[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 52 (Monday, March 18, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9783-9791]
[FR Doc No: 2019-03593]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9990-05-OECA]

Applicability Determination Index Data System Posting: EPA Formal
Responses to Inquiries Concerning Compliance With Clean Air Act
Stationary Source Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces applicability determinations,
alternative monitoring decisions, and regulatory interpretations that
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has made with regard to the New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS); the National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP); the Emission Guidelines and
Federal Plan Requirements for existing sources; 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) data
system is available on the internet through the Resources and Guidance
Documents for Compliance Assistance page of the Clean Air Act
Compliance Monitoring website under ``Air'' at: https://www2.epa.gov/compliance/resources-and-guidance-documents-compliance-assistance. The
letters and memoranda on the ADI may be located by author, date, office
of issuance, subpart, citation, control number, or by string word
searches. For questions about the ADI or this notice, contact Maria
Malave, Monitoring, Assistance and Media Programs Division 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. 40 CFR
60.5 and 61.06. The General Provisions in part 60 also apply to Federal
and EPA-approved state plans for existing sources in 40 CFR part 62.
See 40 CFR 62.02(b)(2). The EPA's written responses to source or
facility-specific inquiries on provisions in parts 60, 61 and 62 are
commonly referred to as applicability determinations. Although the
NESHAP part 63 regulations [which include Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) standards and/or Generally Available Control
Technology (GACT) standards] contain no specific regulatory provision
providing that sources may request applicability determinations, the
EPA also responds to written inquiries regarding applicability for the
part 63 regulations. In addition, the General Provisions in part 60 and
63 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). The EPA's
written responses to these inquiries are commonly referred to as
alternative monitoring decisions. Furthermore, the EPA responds to
written inquiries about the broad range of regulatory requirements in
40 CFR parts 60 through 63 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.
The EPA's written responses to these inquiries are commonly referred to
as regulatory interpretations.
    The EPA currently compiles EPA-issued NSPS and NESHAP applicability
determinations, alternative monitoring decisions, and regulatory
interpretations, and posts them to the ADI on a regular 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 a data system accessed via the internet, with over three
thousand EPA letters and memoranda pertaining to the applicability,
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the NSPS,
NESHAP, emission guidelines and Federal Plans for existing sources, and
stratospheric ozone regulations. Users can search for letters and
memoranda by author, date, office of issuance, subpart, citation,
control number, or by string word searches.
    Today's notice comprises a summary of 45 such documents added to
the ADI on February 1, 2019. This notice lists the subject and header
of each letter and memorandum, as well as a brief abstract of the
content. 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
website under ``Air'' at: https://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 February 1, 2019 to the ADI data system; the
applicable category; the section(s) and/or subpart(s) of 40 CFR part
60, 61, 62, 63 and 82 (as applicable) addressed in the document; and
the title of the document, which provides a brief description of the
subject matter.
    Also included in this notice, is an abstract of each document
identified with its control number. These abstracts are being provided
to the public as possible items of interest and are not intended as
substitutes for the contents of the original 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 February 1, 2019
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Control No.      Categories         Subparts              Title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1500085......  NSPS............  Ec..............  Applicability
                                                    Determination for
                                                    Hospital/Medical/
                                                    Infectious Waste
                                                    Incinerator.
1700009......  NSPS............  OOOO............  Applicability
                                                    Determination for
                                                    Natural Gas
                                                    Processing Plant.
1700037......  NSPS............  A...............  Regulatory
                                                    Interpretation for
                                                    Continuous
                                                    Monitoring System
                                                    Downtime and
                                                    Emission Reporting.
1700038......  NSPS............  Ja..............  Alternative
                                                    Monitoring Plan for
                                                    CEMS Calibration Gas
                                                    at a Refinery.
1700039......  NSPS............  J...............  Alternative
                                                    Monitoring Plan for
                                                    Sulfur Loading Arm
                                                    Vent Streams at a
                                                    Refinery.
1700040......  NSPS............  Ja..............  Alternative
                                                    Monitoring Plan for
                                                    Total Sulfur Monitor
                                                    on Flare at
                                                    Refinery.
1700041......  NSPS............  Ja..............  Monitoring Exemption
                                                    for Hydrogen Sulfide
                                                    at a Refinery.
1700042......  NSPS............  Ja..............  Alternative
                                                    Monitoring Plan for
                                                    Sulfur Loading Arm
                                                    Vent Streams at a
                                                    Refinery.
1700044......  NSPS............  NNN, RRR........  Alternative
                                                    Monitoring Request
                                                    for Distillation
                                                    Units.
1700045......  NSPS............  NNN, RRR........  Performance Test
                                                    Waiver and
                                                    Alternative
                                                    Monitoring Plan for
                                                    Vent Gas Streams at
                                                    Synthetic Organic
                                                    Chemical
                                                    Manufacturing
                                                    Facility.
1700046......  NSPS............  Y...............  Applicability
                                                    Determination for
                                                    Coal Storage and
                                                    Transport Operation.
1700047......  NSPS............  NNN, RRR........  Alternative
                                                    Monitoring Plan for
                                                    Vent Streams at
                                                    Synthetic Organic
                                                    Chemical
                                                    Manufacturing
                                                    Facility.
1700048......  NSPS............  Ja..............  Monitoring Exemption
                                                    for Hydrogen Sulfide
                                                    in Fuel Gas Streams
                                                    at Refinery.
1700049......  NSPS............  Ja..............  Monitoring Exemption
                                                    for Hydrogen Sulfide
                                                    in Fuel Gas Streams
                                                    at Refinery.
1700050......  NSPS............  OOO.............  Waiver of Opacity
                                                    Observation and
                                                    Alternative
                                                    Compliance Measure
                                                    at Non-Metallic
                                                    Mineral Processing
                                                    Plant.
1700052......  NSPS............  LL..............  Performance Test
                                                    Extension Request
                                                    for Dry Crushing
                                                    Operations at
                                                    Mineral Processing
                                                    Plant.
1700053......  MACT, NSPS......  AAAA, WWW.......  Applicability
                                                    Determination for
                                                    Flare at a Municipal
                                                    Solid Waste
                                                    Landfill.
1700054......  NSPS............  GG..............  Alternative Testing
                                                    for Nitrogen Oxides
                                                    at Stationary Gas
                                                    Turbines.
1800001......  NSPS............  WWW.............  Alternative Tier 2
                                                    Calculation
                                                    Methodology for
                                                    Municipal Solid
                                                    Waste Landfill.
1800003......  NSPS............  CCCC............  Applicability
                                                    Determination for
                                                    Micro-Auto
                                                    Gasification System.
1800005......  NSPS............  J, Ja...........  Alternative
                                                    Monitoring Plan for
                                                    Hydrogen Sulfide
                                                    during Tank
                                                    Degassing at
                                                    Refineries.
1800006......  NSPS............  A, Ja...........  Alternative
                                                    Monitoring Request
                                                    for Flares at a
                                                    Refinery.
1800007......  NSPS............  A, OOO..........  Test Waiver and
                                                    Alternate Means of
                                                    Compliance for
                                                    Baghouses.
1800008......  MACT, NSPS......  CC, Kb..........  Regulatory
                                                    Interpretation for
                                                    Recordkeeping at
                                                    Storage Tanks.
1800009......  NSPS............  A, Ja...........  Alternative
                                                    Monitoring Plan for
                                                    Hydrogen Sulfide
                                                    from Flares at
                                                    Refineries.
1800013......  MACT, NSPS......  BBBBBB, Kb, WW..  Alternative
                                                    Monitoring Plan for
                                                    Internal Floating
                                                    Roof Storage Tanks.
M170015......  MACT............  R...............  Alternative
                                                    Monitoring Plan for
                                                    Vapor Combustion
                                                    Unit at Gasoline
                                                    Distribution
                                                    Terminal.
M170016......  MACT............  F...............  Alternative
                                                    Monitoring Plan for
                                                    Heat Exchange System
                                                    at Synthetic Organic
                                                    Chemical
                                                    Manufacturing
                                                    Facility.
M170019......  MACT............  ZZZZ............  Clarification of
                                                    Emergency and Non-
                                                    Emergency Generator
                                                    Use.
M170021......  MACT............  HHHHH...........  Design Evaluation and
                                                    Proposed Operating
                                                    Parameters for
                                                    Carbon Adsorption
                                                    System at Coating
                                                    Manufacturing
                                                    Facility.
M170022......  MACT............  JJJ, MMM........  Alternative
                                                    Monitoring for
                                                    Pressure Relief
                                                    Devices on Portable
                                                    Containers.
M170023......  MACT............  A, EEEEE........  Alternative
                                                    Monitoring for
                                                    Continuous Emissions
                                                    Monitoring System on
                                                    Automated Shakeout
                                                    Line at Iron
                                                    Foundry.
M170024......  MACT............  HHHHH...........  Design Evaluation and
                                                    Proposed Operating
                                                    Parameters for
                                                    Carbon Adsorption
                                                    System at Coating
                                                    Manufacturing
                                                    Facility.
M170025......  MACT............  LL..............  Compliance Date
                                                    Extension for Carbon
                                                    Adsorber System on
                                                    Pitch Storage Tank
                                                    at Paste Production
                                                    Plant.
M170026......  MACT, NESHAP....  JJJJJJ..........  Performance Test Time
                                                    Extension for Coal-
                                                    Fired Boiler.
M170027......  MACT............  OOO.............  Alternative
                                                    Monitoring Plan for
                                                    Water Scrubber at a
                                                    Methylated Resin
                                                    Process.
M180001......  NESHAP..........  HHHHH...........  Alternative
                                                    Monitoring Plan for
                                                    Carbon Adsorption
                                                    System at Coating
                                                    Manufacturing
                                                    Facility.
M180002......  MACT, NESHAP,     X...............  Alternative
                NSPS.                               Monitoring Plan for
                                                    Reverberatory
                                                    Furnace.
M180004......  MACT, NESHAP....  LLLLL...........  Applicability
                                                    Determination and
                                                    Alternative
                                                    Monitoring for Mist
                                                    Eliminator for
                                                    Asphalt Storage
                                                    Tank.
M180005......  MACT............  S...............  Alternative
                                                    Monitoring Plan for
                                                    Closed Vent
                                                    Collection Systems
                                                    at a Paper Mill.
M180011......  NESHAP..........  HHHHH and SS....  Alternative
                                                    Monitoring Plan for
                                                    Carbon Adsorption
                                                    System at Coating
                                                    Manufacturing
                                                    Facility.
WDS-149......  NSPS, Woodstoves  ................  Applicability
                                                    Determination for
                                                    Wood-Burning and
                                                    Electric Sauna
                                                    Stoves.
WDS-150......  NSPS, Woodstoves  QQQQ............  Clarification on Test
                                                    Method 28 WHH-PTS
                                                    and Subpart QQQQ for
                                                    Hydronic Boiler
                                                    Certification Tests.
Z180001......  NESHAP, NSPS....  J, UUU..........  Alternative
                                                    Monitoring Plan for
                                                    Wet Gas Scrubber at
                                                    a Refinery.
Z180002......  NESHAP, NSPS....  J, UUU..........  Alternative
                                                    Monitoring Plan for
                                                    Wet Gas Scrubber at
                                                    a Refinery.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abstracts

Abstract for [1500085]

    Q1: Does EPA determine that the exemption at 40 CFR 60.50c(f) for
``any pyrolysis unit'' applies to the CoronaLux plasma assisted
pyrolytic system to be installed at the eCycling International, LLC
facility located in Ulmer, South Carolina?
    A1: No. The exemption at 40 CFR 60.50c(f) does not apply to the
CoronaLux system because the definition of ``pyrolysis'' at 40 CFR
60.51c is the ``endothermic gasification of hospital waste . . .'' and
the CoronaLux system is not endothermic throughout the system.
    Q2: Does EPA determine that the CoronaLux system would be subject
to 40 CFR part 60 subpart Ec (hospital/medical/infectious waste
incinerator (HMIWI) standards)?
    A2: Yes. The CoronaLux system, if constructed and operated as
described, is a HMIWI, as defined in 40 CFR 60.51c. The EPA determines
that the operation of the primary chamber conforms to the definition of
``primary chamber'' in the HMIWI rule; in which the chamber receives
waste material, in which waste is ignited, and from which it is
removed. The low energy plasma chamber and the residence chamber are
``secondary chambers'' under the rule because they receive combustion
gases from the primary chamber and the combustion process is completed.

Abstract for [1700009]

    Q: Does EPA determine that Monell CO2, LLC's (Monell)
CO2 Flex Plant, located in Sweetwater County, Wyoming, that
processes CO2 used in field stimulation is subject to NSPS OOOO,
Standards of Performance for Crude Oil and Natural Gas Production,
Transmission and Distribution for which Construction, Modification or
Reconstruction Commenced After August 23, 2011, and on or before
September 18, 2015?
    A: Yes. The EPA determines that the Monell CO2 Flex
Plant is a natural gas processing plant subject to NSPS OOOO. Per 40
CFR 60.5430, the definition of natural gas processing plant includes
the extraction of natural gas liquids (NGLs), and the Monell
CO2 Flex Plant extracts NGLs.

Abstract for [1700037]

    Q1: Does EPA agree with the Oklahoma Department of Environmental
Quality's (ODEQ) interpretation for reporting of Continuous Monitoring
System (CMS) downtime, and the methodology for calculating emissions
based upon a valid hour of data collected?
    A1: Yes. EPA agrees with ODEQ on how CMS downtime and CMS reported
emissions should be determined and reported.
    Q2: What interpretation for reporting of CMS downtime did EPA
concur with ODEQ?
    A2: EPA agreed that each facility should record and report each
period of CMS monitor downtime regardless of duration. EPA also
clarified the intent of 40 CFR 60.7(d). Since minutes are used to
assess opacity compliance, minutes must also be the unit of measure in
determining downtime percentages of total operating time. Emission
limitations other than opacity are typically based upon hourly block or
rolling averages, so assessment of compliance and determining downtime
percentages of total operating time needs to be on the same basis
(i.e., hourly).
    Q3: What interpretation for calculating CMS downtime did EPA concur
with ODEQ?
    A3: EPA agreed that the calculation of the hourly average emissions
requires using each valid 1-minute reading within an hourly monitoring
time, not four 15-minute averages within each hour. In accordance with
40 CFR 60.13(h)(2)(v), all valid data points within the monitoring
period must be used.

Abstract for [1700038]

    Q: Does EPA conditionally approve a request to reduce the
concentrations of the calibration gas and validation standards on the
continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) for several flares subject
to NSPS subpart Ja at the Valero St. Charles refinery located in Norco,
Louisiana?
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the request provided that all
other requirements of the monitoring procedures of NSPS Subpart Ja for
total reduced sulfur (TRS) are followed. The alternative span gases
will address safety concerns involving storage, handling, and
engineering controls. EPA conditionally approved Valero's proposed
calibration gas concentration ranges for conducting daily drift checks,
relative accuracy test audits, and cylinder gas audits, using total
sulfur ovens to continuously analyze and monitor TRS. Additionally,
Valero must conduct a linearity analysis on the total sulfur ovens once
every three years to determine linearity across the entire range of
expected concentrations of acid gas vent streams.

Abstract for [1700039]

    Q: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan to allow sulfur
loading arm vent streams from sulfur recovery units (SRUs) to be
combusted in the respective Tail Gas Incinerators (TGIs) under NSPS
subpart J at the Valero Houston Refinery located in Houston, Texas?
    A: Yes. EPA determines that both SRUs are affected facilities under
NSPS subpart J, and the TGIs have continuous emission monitors which
comply with the applicable sulfur dioxide emission limit of 250 parts
per million (ppm). The sulfur loading arm vent streams include small
amounts of hydrogen sulfide vapor at low pressure. These streams are
similar to sulfur pit vapors that are routed to the TGIs. EPA has
previously determined that such vapors may be controlled by TGIs
because sulfur pits are considered to be part of an SRU.

Abstract for [1700040]

    Q: Does EPA approve a modification to the July 21, 2016 prior
approval of an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) to use the data
obtained from the total sulfur (TS) continuous emissions monitoring
system (CEMS) for a flare at Plant 3 of the Suncor Energy (U.S.A.)
Incorporated (Suncor) Commerce City Refinery in Commerce City, Colorado
subject to NSPS subpart Ja? Prior approval is at ADI Control Number
1600033.
    A: Yes. EPA approves Suncor's AMP for a flare at Plant 3, pursuant
to 40 CFR 60.13(i), to use the data obtained from the TS CEMS low range
two-point daily calibration drift and two-point quarterly audits, as
well as a one-point challenge in the high range. Because Suncor is
requesting this AMP based on a significant safety hazard to refinery
personnel and because this monitoring is being performed to detect the
threshold for a root cause analysis, not to monitor for compliance with
an emission limit, the EPA will allow for minimal use of high
concentration calibration gases. This approach avoids routine use of
higher level calibration gases in the field; higher level gases are
only used for quarterly audits and annual testing and could be brought
on-site by a testing contractor and then removed after the test/audit.

Abstract for [1700041]

    Q: Does EPA approve an exemption in lieu of an Alternative
Monitoring Plan for combusting an off-gas vent stream from a catalytic
oxidizer unit as an inherently low-content sulfur stream under NSPS for
Refineries part 60

subpart Ja at the Valero Refining--Texas L.P.'s (Valero's) refinery
located in Texas City, Texas?
    A: Yes. Based on the process operating parameters and monitoring
data submitted by Valero, EPA conditionally approves the exemption
request. EPA determines that the Valero catalytic oxidizer unit vent
stream is inherently low in sulfur according to 40 CFR
60.107a(a)(3)(iv). If the sulfur content or process operating
parameters for the off-gas 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 40 CFR 60.107a(b)(3). The exemption determination
should also be referenced and attached to the facility's new source
review and Title V permit for federal enforceability.

Abstract for [1700042]

    Q: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan to allow sulfur
loading arm vent streams from sulfur recovery plants (SRPs) to be
combusted in the respective Tail Gas Incinerators (TGIs) under NSPS
subpart J at the Valero Refining--Texas L.P.'s refinery (Valero)
located in Texas City, Texas?
    A: Yes. EPA approves Valero's AMP for both SRPs are affected
facilities under NSPS Subpart J, and the TGIs have continuous emission
monitors which comply with the applicable sulfur dioxide emission limit
of 250 parts per million. The sulfur loading arm vent streams include
small amounts of hydrogen sulfide vapor at low pressure. These streams
are similar to sulfur pit vapors that are routed to the TGIs. EPA has
previously determined that such vapors may be controlled by TGIs
because sulfur pits are considered to be part of an SRP.

Abstract for [1700044]

    Q: Does EPA approve the alternative monitoring request for the
distillation units at the Albemarle Corporation Pasadena, Texas
facility, which is covered under 40 CFR part 60, NSPS for Volatile
Organic Compound (VOC) Emissions from Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) Distillation Operations (Subpart NNN)
and Reactor Processes (Subpart RRR)?
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approved the request for meeting Subpart
RRR requirements in lieu of those in Subpart NNN for testing,
monitoring, and record-keeping, related specifically to the use of car
seals on closed bypass valves in lieu of flow indicators for compliance
with the standards of both Subparts. Subpart NNN requires flow
indicators at each valve. Under Subpart RRR, in lieu of flow indicators
each valve would be treated as a bypass line and must be secured with a
car-seal or lock and key configuration. Each seal or closure mechanism
must be visually inspected monthly and maintained in the closed
position so that the vent stream is not diverted through the closed
line. In addition, Albemarle must also comply with the associated
record keeping requirements of 40 CFR 60.705(d)(2) and 40 CFR 60.705(s)
in the initial report to the state agency and maintain a copy onsite
for the life of the system to ensure that the affected vent streams are
routed to appropriate control devices under this approval.

Abstract for [1700045]

    Q: Does EPA approve the Alternative Monitoring and Testing Waiver
request for the vent gas streams from the Olefins Manufacturing Unit
and Demethanizer Distillation Column Vents at the Eastman Chemical
Company facility, located in Longview, Texas, which is covered under 40
CFR part 60, Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic Compound
(VOC) Emissions from Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry
(SOCMI) Distillation Operations (subpart NNN) and Reactor Processes
(subpart RRR)?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the request for meeting subpart RRR in lieu of
subpart NNN requirements for testing, monitoring, and recordkeeping for
use of process boilers, furnaces and heaters as control devices for
compliance with the standards of both subparts. The vent streams will
be introduced with the primary fuel for each combustion device. None of
the vents have bypasses directly to atmosphere. A copy of the schematic
required by 40 CFR 60.705(s) is required with the initial report to the
state agency and must be maintained on site for the life of the system
to ensure that the affected vent streams are being routed to
appropriate control devices without bypass.

Abstract for [1700046]

    Q: Does EPA determine that the coal storage and transport operation
located at the Kinder Morgan Hickman Bulk Terminal in Blytheville,
Arkansas is an affected coal preparation plant subject to the
requirements of NSPS subpart Y?
    A: No. Based on Kinder Morgan's process description and review of
support and guidance documents for subpart Y, EPA determines that
although the Hickman Bulk Terminal stores, loads, and transports more
than 200 tons per day of pre-processed coal and coke, no additional
processing of coal that involves breaking, crushing, cleaning, or
drying takes place at the facility.

Abstract for [1700047]

    Q: Does EPA approve the Alternative Monitoring request for the
distillation unit at the Nova Molecular Technologies, Incorporated
Pasadena, Texas facility, which is covered under 40 CFR part 60,
Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Emissions
from Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI)
Distillation Operations (subpart NNN) and Reactor Processes (subpart
RRR)?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the alternative monitoring request for meeting
subpart RRR requirements in lieu of those in subpart NNN for testing,
monitoring, and record-keeping, related specifically to the use of car
seals on closed bypass valves in lieu of flow indicators for compliance
with the standards of both subparts. NSPS subpart NNN requires flow
indicators at each valve. Under subpart RRR, in lieu of flow indicators
each valve would be treated as a bypass line and must be secured with a
car-seal or lock and key configuration. Each seal or closure mechanism
must be visually inspected monthly and maintained in the closed
position so that the vent stream is not diverted through the closed
line.

Abstract for [1700048]

    Q: Does EPA approve an exemption in lieu of an Alternative
Monitoring Plan for combusting an off-gas vent stream from a lean amine
tank as an inherently low-content sulfur stream under NSPS for
Refineries part 60 subpart Ja at the Valero Refining--Texas L.P.'s
(Valero's) refinery located in Texas City, Texas?
    A: Yes. Based on the process operating parameters and monitoring
data submitted by Valero, EPA conditionally approves the exemption
request. EPA determines that Valero's lean amine tank vent stream is
inherently low in sulfur according to 60.107a(a)(3)(iv). If the sulfur
content or process operating parameters for the off-gas 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 40 CFR
60.107a(b)(3). The exemption determination should also be referenced
and attached to the facility's new source review and Title V permit for
federal enforceability.

Abstract for [1700049]

    Q: Does EPA approve an exemption in lieu of an Alternative
Monitoring Plan for combusting the combined off-gas vent stream from
API separators and vacuum truck loading as an inherently low-content
sulfur stream under NSPS for Refineries part 60 subpart Ja at the
Valero Refining--Texas L.P.'s (Valero's) refinery located in Texas
City, Texas?
    A: Yes. Based on the process operating parameters and monitoring
data submitted by Valero, EPA conditionally approves the exemption
because Valero's API separator and vacuum truck loading combined vent
stream is inherently low in sulfur according to 40 CFR
60.107a(a)(3)(iv). If the sulfur content or process operating
parameters for the off-gas 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 40 CFR 60.107a(b)(3). The exemption determination
should also be referenced and attached to the facility's new source
review and Title V permit for federal enforceability.

Abstract for [1700050]

    Q1: Does EPA approve United Taconite LLC (United) to use daily
visible emission checks instead of a Method 9 opacity observation test
for the intermittent, backup winter fluxstone unloading fugitive
source, regulated by 40 CFR part 60 subpart OOO, at its fluxstone
handling facility in Forbes, Minnesota?
    A1: No. EPA denies United's request to waive Method 9 testing on
the winter fluxstone unloading facilities. United must comply with the
requirements of subpart OOO by conducting the required testing.
    Q2: Does EPA waive the requirement for Method 9 visible emission
performance testing requirements for affected facilities inside
United's fluxstone storage building?
    A2: No. EPA denies United's request to waive Method 9 testing on
the fluxstone storage building. United must comply with the
requirements of subpart OOO by conducting the required testing.
    Q3: Does EPA determine that United meets the testing requirements
for its EQUI 173 and 174 emission units with a single test using the
stack from the common control device?
    A3: Yes. EPA approves United's request to meet the testing
requirements on summer unloading conveyors by conducting a combined
emission test.
    Q4: Does EPA determine that the appropriate limit for the fabric
filter control device controlling EQUI 173 and 174 is 0.014 grains per
dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf)?
    A4: Yes. EPA approves United's request to comply with an emission
limit of 0.014 gr/dcsf on the combined operations of both summer
unloading conveyors and to demonstrate compliance at the fabric filter
control device.
    Q5: Does EPA determine that a compliant performance test of EQUI
173 and 174 is sufficient evidence to grant a testing requirement
waiver for the EQUI 175 facility?
    A5: Yes. EPA conditionally approves United's request to waive the
conveyor EQUI 175 testing requirement of an initial performance test at
the fabric filter controlling the winter fluxstone unloading conveyor.
United must first conduct testing to demonstrate the compliance of the
fabric filter during the combined testing of the summer unloading
conveyors STRU I and associated TREA 3 before EPA will waive the
initial testing requirement.

Abstract for [1700052]

    Q: Does EPA approve Magnetation LLC's request for a performance
test deadline extension for dry crushing operations at its Plant 2
facility subject to NSPS subpart LL and located in Grand Rapids,
Minnesota due to the fact that the dry crushing equipment was removed
from the site prior to the performance test deadline?
    A: No. EPA denies the request for a performance test extension.
However, since the dry crushing operations are no longer present at the
facility, the requirement to conduct a performance test is no longer
applicable. Any new dry crushing equipment will be subject to all
applicable permit requirements, NSPS subpart LL, and the performance
testing requirements of 40 CFR 60.8.

Abstract for [1700053]

    Q: Does EPA determine that a flare controlling the purge gas stream
of a landfill gas treatment system siloxane removal process at the
Liberty Landfill, Incorporated (Liberty) landfill located in
Monticello, Indiana is subject to the control requirements of 40 CFR
60.752(b)(2)(iii)(A) or (B) under NSPS subpart WWW?
    A: Yes. EPA determines that the purge gas stream at the Liberty
landfill constitutes an ``atmospheric vent from the gas treatment
system'' and is subject to the control requirements of 40 CFR
60.752(b)(2)(iii)(A) or (B).

Abstract for [1700054]

    Q: Does EPA approve Halc[oacute]n Resources' request for nitrogen
oxides (NOX) performance testing on turbines subject to NSPS
subpart GG at three locations on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation
in Dunn County, North Dakota to be allowed to test at 2 loads instead
of 4 loads?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the alternative testing request for the
performance testing for NOX required under 40 CFR 60.335.
The required tests may be conducted at an initial maximum load and a
second load 15-25% lower than maximum load of each turbine for 42-
minute test run times, double the required 21-minute test run time
outlined in Method 20, section 8.5. Pursuant to 40 CFR 60.8(b)(4), EPA
waives the requirement under 40 CFR 60.335(b)(2) for Halc[oacute]n
Resources to conduct the four evenly-spaced point load test for
NOX emissions for gas turbines at the San Luis/Alamosito
Pad, Sherman Pad and Yale Pad facilities contingent upon doubling the
run times of each of the three tests.

Abstract for [1800001]

    Q1: Does EPA approve additional Tier 2 testing in the intervening
months between when the landfill gas collection and control system
(GCCS) Design Plan is due and when the GCCS is required to be
operational at the Central Sanitary Landfill (CSL) located in Pierson,
Michigan and subject to 40 CFR part 60 subpart WWW?
    A1: Yes. EPA determines that additional Tier 2 testing can be
conducted after the Design Plan has been submitted and conditionally
approves your proposed alternative testing methodology, which is
consistent with previous determinations issued by EPA.
    Q2: Does EPA approve CSL to use alternative Tier 2 testing
methodology where the actual flowrate data is measured from the header
of its voluntary GCCS and the equation set forth in 40 CFR 60.754(b) in
lieu of the procedure at 40 CFR 60.754(a)(1) so long as it can fully
account for the total quantity of landfill gas being generated by the
landfill?
    A2: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the alternative Tier 2 testing
methodology based on CSL can demonstrate that it is collecting for the
total quantity of landfill gas being generated by the landfill to the
satisfaction of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.

Abstract for [1800003]

    Q: Does EPA determine that Dyno Nobel Incorporated's (Dyno) Micro-
Auto

Gasification System (``MAGS'') located at its Wolf Lake, Illinois
facility is subject to the NSPS subpart CCCC, Standards of Performance
for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units?
    A: No. Based on the Dyno's description of the MAGS, EPA determines
that the MAGS unit is not subject to NSPS subpart CCCC because does not
combust solid waste as defined in 40 CFR part 241. The gasification
unit does not meet the regulatory criterion of being ``any distinct
operating unit of any commercial or industrial facility that combusts,
or has combusted in the preceding 6 months, any solid waste as that
term is defined in 40 CFR part 241.''

Abstract for [1800005]

    Q: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for O-Zone
Industrial Services (O-Zone) to conduct monitoring of hydrogen sulfide
(H2S) emissions, in lieu of installing a continuous emission monitoring
system, when performing tank degassing and other similar operations
controlled by portable, temporary thermal oxidizers, at refineries that
are subject to NSPS subparts J or Ja?
    A: Yes. 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 conditionally approves O-Zone's AMP for tank
degassing and other temporary operations at various petroleum
refineries located in the region. EPA is including proposed operating
parameter limits and data which the refineries must furnish as part of
the conditional approval.

Abstract for [1800006]

    Q: For flares subject to NSPS subpart Ja and which are normally
recovering flare gases, does EPA approve BP Products North America,
Incorporated's (BP's) request to conduct an enhanced cylinder gas audit
(CGA) at its Whiting, Indiana refinery rather than a relative accuracy
test audit (RATA) for the hydrogen sulfide (H2S) continuous emission
monitoring systems (CEMS)?
    A: No. EPA determines that BP can conduct the RATA due to the
location of its H2S CEMS and has not demonstrated why foregoing the
RATA in lieu of an enhanced CGA is necessary or more beneficial than
other alternative monitoring options.

Abstract for [1800007]

    Q: Does EPA approve a waiver of the requirement to conduct a Method
5 performance test under NSPS OOO, Standards of Performance for
Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plants, and demonstration of compliance
by the use of Method 9 for baghouses located at the Unimin Corporation
facility in Troup, Texas (Unimin)?
    A: Yes. EPA waives conducting Method 5 test on the baghouse that
controls emissions from the silos and bagging operations due to the
difficulty to complete the test due to the location and orientation of
the baghouse stack outlets, and the intermittent nature of loading
operations with little advance notice and very short durations, which
are not sustained long enough to meet the sampling requirements of
Method 5. Unimin's alternate compliance demonstration based on any two-
minute average of opacity from the baghouse stacks not exceeding five
percent will provide adequate assurance of compliance with both the
particulate concentration and opacity limits in subpart OOO. The Method
9 testing must be conducted in accordance with the applicable
requirements of NSPS subparts A and OOO.

Abstract for [1800008]

    Q1: Are tanks that meet the exemption levels of 40 CFR 60.110b(b)
subject to any recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR 60.116b, including
40 CFR 60.116b(b), of the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS),
subpart Kb?
    A1: No. The EPA responded to the Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality (OKDEQ) that if a tank meets the exemption
requirement under 40 CFR 60.110b(b) or (d), the requirements under 40
CFR 60.116b do not apply.
    Q2: Is an existing Group I or II storage tank that is an affected
source under NSPS subpart Kb, but which meets the exemption levels of
60.110b(b), required to comply with the recordkeeping requirement of
NSPS subpart Kb?
    A2: No. The EPA responded to OKDEPQ that if a Group 1 or Group 2
storage vessel can meet the exemption of NSPS subpart Kb, then the
recordkeeping provisions of 40 CFR 60.116b do not apply. The exemptions
at 40 CFR 60.110b(b) and (d) begin with the phrase ``This subpart does
not apply to . . .'' 40 CFR 63.640(n)(1) states that if a Group 1 or
Group 2 storage vessel under NESHAP subpart CC is part of an existing
source, it is required to comply only with the requirements of NSPS
subpart Kb. Since NESHAP subpart CC references NSPS Kb for existing
sources, the exemption in subpart Kb takes precedence.

Abstract for [1800009]

    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan (AMP) to allow
alternate span gas concentration values for hydrogen sulfide (H2S) on
total reduced sulfur (TRS) continuous emissions monitoring systems
(CEMS) for six flares subject to NSPS subparts A and Ja, located at the
HollyFrontier Navajo Refining Company's (HollyFrontier Navajo's) two
petroleum refineries in Artesia and Lovington, New Mexico?
    A: Yes. Based on the process data and analyzer information
submitted, EPA conditionally approves the AMP request with specified
concentration ranges. HollyFrontier Navajo installed a ThermoFisher
Scientific SOLA II pulsed ultraviolet fluorescence (PUVF) detector to
continuously analyze and record the high span TRS concentrations at the
flares. Holly Frontier Navajo must conduct linearity analysis on the
SOLA II PUVF detector once every three years to determine the
detector's linearity across the entire range of expected concentrations
of acid gas vent streams. The analysis shall demonstrate that linearity
is maintained for all six flares for the vent gas stream H2S
concentrations. A report of each completed linearity analysis shall be
submitted to EPA Region 6 and to the New Mexico Environmental
Department, and maintained in each facility's on-site records.

Abstract for [1800013]

    Q: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) request
for two internal floating roof (IFR) storage tanks located at the
Phillips 66 East Saint Louis, Illinois facility (Phillips 66) and
subject to 40 CFR part 60 subpart Kb?
    A: Yes. EPA approves an AMP that allows Phillips 66 to conduct
inspections of the IFR tank using a top-side in-service internal
inspection methodology.

Abstract for [M170015]

    Q: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) under MACT
subpart R for monitoring of alternative operating parameters at a
thermal oxidation system in lieu of temperature monitoring at the
firebox during loading of gasoline cargo tanks at the Magellan Pipeline
Company, LP's (Magellan's) bulk gasoline distribution terminal located
in Enid, Oklahoma?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the AMP for monitoring of the presence of a
pilot flame, operation of the assist-air blower, and operation of the
vapor line valve for the thermal oxidation system. Magellan submitted
results from a performance test conducted in accordance with 40 CFR
63.425(b), demonstrating overall compliance with the emission standard.
Additionally, Magellan proposed

monthly and semi-annual inspections to ensure efficient operation of
the associated monitoring equipment.

Abstract for [M170016]

    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan to use a
sampling technique which is different from that specified under 40 CFR
part 63 subpart F for the heat exchange system at the Rubicon LLC
facility located in Geismar, Louisiana?
    A: No. EPA denies the request based on lack of sufficient
justification for using the alternate sampling method, including
failing to sufficiently demonstrate that composite sample collection
would achieve an equivalent level of monitoring as three sets of grab
samples taken at the entrance and exit of the heat exchange system, as
required by 40 CFR 63.104(b)(5).

Abstract for [M170019]

    Q: Does EPA determine that additional time needed for the Roche
Diagnostic Operations, Incorporated (Roche) facility, located in
Indianapolis, Indiana, to switch from the facility's emergency
generators back to utility-provided power after a power outage has
ended should be considered operation in an ``emergency situation''
under 40 CFR part 63 subpart ZZZZ?
    A: No. EPA determines that operation of the facility's emergency
engines as a result of a power outage is operation in an emergency
situation until the first available opportunity to be switched back to
the local utility-provided power. Generally, any period of operation
that occurs after Roche could have switched back to utility power but
chose not to do so for operational convenience should not be considered
operation in an emergency situation.

Abstract for [M170021]

    Q1: Does EPA approve Dow Chemical Company's (Dow's) proposal to use
a carbon adsorption system to control emissions under 40 CFR part 63
subpart HHHHH from the Structural Adhesives Process Unit at its
miscellaneous coating manufacturing facility in Midland, Michigan?
    A1: No. Dow did not submit sufficient information for EPA to
evaluate the proposal to use a carbon adsorption system.
    Q2: Does EPA approve Dow's proposed operating parameter for the
carbon adsorption system?
    A2: No. EPA determines that Dow's proposed operating parameter is
insufficient to ensure that the carbon bed is operating properly at all
times.

Abstract for [M170022]

    Q: Does EPA approve at Dow Chemical Company's Midland, Michigan
facility the use of alternative monitoring of pressure relief devices
for portable containers per 40 CFR part 63 subparts JJJ and MMM?
    A: Yes. Based on the information provided in Dow's request, EPA
conditionally approves alternative monitoring to perform and document
visual observations of the pressure release devices on the portable
containers used to manage waste and wastewater. Dow demonstrated the
infeasibility of using hardwire and wireless pressure release device
technology to continuously monitor these technologies for portable
containers that are moved frequently, primarily rented, in some cases
are received from off-site locations, and not dedicated to specific
regulated wastewater streams. The conditions for approval are included
in the EPA response letter.

Abstract for [M170023]

    Q: Does EPA approve Brembo North America, Incorporated's (Brembo's)
request to use a Continuous Parametric Monitoring System in lieu of a
continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) for monitoring Volatile
Organic Hazardous Air Pollutant (VOHAP) emissions under 40 CFR part 63
subpart EEEEE from an automated castings shakeout line at its grey iron
foundry in Homer, Michigan?
    A: No. EPA determines that Brembo has not provided sufficient
information to demonstrate that operating a VOHAP CEMS device on its
shakeout line would be technically infeasible or impractical.

Abstract for [M170024]

    Q1: Does EPA approve The Dow Chemical Company's (Dow's) proposal to
discontinue use of the Impinging Liquid Adsorption System and instead
use a carbon adsorption system under 40 CFR part 63 subpart HHHHH at
its miscellaneous coating manufacturing facility in Midland, Michigan?
    A1: No. Dow did not submit sufficient information for EPA to
evaluate the proposal to use a carbon adsorption system.
    Q2: Does EPA approve Dow's proposed operating parameter for the
carbon adsorption system?
    A2: No. Dow's proposed operating parameter is insufficient to
ensure that the carbon bed is operating properly at all times.

Abstract for [M170025]

    Q: Alcoa Warrick LLC (Alcoa) is in the process of restarting a
smelter idled on March 31, 2016, and is requesting additional time
under 40 CFR subpart LL for the installation of a carbon adsorber
system necessary to meet the required POM removal rate at the pitch
tank(s) located in the paste production plant in Newburgh, Indiana.
Does EPA grant Alcoa's request for an additional 60 days to the October
16, 2017 compliance date contained in 40 CFR 63.847(a)(2)(iii) for the
pitch storage tank POM limit provisions of 40 CFR 63.843(d)?
    A: Yes. Since the additional 60 days is necessary for the
installation of controls, EPA grants the limited extension in
accordance with 40 CFR 63.6(i)(4)(i)(A).

Abstract for [M170026]

    Q: Does EPA approve Associated Milk Producers, Incorporated's
request for a performance test time extension under 40 CFR part 63
subpart JJJJJJ, so that the facility, located in Jim Falls, Wisconsin,
can perform the test concurrent with another state-required test to
minimize the cost of testing?
    A: No. Based on the information provided, EPA determines that there
are no grounds for an extension under NESHAP subpart JJJJJJ or 40 CFR
63.7 (Performance Testing Requirements). The request involves a coal-
fired boiler, and the test is required to demonstrate compliance
pursuant to NESHAP subpart JJJJJJ.

Abstract for [M170027]

    Q: Does EPA approve Allnex USA Incorporated's (Allnex's)
alternative monitoring request to not monitor the pH of a water
scrubber for a methylated resin process subject to 40 CFR part 63
subpart OOO at its Kalamazoo, Michigan facility?
    A: Yes. EPA waives the requirement to monitor scrubber effluent pH
for once-through water scrubber systems pursuant to 40 CFR
63.1415(c)(2), which allows an owner or operator who uses one of the
control devices included in 40 CFR 63.1415(b) (e.g., a scrubber) to
request approval to monitor parameters other than those specified in
Table 3 of Subpart OOO. Since methanol and formaldehyde are not acidic
gases, are both highly soluble in water, and the scrubber is a once-
through system, the pH of the scrubber effluent does not affect the
scrubber's removal efficiency.

Abstract for [M180001]

    Q: Pursuant to 40 CFR 63.8000(d)(3) and 63.8075(c), does EPA
approve an alternative monitoring plan (AMP) from The Dow Chemical
Company (Dow) for use of alternative operating parameters in lieu. of
the parameters identified in

40 CFR 63.990(c)(3) of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants: Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing, 40 CFR part 63,
subpart HHHHH, for a carbon adsorption located at the twin extruder
unit located at the coating manufacturing facility in Midland,
Michigan?
    A: Yes. Based on the information submitted by Dow, EPA
conditionally approves Dow's proposed AMP to monitor the instantaneous
weight of each carbon bed and hourly average outlet temperature of each
bed in the series, if the hourly average temperatures demonstrate that
at least one of the beds is operating properly such that it can achieve
at least 95 percent reduction in HAP emissions, no deviation of the
temperature operating limit has occurred.

Abstract for [M180002]

    Q: Does EPA approve Quemetco Incorporated's (Quemetco) alternative
monitoring plan (AMP) to use the furnace firing rate as a surrogate for
temperature to demonstrate compliance with the emission standards for
total hydrocarbon (THC) and dioxins and furans (D/F) emissions
standards for all furnace operating scenarios at its Indianapolis,
Indiana facility subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart X?
    A: The Quemetco's AMP does not address the scenario for periods
when only the electric furnace is in operation. Therefore, the EPA
approves the use of furnace firing rate as a surrogate for temperature
to demonstrate continuous compliance only for the reverberatory furnace
when is in operation. For all other periods (i.e., when only the
electric furnace is operating), Quemetco must demonstrate continuous
compliance with the THC and D/F through continuous temperature
monitoring consistent with 40 CFR 63.548(j).

Abstract for [M180004]

    Q1: Does EPA determine that a mist eliminator controlling emissions
from only a Group 2 tank needs to comply with item 3 or 4 of Table 5 of
the NESHAP subpart LLLLL at the CertainTeed Corporation facility
located in Shakopee, Minnesota?
    A1: Yes. EPA determines that a mist eliminator needs to comply with
item 4 of Table 5 of the NESHAP subpart LLLLL because a mist eliminator
is not a combustion device.
    Q2: Does EPA approve of monitoring the mist eliminator to ensure a
minimum pressure drop is met and performing daily visible emission
checks to demonstrate compliance with the opacity standard?
    A2: No. EPA determines the mist eliminator must be monitored to
ensure a pressure drop is maintained between a range and that the gas
inlet temperature is maintained below a certain temperature established
by the most recent stack test or according to the manufacturer's
specifications.

Abstract for [M180005]

    Q: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) to change
the fixed 30-day frequency for inspections required for closed-vent
collection systems, subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart S, at the
Clearwater Paper Corporation (Clearwater) Cypress Bend Mill in McGehee,
AR?
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves Clearwater's AMP request to
conduct inspections on a monthly basis rather than every thirty days.
EPA accepts the proposed submittal of a site-specific Leak Detection
and Repair (LDAR) plan, but does not approve the safety height
threshold of four feet, referencing the requirement at 40 CFR
63.148(h)(l), in which the safety height threshold is specified as 2
meters (approximately 6 feet). EPA also conditionally approves
alternative monitoring provisions for inspection and repair of
inherently unsafe or inaccessible equipment, as part of the site-
specific plan. The submitted plan must incorporate the approved
conditions outlined in EPA's response letter. Except for inherently
unsafe or inaccessible equipment, the facility will satisfy all other
applicable monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 63.453(k) and (l).

Abstract for [M180011]

    Q: Pursuant to 40 CFR 63.8000(d)(3) and 63.8075(c), does EPA
approve an alternative monitoring plan (AMP) from The Dow Chemical
Company (Dow) to use the weight of the carbon bed and outlet
temperature of each bed in the series in lieu of using an organic
monitoring device capable of providing a continuous record at its
coating manufacturing for a carbon adsorption for the Structural
Adhesives Process Unit located at its facility in Midland, Michigan,
that is subject to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing, 40 CFR part 63,
subpart HHHHH?
    A: Yes. EPA approves Dow's proposed AMP, including proposed
parameters, operating limits and design evaluation, with clarifications
relating to the proposed parameters.

Abstract for [WDS-149]

    Q: Does the EPA determine that the 2015 Wood Heater regulations
(2015 Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters, New
Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces (subpart AAA))
apply to the manufacture of Kuuma sauna stoves by Lamppa Manufacturing
Incorporated (Lamppa) located in Tower, Minnesota?
    A: No. After review of the information on the and intended use of
the sauna stoves, EPA determines that subpart AAA does not apply to
Lamppa's sauna stoves since these do not meet the definition of wood
heater. The sauna stoves as manufactured are intended solely for the
purpose of heating a ``sauna hot-room'' and are not meant to be a heat
source for any other area, including residential space (``homes or
living quarters''). Subpart AAA defines a wood heater as ``an enclosed,
wood burning-appliance capable of and intended for residential space
heating or space heating and domestic water heating.'' For subpart AAA
to be applicable, the wood heater would have to be meant for
residential purposes. The term ``residential'' is commonly defined as a
space designed and used for people to live in. Therefore, the Kuuma
sauna stoves are intended to heat the sauna hot-room only and not to be
used for residential use.

Abstract for [WDS-150]

    Q: If RISE Research Institutes of Sweden AB uses Method 28 WHH-PTS
when conducting certification tests for a hydronic boiler, does EPA
determine that the method's startup phase measurement satisfies the
first hour particulate matter (PM) emissions measurement as required by
the 2015 Wood Heater Rule (the Rule), subpart QQQQ, at 40 CFR
60.5476(c)(6))?
    A: Yes. EPA determines that the Method 28 WHH-PTS startup phase
measurement does meet the regulatory to measure PM first-hour emissions
measurement requirement with startup conditions. The intent of the Rule
to measure potentially higher emissions associated with startup
conditions is obtained by the test method which separately captures the
emissions from the explicitly defined startup phase. Test Method 28
WHH-PTS not only measures PM emissions for the entire test duration,
including the startup phase, the Method also clearly defines the
startup phase ``as the period from the start of the test until 15
percent of the test fuel charge is consumed.''

Abstract for [Z180001]

    Q: Does EPA approve Phillips 66 Company's request to modify a
previously issued Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for a Wet Gas

Scrubber (WGS) on a the No. 4 Fluidized Catalytic Cracking Unit (FCCU)
subject to NSPS part 60, subpart J, and also new requirements of NESHAP
part 63, subpart UUU, for parametric monitoring of opacity at the WGS
in lieu of a Continuous Opacity Monitoring System, due to moisture
interference on opacity readings in the stack at its Ponca City
Refinery, located in Ponca City, Oklahoma?
    A: Yes. Based upon the design of the WGS unit and EPA review of the
test results and process specific supplemental information provided by
Phillips 66 Company, EPA conditionally approves the AMP request for
operating parameter limits for the WGS. The OPLs approved for
demonstrating compliance with the AMP included minimum Liquid-to-Gas
Ratio (L/G), minimum water pressure to the quench/spray tower nozzles,
and minimum pressure drop across filter modules/cyclolabs. The revised
AMP must include data in support of retaining the independent OPLs
established for the scrubber under NSPS subpart J, based on a
performance test under worst case expected operating conditions, which
will also meet the newly added opacity monitoring requirements under
MACT subpart UUU.

Abstract for [Z180002]

    Q: Does EPA approve Phillips 66 Company's request to modify a
previously issued Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for a Wet Gas
Scrubber (WGS) on the No. 5 Fluidized Catalytic Cracking Unit (FCCU)
subject to NSPS part 60, subpart J, and also new requirements of NESHAP
Part 63, subpart UUU, for parametric monitoring of opacity at the WGS
in lieu of a Continuous Opacity Monitoring System, due to moisture
interference on opacity readings in the stack at its Ponca City
Refinery located in Ponca City Oklahoma?
    A: Yes. based upon the design of the WGS unit and EPA review of the
test results and process specific supplemental information provided by
Phillips 66 Company, EPA conditionally approves the request for
operating parameter limits (OPLs) for the WGS. The OPLs approved for
demonstrating compliance with the AMP included minimum Liquid-to-Gas
Ratio (L/G), minimum water pressure to the quench/spray tower nozzles,
and minimum pressure drop across filter modules/cyclolabs. The revised
AMP must include data in support of retaining the independent OPLs
established for the scrubber under NSPS subpart J, based on a
performance test under worst case expected operating conditions, which
will also meet the newly added opacity monitoring requirements under
MACT subpart UUU.

    Dated: November 20, 2018.
John Dombrowski,
Acting Director, Office of Compliance, Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance.

    Editorial Note:  This document was received by the Federal
Register on February 25, 2019.

[FR Doc. 2019-03593 Filed 3-15-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 191 (Tuesday, October 2, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60060-60062]
[FR Doc No: 2012-24174]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-1003; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-064-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. This
proposed AD was prompted by reports of engine fire/overheat detector
assemblies advance pneumatic detectors (APDs) failing to reset after
activation due to permanent deformation of the detector switch
diaphragm after being exposed to high temperatures. This proposed AD
would require replacing all three APDs with new detector assemblies. We
are proposing this AD to prevent a continued engine fire indication in
the cockpit after the actual fire has been extinguished, which is
misleading and may influence the pilot to conduct a potentially
hazardous ``off-airport'' landing.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 16,
2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard,
Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 416-375-
4539; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mazdak Hobbi, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion and Services Branch, ANE-173, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY
11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2012-1003;
Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-064-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2012-07, dated January 27, 2012 (referred to after this as ``the
MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The
MCAI states:

    There have been engine fires on DHC-8 Series 400 aeroplanes,
where the ``ENGINE FIRE, CHECK FIRE DETECT'' warning and ``FUEL
OFF'' handle lights failed to reset and remained illuminated after
the fire was extinguished. An investigation has revealed that the
existing engine fire/overheat detector assemblies ``Advance
Pneumatic Detectors (APD)'' may fail to reset after activation due
to permanent deformation of the detector switch diaphragm after
being exposed to high temperatures.
    This abnormal condition of a continued engine fire indication in
the cockpit, after the actual fire has been extinguished, is
misleading and may influence the pilot's decision to conduct a
potentially hazardous ``off-airport'' landing, which is considered
an unsafe condition that warrants mitigating action.
    To mitigate this potentially hazardous condition, Bombardier has
issued multiple service bulletins (SBs) [Bombardier Service
Bulletins 84-26-08, Revision A, dated May 12, 2011; 84-26-09,
Revision A, dated May 12, 2011; and 84-26-12, Revision A, dated
December 13, 2011] to replace all three affected APDs with new
detector assemblies that are not susceptible to the subject
diaphragm deformation when exposed to excessive heat. * * *

    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Bombardier, Inc. has issued Service Bulletins 84-26-08, Revision A,
dated May 12, 2011; 84-26-09, Revision A, dated May 12, 2011; and 84-
26-12, Revision A, dated December 13, 2011. The actions described in
this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition
identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 84 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 63 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per
work-hour. Required parts would cost about $5,700 per product. Where
the service information lists required parts costs that are covered
under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for

these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected
parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based
on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S.
operators to be $928,620, or $11,055 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2012-1003; Directorate Identifier
2012-NM-064-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by November 16, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400, -401, and -
402 airplanes; certificated in any category; serial numbers 4001
through 4373 inclusive.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 26, Fire
protection.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of engine fire/overheat detector
assemblies advance pneumatic detectors (APDs) failing to reset after
activation due to permanent deformation of the detector switch
diaphragm after being exposed to high temperatures. We are issuing
this AD to prevent a continued engine fire indication in the cockpit
after the actual fire has been extinguished, which is misleading and
may influence the pilot to conduct a potentially hazardous ``off-
airport'' landing.

(f) Compliance

    You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD
performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions
have already been done.

(g) Installation

    Within 6,000 flight hours or 30 months after the effective date
of this AD, whichever occurs first, replace the APDs as specified in
paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD.
    (1) For the nacelle of the engine primary zone: Remove any APD
having part number (P/N) 10-1098 and install a new APD having P/N
10-1098-01, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-26-08, Revision A, dated May 12,
2011.
    (2) For the nacelle of the landing gear primary zone: Remove any
APD having P/N 10-1097 or 10-1097-01 and install a new APD having P/
N 10-1097-02, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-26-09, Revision A, dated May 12,
2011.
    (3) For the propeller engine controller: Remove any APD having
P/N 10-1096, 10-1096-01, or 10-1096-02 (serial number is all numeric
characters), and install a new APD having P/N 10-1096-02 (serial
number is three alpha and four numeric characters), in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin
84-26-12, Revision A, dated December 13, 2011.

(h) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph
(g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective
date of this AD using the service information specified in paragraph
(h)(1), (h)(2), or (h)(3) of this AD.
    (1) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-26-08, dated March 11, 2011.
    (2) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-26-09, dated March 11, 2011.
    (3) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-26-12, dated October 12,
2011.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the ACO, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing
Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite
410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this
AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to MCAI Transport Canada Civil Aviation Airworthiness
Directive CF-2012-07, dated January 27, 2012; and the service
bulletins identified in paragraphs (j)(1)(i), (j)(1)(ii), and
(j)(1)(iii) of this AD; for related information.
    (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-26-08, Revision A, dated May
12, 2011.
    (ii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-26-09, Revision A, dated May
12, 2011.
    (iii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-26-12, Revision A, dated
December 13, 2011.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt
Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;

email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 21, 2012.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.

[FR Doc. 2012-24174 Filed 10-1-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 18 (Tuesday, January 28, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 4463]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01534]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13739-002]

Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XLII, LLC; Notice of Draft Environmental
Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations, 18 CFR part
380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 447897), the Office of Energy Projects has
reviewed the application for an original license for the proposed 5.25-
megawatt (MW) Braddock Locks and Dam Hydroelectric Project, which would
be located on the US Army Corps of Engineers' Braddock Locks and Dam
facility on the Monongahela River in the Borough of West Mifflin and
the City of Duquesne, Pennsylvania, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.
Commission staff prepared a draft Environmental Assessment (EA) which
analyzes the potential environmental effects of construction and
operation of the project and concludes that issuing a license for the
project, with appropriate environmental measures, would not constitute
a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment.
    A copy of the draft EA is on file with the Commission and is
available for public inspection. The draft EA may also be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access documents. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at (866) 208-
3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    Comments on the draft EA should be filed within 30 days from the
date of this notice. The Commission strongly encourages electronic
filing. Please file comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit
brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration,
using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp.
    You must include your name and contact information at the end of
your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-13739-002.
    For further information contact Andy Bernick at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: January 17, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-01534 Filed 1-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: January 17, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 10)]
[Notices]
[Page 2036]
[DOCID:fr17ja07-81]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold the following meeting during the week
of January 16, 2007:
    A Closed Meeting will be held on Thursday, January 18, 2007 at 2
p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsels to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), (8), (9)(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a) (3), (5), (7), (8), (9)(ii), and (10) permit consideration
of the scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Campos, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the closed meeting in closed session.
    The subject matters of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday,
January 18, 2007 will be:

Formal orders of investigation;
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an
enforcement nature;
A regulatory matter regarding a financial institution; and
Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.

    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    January 11, 2007.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 07-147 Filed 1-11-07; 4:25 pm]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P