[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 160 (Wednesday, August 19, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50278-50287]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20514]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL 9932-75-OECA]

Applicability Determination Index (ADI) Database System Recent
Posting: Applicability Determinations, Alternative Monitoring
Decisions, and Regulatory Interpretations Pertaining to Standards of
Performance for New Stationary Sources, National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants, and the Stratospheric Ozone Protection
Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: An electronic copy of each complete
document posted on the Applicability Determination Index (ADI) database
system is available on the Internet through the Resources and Guidance
Documents for Compliance Assistance page of the Clean Air Act
Compliance Monitoring Web site under ``Air'' at: http://www2.epa.gov/compliance/resources-and-guidance-documents-compliance-assistance. 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<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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 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/or Generally Available Control
Technology (GACT) standards] and Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) contain no specific regulatory provision providing that sources
may request applicability determinations, 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 ADI on a
quarterly basis. In addition, the ADI contains EPA-issued responses to
requests pursuant to the stratospheric ozone regulations, contained in
40 CFR part 82. The ADI is an electronic index on the Internet with
over one thousand EPA letters and memoranda pertaining to the
applicability, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of
the NSPS, 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 42 such documents added to
the ADI on August 10, 2015. This notice lists the subject and header of
each letter and memorandum, as well as a brief abstract of the letter
or memorandum. Complete copies of these documents may be obtained from
the ADI on the Internet through the Resources and Guidance Documents
for Compliance Assistance page of the Clean Air Act Compliance
Monitoring Web site under ``Air'' at: http://www2.epa.gov/compliance/resources-and-guidance-documents-compliance-assistance.

Summary of Headers and Abstracts

    The following table identifies the database control number for each
document posted on the ADI database system on August 10, 2015; the
applicable category; the section(s) and/or subpart(s) of 40 CFR part
60, 61, or 63 (as applicable) addressed in the document; and the title
of the document, which provides a brief description of the subject
matter.
    We have also included an abstract of each document identified with
its control number after the table. These abstracts are provided solely
to alert the public to possible items of interest and are not intended
as substitutes for the full text of the documents. This notice does not
change the status of any document with respect to whether it is ``of
nationwide scope or effect'' for purposes of CAA Sec. 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 10, 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Control No.                   Categories              Subparts                     Title
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1400039...........................  NSPS.................  JJJJ.................  Performance Test Waiver for
                                                                                Reciprocating Internal
                                                                                Combustion Engines.
1500001...........................  NSPS.................  JJJJ.................  Test Waiver for Stationary
                                                                                Spark Internal Combustion
                                                                                Engines.
1500004...........................  NSPS.................  WWW..................  Request for Alternative
                                                                                Compliance Timeline for
                                                                                Landfill Gas Extraction Well.
1500005...........................  NSPS.................  WWW..................  Request for Alternative
                                                                                Compliance Timeline for
                                                                                Landfill Gas Extraction.
1500006...........................  NSPS.................  Ja...................  Alternative Monitoring Plan
                                                                                Request for Flare at Refinery
                                                                                and Sulfur Plant.
1500008...........................  NSPS.................  CCCC, EEEE...........  Conditional Exemption for
                                                                                CISWI and OSWI.
1500009...........................  NSPS.................  CCCC.................  Petition to Establish Proposed
                                                                                Operating Limits for an
                                                                                Incinerator.
1500010...........................  NSPS.................  A, Y.................  Request for PM Performance
                                                                                Testing Extension under Force
                                                                                Majeure.
1500011...........................  NSPS.................  EEEE.................  Rural Institutional Waste
                                                                                Incinerator Exemption.
1500012...........................  NSPS.................  EEEE.................  Rural Incinerator Exemption
                                                                                Administrative Correction.
1500013...........................  NSPS.................  EEEE.................  Rural Institutional Waste
                                                                                Incinerator Exemption Denial.
1500015...........................  NSPS.................  EEEE.................  Rural Institutional Waste
                                                                                Incinerator Exemption.
1500016...........................  NSPS.................  EEEE.................  Rural Institutional Waste
                                                                                Incinerator Exemption.
1500017...........................  NSPS.................  JJJJ.................  Test Notice Waiver.
1500018...........................  NSPS.................  JJJJ.................  Test Notice Waiver.
1500019...........................  NSPS.................  EEEE.................  Rural Institutional Waste
                                                                                Incinerator Exemption.
1500020...........................  NSPS.................  Db...................  Request for Alternative to COM
                                                                                Monitoring for Wet Scrubber
                                                                                and ESP.
1500040...........................  NSPS.................  LL...................  Applicability Determination
                                                                                for Operations Depositing
                                                                                Ponded Fine Tailings Material
                                                                                as a By-Product from
                                                                                Historical Ore Mining and
                                                                                Processing Operations.
1500041...........................  NSPS.................  A, LLLL..............  Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                Location for Wet
                                                                                Electrostatic Precipitator
                                                                                Effluent.
1500042...........................  NSPS.................  A, Da, Z.............  Alternative Compliance
                                                                                Monitoring Plan for Opacity
                                                                                and Carbon Monoxide
                                                                                Monitoring from an electric
                                                                                submerged arc furnace.
1500043...........................  NSPS.................  Db...................  Alternative Testing,
                                                                                Monitoring, Recordkeeping and
                                                                                Reporting at Vessel Boilers.
1500044...........................  NSPS.................  Dc...................  Request for Alternative
                                                                                Recordkeeping and Reporting
                                                                                for Boilers.
1500045...........................  NSPS.................  Dc...................  Request for Alternative
                                                                                Recordkeeping and Reporting
                                                                                for Boilers.
1500047...........................  NSPS.................  TT...................  Applicability Determination
                                                                                for a Tubing Operation for
                                                                                Coating Metal Wire.
1500048...........................  NSPS.................  OOOO.................  Applicability Determination
                                                                                for Pipeline Stations Storage
                                                                                Vessels.
M140017...........................  MACT, Part 63 NESHAP.  DDDDD................  Request for Compliance
                                                                                Extension for Boiler MACT.
M140018...........................  MACT, Part 63 NESHAP.  JJJJJJ...............  Test Waiver Denial for Coal-
                                                                                Fired Boilers.
M150001...........................  MACT, Part 63 NESHAP.  ZZZZ.................  Alternative Monitoring Request
                                                                                for Non-Resettable Hour Meter
                                                                                for Stationary Emergency
                                                                                Engines.
M150002...........................  MACT, Part 63 NESHAP.  A, JJJJJJ............  Compliance Extension for Area
                                                                                Source Coal Fired Boilers.
M150003...........................  MACT, Part 63 NESHAP.  A, ZZZZ..............  Compliance Extension for Area
                                                                                Source Reciprocating Internal
                                                                                Combustion Engines.
M150004...........................  MACT, Part 63 NESHAP.  A, ZZZZ..............  Compliance Extension for
                                                                                Reciprocating Internal
                                                                                Combustion Engine.
M150005...........................  MACT, Part 63 NESHAP.  A, ZZZZ..............  Compliance Extension for Power
                                                                                Plant Reciprocating Internal
                                                                                Combustion Engines.
M150006...........................  MACT, Part 63 NESHAP.  A, ZZZZ..............  Prior Test Data Use for
                                                                                Initial Compliance
                                                                                Demonstration.
M150007...........................  MACT, Part 63 NESHAP.  ZZZZ.................  Applicability Determination
                                                                                for Reciprocating Internal
                                                                                Combustion Engines.
M150008...........................  MACT, Part 63 NESHAP.  ZZZZ.................  Peak Shaving Engine
                                                                                Redesignation to Black Start
                                                                                Engine.
M150009...........................  MACT, Part 63 NESHAP.  A, JJJJJJ............  Area Source Boiler PM Test
                                                                                Waiver Request.
M150018...........................  MACT, Part 63 NESHAP.  DDDDD, JJJJ, MMMMM,    Part 63 Rules and Title V
                                                            ZZZZ.                  Operating Permit
                                                                                Applicability for Lamination
                                                                                Facility.
M150019...........................  MACT, Part 63 NESHAP.  O....................  Request for Clarification of
                                                                                Annual Performance Test
                                                                                Requirement.
M150020...........................  MACT, Part 63 NESHAP.  UUUUU................  Applicability Determination
                                                                                for Limited-Use Liquid Oil-
                                                                                Fired Electric Generating
                                                                                Units.
M150021...........................  MACT, Part 63 NESHAP.  LLL..................  Applicability Determination
                                                                                for Cement Finish Mill.

Z150001...........................  Part 63 NESHAP.......  JJJJJJ...............  Performance Test Extension and
                                                                                Amendment to Force Majeure.
1500042...........................  NSPS, Part 63 NESHAP.  Y, DDDD, LLL.........  Applicability Determination
                                                                                under section 111, section
                                                                                112, and section 129 for
                                                                                Cement Plants.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abstracts

Abstract for [1400039]

    Q: Will EPA provide Matanuska Electric Association (MEA) a waiver
pursuant to 40 CFR 60.8(b)(4), from the initial performance testing
requirement under NSPS Subpart JJJJ for nine of the ten Wartsila
18V50DF dual-fired, lean-burn, 17.1 megawatt (23,250 HP), non-
emergency, reciprocating internal combustion engines (RICE) to be
installed at the Eklutna Generation Station in Eklutna, Alaska?
    A: No. EPA finds that MEA has not provided an adequate
demonstration that the engines in question will meet the applicable
standards, and therefore the EPA is denying MEA's request for a waiver
from the initial performance testing for its Wartsila 18V50DF engines.
Although the manufacturer's data provided indicates that we can expect
that the Wartsila 18V50DF engines may be able to meet the applicable
emissions limits in NSPS Subpart JJJJ (if properly installed and
operated) conducting a performance test is necessary to provide
adequate assurance that an engine is properly installed and operating.
MEA may re-submit a request for a waiver of performance tests at its
facility once it has information that is sufficient to demonstrate that
one or more of the engines, after reaching their maximum production
rate, are in compliance with the standard.

Abstract for [1500001]

    Q: Will EPA approve a waiver from performance testing requirements
according to 40 CFR 60.8(b)(4) for six of seven Waukesha units
identified as identical and operated as compressor engines at
ConocoPhillips Alaska Incorporated's (CPAI) Beluga River Unit (BRU)?
    A: Based on the information provided by CPAI, EPA approves the
performance test waiver for the CO and VOC standards, but not for the
NOX standards for the next performance testing that is due
for six of the seven Waukesha engines. EPA approves the CO and VOC
performance testing waiver because CPAI has demonstrated that the
engines are identical, they are in the same location, they will be
operated and maintained in a similar manner on an ongoing basis, and
the expected emissions from the engines are in compliance with
applicable limits by a substantial margin. EPA denies the
NOX performance test waiver because the margin of compliance
for NOX emissions was not sufficient to conclude that
untested units would be in compliance with the NOX standards
of subpart JJJJ, given the high variability in NOX
emissions.

Abstract for [1500004]

    Q: Does EPA approve Roxana Landfill's request for an alternative
timeline of additional sixty (60) days, or until January 25, 2015, to
bring Well 191 located in Edwardsville, Illinois, into compliance with
40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(ii)(A)(3) under NSPS subpart WWW?
    A: Yes. Based on the information provided by Roxana, EPA approves,
pursuant to 40 CFR 60.755(a)(3), the proposed alternative timeline to
complete installation of a new vacuum lateral on Well 191 by January
25, 2015 to bring the well into compliance with pressure requirements.
Roxana site personnel must review investigative and monitoring data and
closely monitor any field conditions that would result in a violation
of 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW.

Abstract for [1500005]

    Q: Does EPA approve the alternative compliance timeline to complete
a dewatering project for landfill gas extraction Well S163R2 at the
Waste Management of Illinois, Incorporated. (WMIL) Settler's Hill
Recycling and Disposal Facility/Midway facility in Batavia, Illinois
under 40 CFR subpart WWW?
    A: Yes. Based on the information provided by WMIL, EPA approves
WMIL's proposed alternative compliance timeline to complete a
dewatering project on Well S163R2 by June 24, 2014. We understand that
WMIL has made efforts to meet the regulatory deadline but was unable to
meet it due to the nature of the work involved. Factors including a
well depth of 144 feet deep and its location at the center of the
landfill. Lack of infrastructure near the well to facilitate
dewatering, no electricity near the well, and no means to convey liquid
into the facility's condensate/leachate system contributed to the
project's delay.

Abstract for [1500006]

    Q. Does EPA approve the Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) request
to the sulfur monitoring requirements under 40 CFR 60.107a(e) of NSPS,
subpart Ja, for the flare at the Phillips 66 Billings Refinery and
Jupiter Sulfur Plant (Jupiter Sulfur) located in Billings, Montana?
    A. Yes. Based on the information provided, EPA conditionally
approves Jupiter Sulfur's AMP request for meeting the flare sulfur
monitoring requirements. EPA finds the AMP acceptable since flaring
does not occur more than four times in any 365-day period and it
contains provisions for the monitoring of the rupture discs that are
similar to, or the same as, provisions found in Sec.  60.107a(g)(1)-(6)
for monitoring the water seal at emergency flares. In addition, Jupiter
Sulfur will install a flow meter meeting the requirements of Sec.
60.107a(i) on the flare. The conditions for AMP approval addressing
monitoring, corrective actions and recordkeeping requirements are
specified in the EPA determination letter.

Abstract for [1500008]

    Q: Does an incinerator that burns pathological waste at the Kenai
Veterinary Hospital in Kenai, Alaska meet the exclusion for
pathological waste incineration units in NSPS for Other Solid Waste
Incineration Units (OSWI), 40 CFR subpart EEEE, and for Commercial
Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units (CISWI), subpart CCCC?
    A: Yes. The unit is exempt because it burns 90 percent or more by
weight pathological, low-level radioactive, and/or chemotherapeutic
waste as defined in 40 CFR 60.2977. EPA will consider the letter
submitted by the hospital to constitute the notice that the unit meets
the exclusion. Consistent with the regulations, records of materials
burned must be kept to demonstrate that the exclusion continues to
apply.

Abstract for [1500009]

    Q: Does the EPA approve the operating limits proposed by Sumitomo
Metal Mining Pogo (Pogo) for its small

remote solid waste incinerator under NSPS for Commercial Industrial
Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) units, subpart CCCC at its mine
facility near Delta Junction, Alaska?
    A: Yes. EPA accepts Pogo's petition to establish operating limits
for the incinerator under subpart CCCC. The petition was submitted 60
days before the initial performance test is scheduled to begin and it
meets the criteria in paragraphs (a) through (e) of Sec.  60.2115. The
incinerator has no add-on control device and only fires propane as fuel
with anticipated feedstocks of solid wastes but not hazardous wastes,
which is consistent with 40 CFR 60.2115. Pogo identified the specific
parameters to be used, including waste composition and charge rate,
charge interval limit, and primary and secondary combustion chamber
temperature and burn-time limits. The relationship between these
parameters and emissions was provided by Pogo, and upper and/or lower
values were proposed. Methods and instrumentation to measure and
continuously monitor the operating parameters were presented, which
include the installation of an electronic data acquisition system and
the calculation of 5-minute rolling average temperatures. Compliance
with the minimum temperature limits will be determined using the
rolling 5-minute average. A rolling weight will be calculated with an
averaging period to be determined based on the results of the initial
performance test. The frequency and methods for recalibrating
instruments were identified.

Abstract for [1500010]

    Q: Does EPA approve an extension to the applicable performance test
deadlines caused by a force majeure event in accordance with the
provisions of 40 CFR 60.8(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(4) for an
affected facility located in Alaska, owned and operated by Clear Air
Force Station (Clear AFS), that is subject to 40 CPR 60 subpart Y?
    A: No. EPA denies the extension request as it believes that Clear
AFS could have taken steps to prevent the circumstances that led to the
inability to perform the stack test in a safe manner. As stated in the
supporting information you provided to EPA, which was included in a
formal request submitted to the Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation (ADEC), a similar nearby facility (Eielson Air Force Base)
had tested in 2011 the same coal at their facility under similar
operational conditions and determined that the coal was explosive. The
EPA believes that Clear AFS has an obligation (a general duty) to
ensure a safe working environment under all conditions at all times and
has knowledge and is aware of the nature of all materials under its
possession. EPA also believes that Clear AFS neglected to take into
safety consideration when making equipment purchase decisions.

Abstract for [1500011]

    Q: Will EPA exclude the cyclonic burn barrel unit that Lower
Kuskokwim School District (LKSD) intends to operate at the Chefornak
School in Chefornak, Alaska from the requirements of 40 CFR part 60
subpart EEEE?
    A: Yes. EPA approves LKSD's request. EPA determines that KSD's
request was submitted prior to initial startup of the unit, and that
the incineration unit meets the criteria for exclusion from subpart
EEEE (40 CFR 60.2887(h)(1)-(2)) for rural institutional waste
incinerator units. The unit is located more than 50 miles from the
boundary of the nearest Metropolitan Statistical Area, and alternative
disposal options are not available or are economically infeasible.

Abstract for [1500012]

    Q1: Will EPA correct the operator and park name operated by and
located in the Lake Clark National Park and Preserve for a previously
denied exclusion from 40 CFR part 60 subpart EEEE for an incineration
unit operating in Port Alsworth, Alaska?
    A1: Yes. EPA determination letter issued to the National Park
Service on April 16, 2013 (Refer to ADI Control Number 1500013) applies
to the incinerator operated by and located in the Lake Clark National
Park and Preserve, and not to an incinerator being operated by Glacier
Bay National Park and Preserve as erroneously stated in the response.

Abstract for [1500013]

    Q: Does EPA determine that the institutional waste incineration
unit at the National Park in Port Alsworth, Alaska can be excluded from
the Part 60 subpart EEEE requirements at 40 CFR 60.2887(h)?
    A: No. EPA determines that the unit is not eligible for this
exclusion because the application for an exclusion was not submitted
prior to the start-up of the incinerator as required by 40 CFR
60.2887(h)(1). It appears, based on the information provided by the
Park, that the unit in question would meet the criteria of being
located more than 50 miles from the boundary of the nearest
Metropolitan Statistical Area and that alternative disposal options are
not available or are economically infeasible. However, subpart EEEE
requires that the owner or operator of the incinerator unit must
submit, before start-up, an application demonstrating that the unit
meets the exclusion criteria. Refer to ADI Control Number 1500012 for a
correction to the operator name for the unit.

Abstract for [1500015]

    Q: Will EPA approve exempted status for a cyclonic burn barrel unit
under 40 CFR part 60 subpart EEEE that the Lower Kuskokwim School
District (LKSD) intends to operate at the Atmautluak, Alaska school
facility to incinerate dewatered sludge from the Atmautluak school
wastewater system?
    A: Yes. EPA determines that the incinerator that LKSD intends to
operate meets the criteria for exclusion for rural institutional waste
incinerators and therefore is approving LKSD's application for
exclusion according to 40 CFR 60.2887(h). LKSD submitted this request
prior to initial start up of the incinerator as required by 40 CFR
60.2887(h)(1). The LSKD School in Atmautluak is located approximately
284 miles from the boundary of the Anchorage/Matanuska Susitna
Metropolitan Statistical Area. Atmautluak is an isolated community with
no road access and severely limited barge access. There is no legal and
safe disposal site within Atmautluak. Sludge would have to be shipped
to Washington or Oregon for disposal and this would be prohibitively
expensive.

Abstract for [1500016]

    Q: Will EPA approve exempted status for a cyclonic burn barrel unit
under 40 CFR part 60 subpart EEEE that the Lower Kuskokwim School
District (LKSD) intends to operate at the Newtok, Alaska school
facility to incinerate dewatered sludge from the Newtok school
wastewater system?
    A: Yes. EPA determines that the incinerator that LKSD intends to
operate meets the criteria for exclusion for rural institutional waste
incinerators and therefore is approving LKSD's application for
exclusion according to 40 CFR 60.2887(h). LKSD submitted this request
prior to initial start up of the incinerator as required by 40 CFR
60.2887(h)(1). The LSKD School in Newtok is located approximately 360
miles from the boundary of the Anchorage/Matanuska Susitna Metropolitan
Statistical Area. Newtok is an isolated community with no road access
and severely limited barge access. There is no legal and safe disposal
site within Newtok. The community has started a long-term project to
move the village to a new

location therefore there are no plans to open a permitted landfill at
this current location. Sludge would have to be shipped to Washington or
Oregon for disposal and this would be prohibitively expensive.

Abstract for [1500017]

    Q: Will EPA grant a request for a waiver of the 30-day notification
required prior to conducting a performance evaluation of a generator
under NSPS subpart JJJJ at the Joint Base Elmendorf/Richardson (JBER)
Landfill Gas Power Facility in Fairbanks, Alaska pursuant to 40 CFR
60.19(f)(3)?
    A: Yes. Based on information provided by JBER, EPA waives the 30
day notice for performance testing pursuant to 40 CFR 60.l9(f)(3). JBER
indicates that the notice is late because it just became aware that the
State of Alaska has declined to be delegated authority to implement and
enforce NSPS subpart JJJJ.

Abstract for [1500018]

    Q: Will EPA grant a request for a waiver of the 30-day notification
of performance evaluation requirement for a Guascor Model SFGM-560
Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engine (RICE) at Farm Power's new
biogas production facility in Tillamook, Oregon pursuant to 40 CFR
60.19(f)(3)?
    A: Yes. Based on information provided by Farm Power, EPA approves
this request pursuant to 40 CFR 60.l9(f)(3). Farm Power indicates that
the notice is late because it just became aware that the State of
Oregon has declined to be delegated authority to implement and enforce
NSPS subpart JJJJ.

Abstract for [1500019]

    Q: Will EPA approve exempted status for a cyclonic burn barrel unit
under 40 CFR subpart EEEE that the Lower Kuskokwim School District
(LKSD) intends to operate at the Tuntutuliak, Alaska school facility to
incinerate dewatered sludge from the Tuntutuliak school wastewater
system?
    A: Yes. EPA determines that the incinerator that LKSD intends to
operate meets the criteria for exclusion for rural institutional waste
incinerators and therefore is approving LKSD's application for
exclusion according to 40 CFR 60.2887(h). LKSD submitted this request
prior to initial start up of the incinerator as required by 40 CFR
60.2887(h)(1). The LSKD School in Tuntutuliak is located approximately
360 miles from the boundary of the Anchorage/Matanuska Susitna
Metropolitan Statistical Area. Tuntutuliak is an isolated community
with no road access, and severely limited barge access. Sludge would
have to be shipped to Washington or Oregon for disposal and this would
be prohibitively expensive.

Abstract for [1500020]

    Q: Will EPA approve alternative monitoring under 40 CFR
60.13(h)(i)(1) of NSPS subpart Db for the multi-fuel Power Boiler No.
20 at the Longview Fibre Paper and Packaging, Incorporated facility in
Longview, Washington?
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves alternative monitoring for the
multi-fuel boiler to ensure compliance with the state PM limit since
moisture from the controls and low stack gas temperature result in
interference that makes a continuous opacity monitor (COM) infeasible.
Longview's boiler is already subject to a federally enforceable, state
imposed, PM emission limit that is more stringent than NSPS subpart Db,
and therefore, compliance with the Subpart Db PM limit is met. The
conditions for approval are specified in the EPA determination letter.

Abstract for [1500040]

    Q: Are the operations conducted by Magnetation, LLC, at their
facility located near Keewatin, Minnesota, to produce an iron
concentrate considered an affected facility and subject to the
requirements of NSPS subpart LL?
    A: Yes. EPA determines that the operations conducted by
Magnetation, LLC are considered an affected facility and subject to the
requirements of NSPS subpart LL because it produces a metallic mineral
concentrate and the operations meet the definition of metallic mineral
processing plant at 40 CFR 60.381. The definition for ``metallic
mineral concentrate'' does not require that the concentration level be
in excess of the historic source ore, and the finished product is
higher in concentration than currently available, naturally occurring
ore. The tailing material clearly came ``from ore,'' and the fact that
Magnetation's process relies on the previous plant having taken initial
steps in concentrating the ore does not exempt your process from acting
on material which came from ore. The beneficiation equipment produces a
finished product that meets the definition of ``metallic mineral
concentrate.'' Therefore, the equipment produces metallic mineral
concentrates from ore.

Abstract for [1500041]

    Q: Does EPA approve the Mattabassett District Water Pollution
Control (Mattabassett) facility's request for an alternative monitoring
location for the water flow rate from the wet electrostatic
precipitator (WESP) that is used to control pollution from the sewage
sludge incinerator at the facility located in Cromwell, CT?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the alternative monitoring location for the
water flow from the Mattabassett's WESP unit under 40 CFR part 60
subpart A, section 60.13(i)(4).

Abstract for [1500042]

    Q1: Does EPA approve Boston Electrometallurgical Corporation's
(BEMC's) proposed alternative monitoring to use a triboelectric
detector to continuously monitor the relative particulate matter (PM)
concentration of the exhaust emitted to the atmosphere from the
submerged arc furnace, located at its Woburn, MA ferroalloy production
facility, in lieu of a continuous opacity monitoring system to meet 40
CFR 60.264(b)? BEMC proposes to use EPA Reference Method 9 to establish
a relationship between opacity and the electrical signal provided by
the triboelectric detector.
    A1: Yes. EPA approves the use of baghouse leak monitoring for the
furnace meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 60.48(o)(4)(i) through (v),
as they relate to the use of its triboelectric sensor for opacity
monitoring, including the development and submittal of a monitoring
plan for approval.
    Q2: Does EPA approve BEMC's proposed alternative to install and
operate a continuous CO monitoring system (i.e., an Infrared
Industries, IR-208 Gas Analyzer) that will sample the exhaust once
every ten minutes in order to meet 40 CFR 60.263(a)?
    A2: Yes. EPA approves BEMC's alternative monitoring to use the gas
analyzer for measuring CO continuously in conjunction with other
process parameters, such as temperature and flow, to ensure proper
operating conditions. In addition, BEMC would have the flexibility to
monitor CO periodically at other portions of the processes, e.g.
furnace outlet.

Abstract for [1500043]

    Q1: Does EPA approve Northeast Gateway Energy Bridge LLC's
(Northeast Gateway's) proposed use of Method 22 in lieu of Method 9 for
opacity observations to comply with 40 CFR 60.43b for each liquid
natural gas regasification (LNGR) vessels that have boilers subject to
NSPS subpart Db for the Northeast Gateway Port off the coast of
Massachusetts?
    A1: EPA finds that Northeast Gateway's request to use Method 22 is
unnecessary because Northwest Gateway LLC only burns oil during

startup and the existing NSPS includes a provision, 40 CFR 60.43b(g),
providing that PM and opacity limits in that NSPS do not apply during
periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction.
    Q2: Does EPA approve Northeast Gateway's proposed waiver request of
the 30 operating day NOX performance test requirement in 40
CFR 60.46b(e)?
    A2: EPA is unable to grant a waiver at this time because Northeast
Gateway has not yet demonstrated compliance by other means. However,
demonstration of compliance with the more stringent Northeast Gateway
air permit NOX limit through a performance test, combined
with data collected with a certified NOX monitor, may
adequately demonstrate compliance with the Subpart Db NOX
emission limit without requiring a Subpart Db 30 day performance test.
    Q3: Does EPA approve Northeast Gateway's proposed alternative to
the 30-day rolling average required by 40 CFR 60.44b(i), where
compliance would be demonstrated each calendar month, regardless of the
number of operating hours that fall within a given calendar month?
    A3: EPA finds that the proposed waiver of the 30-day averaging
period is unnecessary because the affected boilers at the Northeast
Gateway Port are below 250 MMBtu, and burn only natural gas and
distillate oil.
    Q4: Does EPA approve Northeast Gateway's proposal to use Method 22
in lieu of Method 9 for opacity observations under 40 CFR 60.48b?
    A4: EPA finds that Method 9 observations will not be necessary
under 40 CFR 60.48b since, under the permit, oil will be fired only
during start-up periods.
    Q5: Does EPA approve Northeast Gateway's proposal to modify the
data requirements for NOX monitoring found at 40 CFR
60.48b(f)?
    A5: Yes. EPA approves Northeast Gateway's proposed criteria that
require valid NOX data for 75 percent of the operating hours
that occur in each calendar month because the proposed data requirement
will be more stringent than those at 40 CFR 60.48b(f).
    Q6: Does EPA approve Northeast Gateway's request to waive all
requirements under 40 CFR 60.49b(g) that refer to 30-day NOX
averages and instead be calculated on a calendar-month average basis?
    A6: No. EPA does not grant the request to waive the 30-day
NOX average requirement in lieu of a calendar month
approach. EPA requires that when compliance must be demonstrated, it
shall be demonstrated consistent with the 30-day regulatory
requirement. Similarly, requirements for excess emission reports in 40
CFR 60.48b(h) based on 30-day NOX averages apply.
    Q7: Does EPA approve Northeast Gateway's request to perform
periodic quality assurance (QA) testing required by the Part 60
appendices while vessels are not moored at the Northeast Gateway Port?
    A7: EPA will allow QA testing to be conducted while vessels are not
moored at the Northeast Gateway Port if the testing is conducted in
accordance with a test protocol and schedule approved by EPA.
    Q8: Does EPA approve Northeast Gateway's proposal to perform a
Relative Accuracy Audit (RAA) using three 60 minute runs in lieu of
conducting the nine 21 minute runs of a RATA as required by Appendix F
of Part 60?
    A8: No. EPA does not approve this request because the nine run
relative accuracy test audits (RATA) test are necessary to provide a
statistically significant data set with which to certify the CEMS.
    Q9: Does EPA approve Northeast Gateway's request that the RATA test
frequency be reduced to initial performance testing and at least once
every 5 years thereafter as required by Appendix F of Part 60?
    A9: No. EPA does not approve this request. The RATAs must be
conducted once every four calendar quarters, or upon the next visit for
each vessel that has visited the Northeast Gateway Port after the
previous successful RATA, if more than four calendar quarters have
passed since that vessel's last successful RATA.
    Q10: Does EPA approve Northeast Gateway's proposal that cylinder
gas audits (CGAs) required by Appendix F of Part 60 be performed once
per calendar quarter, or upon the next visit of a vessel to the
Northeast Gateway Port after the previous CGA, if more than one
calendar quarter has passed since that vessel's last visit to the
Northeast Gateway Port?
    A10: Yes. EPA approves the proposed CGA schedule.
    Q11: Does EPA approve Northeast Gateway's proposal to modify the 7
day calibration drift test requirement in Performance Specification 2
(``PS2'') of Part 60 Appendix B?
    A11: No. EPA does not approve this modification. However, as stated
in A7 above, EPA is willing to provide some flexibility in allowing the
drift test to be conducted when the LNGRV is not moored at the
facility.
    Q12: Does EPA approve Northeast Gateway's proposal to waive the
retrospective invalidation of data for CD checks exceeding four times
the specification and instead consider the ``out of control'' period
only to apply to data after a CD check that exceeds four times the
drift specification?
    A12: No. EPA does not approve this request for waiver. Procedure 1
in Appendix F of 40 CFR part 60 defines the out of control period as
beginning with the completion of the fifth consecutive daily
calibration drift check that exceeds twice the drift specification (2.5
percent of span), or with the completion of the last daily CD check
preceding a CD check that exceeds four times the drift specification.

Abstract for [1500044]

    Q1: Does EPA approve Phillips Academy's (Phillips') request to
track actual monthly oil usage under 40 CFR 60.48c(g)(1) when natural
gas supplies are interrupted to its boilers at Phillips' facility in
Andover, Massachusetts? Phillips currently operates three dual-fuel
capable boilers with input capacities of 40.79 MMBtu/hr, which are
subject to NSPS subpart Dc and other applicable Massachusetts permit
requirements. The facility is currently required to maintain daily
records of fuel consumption.
    A1: Yes. EPA conditionally approves a decrease in fuel usage
recordkeeping from daily to monthly records for Phillips' boilers if
the facility uses natural gas as the primary fuel and distillate oil
with a sulfur content no greater than 0.5 percent as the back-up fuel.
    Q2: Does EPA approve Phillips' request to submit annual reports to
EPA under 40 CFR 60.48c(j), instead of semiannual reports?
    A2: Yes. EPA conditionally approves a decrease in the reporting
frequency under subpart Dc based on Phillips' records that the facility
has operated exclusively on natural gas for the past eight years, with
the exception of limited operation on oil with a with a sulfur content
no greater than 0.5 percent for periodic testing and maintenance. If
Phillips' 30-day rolling average sulfur content of the fuel exceeds
0.5%, the facility must immediately resume daily fuel use record
keeping.

Abstract for [1500045]

    Q1: Does EPA approve the University of Massachusetts Lowell's
(UMASS Lowell's) request to track actual monthly, instead of daily, oil
usage under 40 CFR 60.48c(g)(1) when natural gas supplies are
interrupted to its dual-fuel boilers subject to NSPS subpart Dc at its
Lowell, Massachusetts facility?

    A1: Yes. EPA conditionally approves a decrease in the reporting
frequency for the boilers based on the facility's records that UMASS
Lowell's has operated using natural gas as the primary fuel and
distillate oil with a sulfur content no greater than 0.5 percent as the
back-up fuel.
    Q2: Does EPA approve UMASS Lowell's request to submit annual
reports under 40 CFR 60.48c(j), instead of on a semi-annual basis?
    A2: Yes. EPA conditionally approves a decrease in the reporting
frequency under 40 CFR part 60 subpart Dc based on UMASS Lowell'
records that the facility operates almost exclusively on natural gas,
with the exception of when natural gas supplies were interrupted.

Abstract for [1500047]

    Q: Is the new tube manufacturing operation at Elektrisola
Incorporated's Boscawen, New Hampshire facility subject to 40 CFR part
60 subpart TT?
    A: No. Based on the information provided by the New Hampshire
Department of Environmental Services (NHDES), EPA determines that
Elektrisola's new tubing operation does not meet the definition of
metal coil surface coating operation in section 60.461 because it is
applying an organic coating to metal wire, rather than a metal strip.
Therefore, Elektrisola's operation is not subject to NSPS subpart TT.

Abstract for [1500048]

    Q: Are JP Energy's pipeline station storage vessels at several
locations in Kansas subject to NSPS subpart OOOO?
    A: Yes. EPA determines that the storage vessels are located in the
``oil production segment'' and are affected facilities subject to NSPS
subpart OOOO. The operations described by JP Energy, which transfer the
oil from the wellhead tank loaded on a truck, and transported to
another storage vessel prior to the pipeline (emphasis added), are
transfer operations prior to the pipeline; as such, they are within the
``oil production segment'' per 40 CFR 60.5365(d) definition. Therefore,
the storage vessels in question meet the criteria for storage vessels
affected facility at 40 CFR 60.5365(e).

Abstract for [M140017]

    Q: Will EPA approve a one-year compliance extension for the Power
Boiler (PB-7) under 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD at the RockTenn CP,
LLC's pulp and paperboard mill in Tacoma, Washington (Tacoma Mill)?
    A: No. EPA determines that although Tacoma Mill identified various
potential control technology options, specific controls were not
clearly identified, which is a criteria under 40 CFR 63.6(i)(6)(i)(A)
for approval of an extension of the compliance deadline.

Abstract for [M140018]

    Q: Will EPA grant an initial performance testing waiver for Aurora
Energy, LLC's (Aurora) two coal fired boilers, Emission Units (EUs) 5
and 6, which are identical in design and manufacture to EU4, at the
Chena Power Plant in Fairbanks, Alaska?
    A: No. Based on the information provided, EPA denies Aurora's
request for a waiver from the Part 63 subpart JJJJJJ initial
performance testing for EUs 5 and 6. EPA determines that insufficient
information has been provided to support a conclusion that EUs 4, 5,
and 6 are identical, and have been operated and maintained in a similar
manner necessary to support a waiver request. The age of the boilers
makes it less likely they may be identical, which appears to be the
case for EU 6 based on the nameplate photos. Additionally, there has
been no historical test data submitted to demonstrate low variability
in emissions over time. The fuel, coal, has also not been demonstrated
to have low variability over time.

Abstract for [M150001]

    Q: Will EPA approve an alternative to the monitoring requirement
for installation of a non-resettable hour meter for the approximately
74 existing stationary emergency engines subject to 40 CFR part 63
subpart ZZZZ, the NESHAP for Stationary Reciprocating Internal
Combustion Engines, which are operated by BP Exploration Alaska (BPXA)
on the North Slope of Alaska?
    A: No. EPA determines that the alternative monitoring approach is
not acceptable because the automated engine hour tracking system in use
by BPXA is not sufficient on its own to meet the rule requirement of 40
CFR 63.6625(f) since it is not ``non-resettable.'' Since BPXA can
adjust the automated system hour log, it would not be ``non-
resettable'' as required by the NESHAP subpart ZZZZ.

Abstract for [M150002]

    Q: Will EPA grant a one year extension to the compliance deadline
for four coal-fired boilers subject to the Area Source NESHAP for
boilers, subpart JJJJJJ, located at the Pacific Air Forces, Eielson Air
Force Based Central Heat and Power Plant in Eielson, Alaska?
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the one year extension to the
compliance deadline for carbon monoxide (CO). EPA determines that
additional time is warranted due to the short construction season in
Alaska, uncertainty regarding the final rule requirements due to
reconsideration amendments, and government procurement procedures.
Approval is conditioned upon Eielson complying with the applicable
emission and operating limits and compliance demonstration procedures
by March 21, 2015; meeting interim compliance deadlines specified in
the approval letter; and meeting tune-up requirements that are required
of boilers below 10 MMBTU/hr during the time period while the
compliance extension applies.

Abstract for [M150003]

    Q: Will EPA grant a one year compliance extension to Hilcorp Alaska
for five stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines (RICE)
subject to NESHAP subpart ZZZZ, which are located on the Anna, Dillon,
and Monopod Platforms in Alaska's Cook Inlet region?
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the one-year extension to the
compliance deadline for all three platforms that are area sources. EPA
determines that additional time is warranted because of the short
construction season in Alaska, uncertainty regarding the final rule
requirements due to reconsideration of the regulation, and difficulties
in procuring the control equipment due to increased demand throughout
the industry as the compliance deadline approaches. Approval is
conditioned on Hilcorp complying with the applicable equipment
standards, catalyst installation and compliance demonstration
procedures by October 19, 2014; meeting specified interim compliance
deadlines; and complying with the work or management practices for
remote stationary RICE by October 19, 2013.

Abstract for [M150004]

    Q: Will EPA grant a one year extension to the compliance deadline
to Hilcorp Alaska for a stationary reciprocating internal combustion
engine (RICE) subject to the NESHAP for RICE, 40 CFR part 63 subpart
ZZZZ, which is located on the Falls Creek Pad in Alaska's South Kenai
region?
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the one-year extension to the
compliance deadline for the unit that is not a remote stationary RICE
located at an area source facility. EPA determines that additional time
is warranted because of the short construction season in Alaska,
uncertainty regarding the

final rule requirements due to reconsideration of the regulation, and
difficulties in procuring the control equipment due to increased demand
throughout the industry as the compliance deadline approaches. Approval
is conditioned upon Hilcorp complying with the applicable equipment
standards, catalyst installation and compliance demonstration
procedures by October 19, 2014; meeting interim compliance deadlines
specified in the approval letter; and complying with the work or
management practices for remote stationary RICE by October 19, 2013.

Abstract for [M150005]

    Q: Will EPA grant a one-year compliance extension for two
stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines (RICE) subject to
NESHAP subpart ZZZZ, which are located at the North Slope Borough (NSB)
Nuiqsut Power Plant in Barrow, Alaska?
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the one-year extension to the
compliance deadline for the two existing gas-fired spark ignition units
that are not remote stationary RICE and that operate more than 24 hours
per calendar year at an area source facility. EPA determines that
additional time is warranted because of the short construction season
in Alaska, uncertainty regarding the final rule requirements due to
reconsideration of the regulation, funding cycles for municipalities,
and difficulties in procuring the control equipment due to increased
demand throughout the industry as the compliance deadline approaches.
Approval is conditioned on NSB complying with the applicable equipment
standards, catalyst installation and compliance demonstration
procedures by October 19, 2014; meeting specified interim compliance
deadlines; and complying with the work or management practices for
remote stationary RICE by October 19, 2013.

Abstract for [M150006]

    Q: Will EPA accept a 2009 performance test as the initial
performance test to demonstrate compliance for a stationary
reciprocating internal combustion engine (RICE) subject to the NESHAP
subpart ZZZZ at and located at Washington State University (WSU) in
Pullman, Washington?
    A: No. EPA does not approve the use of the 2009 performance test
data to serve as the initial performance test for the RICE unit because
a prior test can only be used if it is not older than two years
pursuant to 40 CFR 63.6612(b)(2). Therefore, an initial test must be
conducted within 180 days after the compliance date, by October 30,
2013.

Abstract for [M150007]

    Q: Does EPA determine that engines located at the High Frequency
Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) facility near Gakona, Alaska
are subject to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines
(RICE) at 40 CFR part 63 subpart ZZZZ? The facility is owned by the Air
Force and operated by Marsh Creek, LLC through the Office of Naval
Research.
    A: Yes. EPA determines that the engines, as described, are RICE and
therefore subject to Part 63 subpart ZZZZ. The engines would be
required to meet the applicable numerical emission limitations detailed
in Table 2d and applicable operating limitations in Table 2b of NESHAP
subpart ZZZZ for the type of existing stationary engine located at area
sources of HAP, as detailed in the EPA determination letter.

Abstract for [M150008]

    Q: Can the Eielson Air Force Base's existing compression ignition,
2-stroke, greater than 500 horsepower, Electromotive Diesel (EMD)
engine installed in 1987 at the Base's Central Heat and Power Plant be
designated as a black start engine exclusively and therefore subject to
the corresponding requirements for that type of engine if the EMD
engine is no longer used for any peak shaving?
    A: Yes. EPA is responding with guidance to clarify that if the
engine subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart ZZZZ is not being used for
peak shaving after the May 3, 2013 compliance date for the engine, and
the engine meets the definition of a black start engine, it is subject
to the requirements under NESHAP subpart ZZZZ for a black start engine.

Abstract for [M150009]

    Q1: Will EPA approve a like for like waiver from the initial and
all subsequent particulate matter (PM) tests according to the
provisions under 40 CFR 63.7(e)(2)(iv) and 63.7(h) for the Moses Lake
Industries (MLI) boiler located in Moses Lake, Washington?
    A1: No. EPA determines that the information used to estimate the
emissions is not from a boiler unit that is located at the same
facility as the unit in question. There is no assurance that the tested
unit was operated and maintained in a similar manner as the unit in
question.
    Q2: In case EPA is unable to grant the waiver, does EPA accept a
source test plan and notification that MLI also provided in its
submittal dated December 8th, 2011, stating that that they intend to
conduct a PM source test on February 13th, 2012?
    A2: Yes. EPA accepts the previously submitted test plan and
notification in question to meet the general provision source test
requirements from section 63.7(b) to notify EPA at least 60 days in
advance of a source test.

Abstract for [M150018]

    Q1: Can EPA clarify the applicability for the NESHAP for Major
Sources: Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Boilers and Process
Heaters, 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD; the NESHAP for Flexible
Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations, 40 CFR part 63, subpart
MMMMM; the NESHAP for Reciprocating Internal Combustion !Engines, 40
CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ; and the NESHAP for Paper and Other Web
Coating, 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ for Shawmut's flexible substrate
lamination facility located in West Bridgewater, MA if the facility is
now an area source?
    A1: EPA determines that Shawmut is no longer subject to 40 CFR part
63 subparts JJJJ, MMMMM, and DDDDD. Shawmut is no longer subject to
NESHAP subpart JJJJ because the three adhesive laminators (EUI) are
permanently decommissioned. Shawmut is not subject to NESHAP subpart
MMMMM because the facility ceased to be a major HAP source before
becoming subject to any substantive subpart MMMMM requirements. Shawmut
is not subject to NESHAP subpart DDDDD for its boiler and two process
heaters (EU3) because EPA allows Shawmut to become an area source of
HAP before January 2014, the first substantive rule compliance date.
Shawmut's existing spark ignition engine is subject to NESHAP subpart
ZZZZ as an area source of HAP because Shawmut became an area source of
HAP before the first compliance date of October 19, 2013, but subpart
ZZZZ does not require area sources of HAP to obtain a Title V operating
permit.
    Q2: Would Shawmut facility be required to maintain its Title V
operating permit because it is no longer a major source?
    A2: No. EPA determines that Shawmut is no longer subject to the
requirements of Title V operating permits based on applicability of
these NESHAP subparts as an area source.

Abstract for [M150019]

    Q: Can EPA clarify the annual performance test deadline for
Covidien's ethylene oxide sterilization facility located in North
Haven, Connecticut?
    A: EPA is clarifying that after the initial performance test,
subsequent annual testing pursuant 40 CFR 63.363(b)(4)(i) must be
conducted within 11 to 13 calendar months after the previous test.

Abstract for [M150020]

    Q: Does a dual-fuel steam boiler (Unit 1) at PSEG New Haven Harbor
Station in New Haven, Connecticut meet the definition of a limited-use
liquid oil-fired electric generating unit in 40 CFR part 63 subpart
UUUUU?
    A: Yes. Based on the information provided, EPA determines that Unit
1 at PSEG New Haven Harbor Station meets the definition of a limited-
use liquid oil-fired electric generating unit in 40 CFR part 63 subpart
UUUUU.

Abstract for [M150021]

    Q1: Will the addition of heaters to Dragon Products Company's
existing finish mill in Thomaston, Maine subject the finish mill to
requirements for raw material dryers in NESHAP for Portland Cement
Manufacturing Industry at 40 CFR part 63 subpart LLL?
    A1: No. EPA determines that the Dragon Products' finish mill is not
an affected source under NESHAP subpart LLL because it is processing
granulated slag, and is not grinding clinker or blending the slag with
clinker.
    Q2: Will Dragon Products' proposed finished material dryer be
subject to subpart LLL?
    A2: No. Based on the information submitted by Dragon Products, EPA
determines that the proposed dryer is not an affected source under
NESHAP subpart LLL because the raw material dryer would only be used to
dry slag a product used in concrete and not used to dry a material for
use in the production of Portland cement. This determination is
revising a previously issued determination on the applicability of
NESHAP subpart to the dryer issued April 8, 2014.

Abstract for [Z150001]

    Q: Will the EPA determine that an amendment to Aurora Energy's
September 26, 2014 determination is warranted, to provide an additional
compliance extension for the performance testing deadline for three
area source coal fired boilers (Emission Units (EUs) 4, 5, and 6) under
NESHAP subpart JJJJJJ at the Chena Power Plant?
    A: Yes. EPA determines that extending the NESHAP subpart JJJJJJ
performance test deadline until January 31, 2015, will provide for time
to complete the repair and installation and ensure that TG #1 is fully
operational and enable a representative test to be conducted on the
boilers.

Abstract for [1500052]

    Q1: Argos requests clarification of which emissions standards (40
CFR part 63 Subpart LLL--The National Emissions Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry (PC
NESHAP); 40 CFR part 60 Subpart Y--New Source Performance Standards for
Coal Preparation and Processing Plants (subpart Y); and 40 CFR part 60,
subpart DDDD--``Emissions Guidelines and Compliance Times for
Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) Units''
(subpart DDDD'') apply to the emissions coming from the PC Coal Mill at
the Harleyville Cement Plant located in Harleyville, SC, that are
combined with the CISWI kiln emissions, where the CISWI kiln provides
heat for drying the coal, before being emitted directly to the
atmosphere?
    A1: Based on the information provided by Argos, EPA made an
analysis of the standards that would apply to the Harleyville PC Coal
Mill. EPA determines that the Harleyville PC Coal Mill is subject to
the requirements of 40 CFR part 60 subpart Y, specifically the
standards for thermal dryers at section 60.252(a), because the thermal
dryer is a thermal dryer per section Sec.  60.251(r) (1) and is thus
subject to the provisions in Sec.  60.251, Sec.  60.252(a), Sec.
60.255(a), and Sec.  60.256(a). When emissions from the thermal dryer
(i.e., the affected facility) at the PC coal mill are combined with
emissions from the CISWI kiln subject to emissions limits in subpart
DDDD, the emissions exiting from the PC Coal Mill thermal dryer are not
exempt from the standards in section Sec.  60.252(a). Neither Sec.
60.251(j) nor Sec.  60.252(c) create an exemption from these
requirements. We do not believe that any difference between the
definition of kiln under subpart DDDD and the PC NESHAP precludes
application of the subpart DDDD standards to the waste-burning kiln
emissions that are routed through the PC Coal Mill and emitted out of
stack 2. Since the kiln is an existing CISWI unit, the subpart DDDD
standards apply to the emissions coming from the waste-burning kiln
whether or not those emissions are routed to another process before
being emitted out of stack 2.
    Q2. Is the Harleyville clinker cooler an affected facility under
the PC NESHAP?
    A2. Yes. EPA determines that the affected facility, in part, is
each clinker cooler at any Portland cement plant according to Sec.
63.1340(b)(2) (``What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?'').
Information provided by Argos demonstrates that the clinker cooler
meets the definition of clinker cooler at Sec.  63.1341. Therefore, the
clinker cooler is an affected facility under the PC NESHAP.
    Q3. Which emissions standards (PC NESHAP, subpart Y, and/or subpart
DDDD) apply to the emissions coming from the Harleyvill Kiln Coal Mill
that are combined with the CISWI kiln emissions, where the CISWI kiln
provides heat for drying the coal, before discharging to the atmosphere
after co-mingling with the clinker cooler exhaust?
    A3. Based on the description provided in Argos' letter, the
Harleyville Kiln Coal Mill is a thermal dryer within the meaning of
60.251(r)(1) and thus, for the reasons explained in response to
question 1, above, EPA determines it is subject to the applicable
requirements of subpart Y in Sec.  60.251, Sec.  60.252(a), Sec.
60.255(a), and Sec.  60.256(a). Regarding PC NESHAP and subpart DDDD,
for the reasons discussed in the response to question 1 we maintain
that the performance standards for the emissions from CISWI waste
burning kilns apply when and where they are emitted to the atmosphere.
And, for the reasons stated in response to Question 2, above, we also
believe that the clinker cooler is an affected facility under the PC
NESHAP and is subject to the emissions standards for clinker coolers,
therein. Application of the more stringent emission limits to the
combined emissions is necessary to assure compliance with each
applicable standard.
    Q4: Can the PC NESHAP requirements for in-line coal mills be
applied to the PC Coal Mill and the Kiln Coal Mill at Harleyville,
independent of the PC NESHAP applicability to the kiln?
    A4: No. Based on the construction date of the kiln provided by
Argos, EPA determines that the emissions guidelines established under
subpart DDDD, implemented through a state or federal plan (as
applicable), will apply unless the waste-burning kiln ceases burning
solid waste at least 6 months prior to the CISWI part DDDD compliance
date. Therefore, the kiln is not subject to the PC NESHAP and instead
it is subject to subpart DDDD. Coal mills are not subject to the
requirements of the PC NESHAP if the kiln is not a PC NESHAP kiln
affected

facility in accordance with section Sec.  63.1340(b)(1).
    Q5: If the PC NESHAP requirements for the kiln (which includes the
coal mills) are not applicable, are the emissions from the Harleyville
coal mills only subject to the subpart Y concentration and opacity
standards?
    A5: No. The kiln emissions are routed through the coal mills so the
subpart DDDD requirements will apply to the emissions exiting the coal
mills, in addition to the subpart Y requirements.
    Q6: Do the requirements of Subpart DDDD apply to the Harleyville
CISWI kiln emissions routed through the in-line coal mills (i.e. the PC
Coal Mill and the Kiln Coal Mill) associated with the waste burning
kiln at the mills that were in place prior to April 2008?
    A6: Yes. Any re-routing or commingling of CISWI kiln emissions must
not result in uncontrolled emissions directly to the atmosphere. We
interpret subpart DDDD (or NSPS CCCC, when applicable) to continue to
apply to all of the CISWI waste-burning kiln emissions, even if those
emissions are routed through an in-line coal mill or other device prior
to exhaust to the atmosphere. Therefore, regardless of the disposition
of in-line coal mills as part of the waste burning kiln, the subpart
DDDD standards applicable to waste-burning kilns apply to the emissions
of the Harleyville kiln when and where they are emitted to the
atmosphere.
    Q7. Which emissions standards (subpart Y, PC NESHAP and/or subpart
DDDD) apply to the emissions from stack 2 at the Roberta Cement Plant
located in Calera, Alabama, when the CISWI waste-burning kiln emissions
are routed through the coal mill and used to provide heat for drying of
the coal before being emitted to the atmosphere?
    A7: Based on the information provided by Argos, EPA determines that
the Roberta coal mill is a thermal dryer within the meaning of Sec.
60.251(r)(1) and is subject to the provisions in Sec.  60.251, Sec.
60.252(a), Sec.  60.255(a), and Sec.  60.256(a) of subpart Y.
    Q8: Which emissions standards apply to the emissions from stack 1
at the Roberta Cement Plant located in Calera, Alabama, wherein the
clinker cooler emissions are combined with the kiln emissions and sent
to the raw mill to provide heat for drying before being emitted to the
atmosphere?
    A9: Argos's letter acknowledges that the Roberta in-line kiln/raw
mill is a subpart DDDD affected facility. Also, for the same reasons as
discussed in the response to Question 2 for Harleyville Cement Plant,
the Roberta clinker cooler is an affected facility under the PC NESHAP.
Argos must either comply with the most stringent standard applicable to
the various emissions streams or establish a mechanism to apportion
emissions to the various operations and seek an alternative methodology
for determining compliance under section 60.8(b).

     Dated: July 10, 2015.
Edward J. Messina,
Director, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office
of Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015-20514 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 249 (Tuesday, December 30, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78449-78450]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30516]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2014-N-0001]

Science Board to the Food and Drug Administration; Notice of
Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Science Board to the Food and Drug
Administration (Science Board).

    General Function of the Committee: The Science Board provides
advice primarily to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and other
appropriate officials on specific complex scientific and technical
issues important to the FDA and its mission, including emerging issues
within the scientific community. Additionally, the Science Board
provides advice to the Agency on keeping pace with technical and
scientific developments including in regulatory science, input into the
Agency's research agenda, on upgrading its scientific and research
facilities, and training opportunities. It will also provide, where
requested, expert review of Agency-sponsored intramural and extramural
scientific research programs.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on March 4, 2015, from 8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m.
    Location: FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Building
31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503 B and C) Silver Spring,
MD 20993-0002. For those unable to attend in person, the meeting will
also be Webcast. The link for the Webcast is available at https://collaboration.fda.gov/sb315/. Information regarding special
accommodations due to a disability, visitor parking, and transportation
may be accessed at: http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm;
under the heading ``Resources for You,'' click on ``Public Meetings at
the FDA White Oak Campus.'' Please note that visitors to the White Oak
Campus must enter through Building 1.
    Contact Person: Martha Monser, Office of the Commissioner, Food and
Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 1, Rm. 3309,
Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138 (301-443-
0572 in the Washington, DC area). A notice in the Federal Register
about last minute modifications that impact a previously announced
advisory committee meeting cannot always be published quickly enough to
provide timely notice. Therefore, you should always check the Agency's
Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and
scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link, or call
the advisory committee information line to learn about possible
modifications before coming to the meeting.
    Agenda: The Science Board will be provided with a progress report
or a final draft report the Commissioner's Fellowship Program
Evaluation subcommittee and will hear a progress report from Science
Moving Forward subcommittee. The Science Board will be asked to provide
feedback on FDA's public access policy. FDA will seek the Science
Board's input regarding approaches to regulatory science training
coordination. The Science Board will be provided with a follow up on
FDA's activities regarding the re-introduction of bovine heparin and
will hear an overview of science-related activities from one of the
centers. A recipient of one of the Fiscal Year 2014 Scientific
Achievement Awards (selected by the Science Board) will provide an
overview of the activities for which the award was given.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting
link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before
February 25, 2015. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled
between approximately 1 p.m. and 1:30 p.m. Those individuals interested
in making formal oral presentations should notify the contact person
and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or
arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed
participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to
make their presentation on or before February 17, 2015. Time allotted
for each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants
requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated
during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a
lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing
session. The contact person will notify interested persons regarding
their request to speak by February 18, 2015.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Ms. Martha Monser at
least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: December 23, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-30516 Filed 12-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 134 (Tuesday, July 14, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40955-40956]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17063]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0241; FRL-9930-34-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Low Emissions Vehicle Program Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve
two State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of
Maryland for the purpose of amending Maryland's prior approved Low
Emission Vehicles (LEV), or Clean Car Program. Maryland adopted
California's emission standards applicable to newly manufactured light
and medium-duty motor vehicles in 2007, effective beginning with 2011
and newer vehicles sold in Maryland. EPA approved Maryland's Clean Car
Program in prior SIP approval rulemakings. However, since then
California revised its LEV program regulations on several occasions,
and Maryland subsequently amended its own rules to be consistent with
those of California. Maryland then submitted these regulatory
amendments to EPA as a revision to its SIP. Maryland submitted two such
Clean Car Program SIP revisions in July 2014 and April 2015.
    In the Final Rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is
approving the

State's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal
because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and
anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval
is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are
received in response to this action, no further activity is
contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule
will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in
a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not
institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting
on this action should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments must be received in writing by August 13, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2015-0241 by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0241, Cristina Fernandez, Associate
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2015-0241. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal
are available at the Maryland Department of the Environment, 1800
Washington Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, Maryland 21230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Rehn,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For further information, please see the
information provided in the direct final action to approve Maryland's
amended Clean Car Program, with the same title, which is located in the
``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal Register publication.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

    Dated: June 26, 2015.
William C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2015-17063 Filed 7-13-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P