of the listed HAP solvents due to switching 
degreasers and based on its commitment that it will continue in that 
mode for the foreseeable future, Jacobs Vehicle's degreasers and Jacobs 
Vehicle's facility are no longer subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart T.
    Q2. May Jacobs Vehicle take potential to emit restrictions to below 
major HAP source levels and no longer be subject to 40 CFR part 63 
subpart PPPPP?
    A2. Yes. EPA determines that Jacobs Vehicle may now limit its 
potential to emit to below major HAP source levels and no longer be 
subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart PPPPP. Jacobs Vehicle test cells are 
an existing affected source subject to subpart PPPPP, because these 
were constructed before May 14, 2002, and not reconstructed after May 
14, 2002, but do not have to meet an emission limitation or other 
substantive rule requirements. Since subpart PPPPP does not set a 
substantive compliance date for Jacobs Vehicle to comply with an 
emission limit or other substantive rule requirement for its Jacobs 
Vehicle test cells, the EPA's general policy referred to as ``once in, 
always in'' policy would not apply. EPA's ``once in, always in'' policy 
is that sources that are major on the first substantive compliance date 
of a NESHAP (and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the NESHAP 
that apply to major sources) remain major sources for purposes of that 
NESHAP from that point forward, regardless of the level of their 
potential HAP emissions after that date.
    Q3. If Jacobs Vehicle takes facility wide potential to emit 
restrictions to below major HAP source levels, would its existing 
compression ignition engine become subject to the area source 
provisions of 40 CFR part 63 subpart ZZZZ?
    A3. Yes. EPA's ``once in, always in'' policy would allow Jacobs 
Vehicle to take restrictions on its facility-wide potential to emit to 
below major HAP source levels and become an area source of HAP for 
purposes of 40 CFR part 63 subpart ZZZZ applicability before the first 
compliance date of May 3, 2013. If Jacobs Vehicle were to do so before 
May 3, 2013, its compression ignition engine would then be subject to 
the requirements for engines located at an area source of HAP.
    Q4. If Jacobs Vehicle takes facility wide potential to emit 
restrictions to below major HAP source levels, would its existing 
boilers no longer be subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart DDDDD? Would the 
existing boilers then become subject to the area source provisions of 
40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJJJ?
    A4. Yes. EPA's ``once in, always in'' policy would allow Jacobs 
Vehicle to take restrictions on its facility-wide potential to emit to 
below major HAP source levels to become an area source of HAP and no 
longer be subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart DDDDD before the first 
compliance date of 40 CFR part 63 subpart DDDDD. Because Jacobs 
Vehicle's boilers meet the definition of gas-fired boilers, provided 
they continue to do so, the boilers would not be subject to 40 CFR part 
63 subpart JJJJJJ if Jacobs Vehicle became an area source of HAP.

Abstract for [M140004]

    Q: Does EPA approve ExxonMobil's alternative monitoring plan (AMP) 
request for calculating the sulfur

[[Page 52333]]

dioxide emissions from two refinery Fluid Catalytic Cracking Units 
during Wet Gas Scrubber emission control device malfunctions or down 
time, in accordance with 40 CFR part 63 subpart UUU, at ExxonMobil's 
Baton Rouge, Louisiana refinery?
    A: No. EPA does not approve ExxonMobil's AMP request. EPA 
determined that the request was not a rule-based proposal related to 
ExxonMobil's inability to meet existing 40 CFR part 63 subpart UUU 
provisions, but rather, a proposed alternative method to meet Consent 
Decree requirements that are separate from compliance with the rule.

Abstract for [M140005]

    Q: Does EPA approve ExxonMobil's Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) 
for calculating the flue gas flow rate on two refinery Fluid Catalytic 
Cracking Units (FCCU), in lieu of direct measurement, to demonstrate 
initial and continuous compliance with the metal emission standard of 
40 CFR 63.1564(a)(1)(iv), described as Option 4 in 40 CFR part 63 
subpart UUU, and in accordance with Tables 1, 2, 6 and 7 of the final 
rule for Option 4, at ExxonMobil's Baton Rouge, Louisiana refinery?
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves ExxonMobil's AMP request, as 
described in the EPA response letter. The maximum acceptable difference 
in stack-test measured and calculated total flue gas flow rate values 
shall be within  7.5 percent. Evaluation and adjustment of 
affected process monitors must be completed within three months of a 
stack testing event that resulted in a difference value greater than 
 7.5 percent. If any three consecutive stack testing events 
result in the need for corrective action adjustments, ExxonMobil must 
conduct a new stack test within ninety days of the third corrective 
action implementation in order to verify that the gas flow rate 
correlation and calculation method are still valid. ExxonMobil should 
ensure that this approval is referenced and attached to the facility's 
new source review and Title V permits for federal enforceability and is 
included in the refinery's Consent Decree.

Abstract for [Z120003]

    Q: Are sour water streams managed upstream of a refinery sour water 
stripper at the Flint Hills Resources Corpus Christi East Refinery in 
Tulsa, Oklahoma subject to the Benzene Waste Operations 40 CFR part 61 
subpart FF?
    A: Yes. EPA has determined that the facility must comply with the 
requirements of 40 CFR part 61 subpart FF for sour water streams 
managed upstream of a sour water stripper based on the characteristics 
of the waste streams at the point that the waste water exits the sour 
water stripper. At facilities with total benzene equal to or greater 
than 10 megagram per year, all benzene-contaminated wastes are subject 
to the control requirements of 40 CFR part 61 subpart FF, not just the 
end waste streams counted toward the total annual benzene amount. EPA's 
response is based on the 1993 rule amendments which were issued after 
the March 21, 1991 letter from EPA to the American Petroleum Institute 
that Flint Hills' mentioned in the request.

Abstract for [Z130002]

    Q1: Does the Area Source Boiler Rule, NESHAP subpart JJJJJJ exempt 
steam boilers that service mixed residential and commercial facilities 
from regulation?
    A1: Yes. EPA clarifies to the National Oilheat Research Alliance 
that if a boiler meets the definition in 40 CFR 63.11237 of a 
residential boiler, it is not subject to the requirements of the Area 
Source Boiler Rule. In that definition, the boiler must be ``primarily 
used to provide heat and/or hot water for: (1) A dwelling containing 
four or fewer families, or (2) A single unit residence dwelling that 
has since been converted or subdivided into condominiums or 
apartments.'' EPA intends ``primarily'' to be interpreted as its common 
meaning. Therefore, a mixed-use facility must have a majority of the 
heat and/or hot water produced by the boiler allocated to the 
residential unit or units. One way a facility could demonstrate primary 
use is by showing that a majority of the facility's square footage is 
residential, but EPA recognizes that there may be other ways for a 
facility to demonstrate primary use.
    Q2: Does the Area Source Boiler Rule define mixed residential and 
commercial buildings as strictly commercial or residential in use?
    A2: No. EPA recognizes that some buildings may be used for a 
variety of uses. The nature of the building is only relevant in terms 
of determining whether a boiler is primarily used to service the 
commercial or residential facilities located within the building.

Abstract for [Z130003]

    Q: Does EPA approve of the use of closed/covered chromium 
electroplating and anodizing tanks at the Southern Graphics Systems, 
Inc, Waukesha, Wisconsin facility in order to satisfy the requirement 
of a ``physical barrier'' per the ``housekeeping practice'' provisions 
in 40 CFR part 63 subpart N?
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the use of closed/covered 
chromium electroplating and anodizing tanks in order to satisfy the 
physical barrier requirement of 40 CFR part 63 subpart N. This approval 
is conditioned upon these tanks being closed/covered at all times 
buffing, grinding and polishing operations take place; and, the surface 
area of the tanks is a hundred percent covered, with no visible gaps on 
the top or side of the tank, except for ventilation inlets routed to a 
control device under negative pressure.

Abstract for [Z140001]

    Q: Does EPA approve Colonial Pipeline Company's alternative 
monitoring request for use of top-side in-service inspections to meet 
the out-of-service inspection requirements for specific types of 
internal floating roof tanks with uniform and specific roof, deck, and 
seal configurations at several facilities, subject to several gasoline 
distribution (GD)-related regulations (40 CFR part 63, subpart R (GD 
MACT) and 40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBB (GD GACT) and/or 40 CFR part 
60, subpart Kb, NSPS for Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Vessels)?
    A: Yes. EPA approves Colonial's top-side in-service internal 
inspection methodology for the IFR tanks specified in the AMP request, 
which have uniform and specific roof, deck, and seal configurations, to 
meet the NSPS Kb internal out-of-service inspection required at 
intervals no greater than 10 years by the applicable regulations. EPA 
has determined that for the specified IFR storage tanks (tanks that are 
full contact, aluminum honeycomb panel constructed decks with 
mechanical shoe primary and secondary seals in tanks with geodesic dome 
roofs equipped with skylights), Colonial will be able to have visual 
access to all of the requisite components (i.e., the primary and 
secondary mechanical seals, gaskets, and slotted membranes) through the 
top side of the IFR storage tanks, as well as properly inspect and 
repair the requisite components while these tanks are still in service, 
consistent with the inspection and repair requirements established 
under NSPS Subpart Kb. In addition, Colonial's top-side in-service 
internal inspection methodology includes more stringent requirements 
than would otherwise be applicable to the IFR storage tanks specified 
in the AMP request. Colonial has agreed to (1) identifying and 
addressing any gaps of more than 1/8 inch between any deck fitting 
gasket, seal, or wiper and any surface that it is intended to seal; 
comply with the fitting and deck seal requirements and the repair time 
frame

[[Page 52334]]

requirement in NSPS Subpart Kb for all tanks, including GACT tanks; and 
implement a full top-side and bottom-side out-of-service inspection of 
the tank each time an IFR storage tank is emptied and degassed for any 
reason.

Abstract for [Z140002]

    Q: Are solvent transfer racks and transport equipment, which are 
dedicated for the use of unloading hexane from transport vehicles to a 
vegetable oil production plant, located at the PICO Northstar Hallock 
facility (PICO Hallock) in Minnesota, subject to part 63, subpart GGGG, 
Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production NESHAP or to subpart 
EEEE, Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants?
    A: EPA agrees that the PICO Hallock solvent transfer racks and 
equipment are subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart GGGG and are not 
subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart EEEE, because they would fall under 
the definition of ``Vegetable oil production process'' in the rule. 
Although solvent transfer racks and equipment which are dedicated for 
the use of unloading hexane from transport vehicles to a vegetable oil 
production facility are not explicitly mentioned in the definition of 
vegetable oil production process in 40 CFR part 63 subpart GGGG, they 
should be considered part of the ``equipment comprising a continuous 
process for producing crude vegetable oil and meal products'' when they 
are used solely to support the vegetable oil production process. EPA 
believes that the information provided by PICO Hallock confirms that 
the solvent transfer racks at the facility are exclusively used for 
this limited purpose.

Abstract for [Z140003]

    Q: Does EPA approve United Services Automobile Association's (USAA) 
petition for additional testing hours under 40 CFR 60.4211(f), for 
additional maintenance checks and readiness testing hours of six 
emergency generator internal combustion engines at USAA's San Antonio, 
Texas headquarters facility?
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves USAA's request. USAA 
demonstrated that extensive testing and maintenance of the emergency 
generators is required to ensure electrical continuity and reliability 
for maintaining critical operations in a continuous standby mode for 
immediate emergency use. EPA granted conditional approval of additional 
testing and maintenance hours on the six engines, provided that the 
facility maintains documentation to show that the additional hours are 
not used for meeting peak electrical demand.

Abstract for [XXXX]

    Q: Does EPA approve an extension of the initial performance test 
deadline for a new biomass-fired cogeneration boiler (boiler) due to a 
force majeure event at the Nippon Paper Industries USA Corporation, 
Ltd. (NPIUSA) facility in Port Angeles, Washington?
    A: Yes. EPA determines that a force majeure event, as defined in 40 
CFR part 60, subpart A and 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, has occurred and 
that an extension of the performance test deadline under the applicable 
federal standards is appropriate. The inability to meet the performance 
test deadline was caused by circumstances beyond the control of NPIUSA, 
its contractors, or any entity controlled by NPIUSA and therefore 
constitutes a force majeure as defined in 40 CFR 60.2 and 63.2. The 
letters and supporting documentation submitted by NPIUSA provided 
timely notice, described the claimed force majeure event and why the 
event prevents NPIUSA from meeting the deadline for conducting the 
performance testing, what measures are being taken to minimize the 
delay, and NPIUSA's proposed date for conducting the testing. The EPA 
therefore believes it is appropriate to extend the performance test 
deadline.

    Dated: August 22, 2014.
Lisa Lund,
Director, Office of Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2014-20895 Filed 9-2-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P