[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 178 (Friday, September 13, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58028-58036]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-23367]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-7376-3]


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces applicability determinations, 
alternative monitoring decisions, and regulatory interpretations that 
EPA has made under the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), 40 CFR 
part 60; the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
(NESHAP), 40 CFR parts 61 and 63; and the Stratospheric Ozone 
Protection Program, 40 CFR part 82.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The General Provisions to the NSPS in 40 CFR part 60 and the NESHAP 
in 40 CFR part 61 provide that a source owner or operator may request a 
determination of whether certain intended actions constitute the 
commencement of construction, reconstruction, or modification. EPA's 
written responses to these inquiries are broadly termed applicability 
determinations. See 40 CFR 60.5 and 61.06. Although the part 63 NESHAP 
and Clean Air Act section 111(d) regulations contain no specific 
regulatory provision that sources may request applicability 
determinations, EPA does respond to written inquiries regarding 
applicability for the part 63 and section 111(d) programs. The NSPS and 
NESHAP also allow sources to seek permission to use monitoring or 
recordkeeping which is different from the promulgated requirements. See 
40 CFR 60.13(i), 61.14(g), 63.8(b)(1), 63.8(f), and 63.10(f). EPA's 
written responses to these inquiries are broadly termed alternative 
monitoring decisions. Furthermore, EPA responds to written inquiries 
about the broad range of NSPS and NESHAP regulatory requirements as 
they pertain to a whole source category. These inquiries may pertain, 
for example, to the type of sources to which the regulation applies, or 
to the testing, monitoring, recordkeeping or reporting requirements 
contained in the regulation. EPA's written responses to these inquiries 
are broadly termed regulatory interpretations.
    EPA currently compiles EPA-issued NSPS and NESHAP applicability 
determinations, alternative monitoring decisions, and regulatory 
interpretations, and posts them on the Applicability Determination 
Index (ADI) on a quarterly basis. In addition, the ADI contains EPA-
issued responses to requests pursuant to the stratospheric ozone 
regulations, contained in 40 CFR part 82. The ADI is an electronic 
index on the Internet with over one thousand EPA letters and memoranda 
pertaining to the applicability, monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
reporting requirements of the NSPS and NESHAP. The letters and 
memoranda may be searched by date, office of issuance, subpart, 
citation, control number or by string word searches.
    Today's notice comprises a summary of 55 such documents added to 
the ADI between May 2002 and July 2002. The subject, author, recipient, 
date and header of each letter and memorandum are listed in this 
notice, as well as a brief abstract of the letter or memorandum. 
Complete copies of these documents may be obtained from the ADI through 
the OECA Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/assistance/applicability.

Summary of Headers and Abstracts

    The following table identifies the database control number for each 
document posted on the ADI database system between May 2002 and July 
2002; the applicable category; the subpart(s) of 40 CFR part 60, 61, or 
63 (as applicable) covered by the document; and the title of the 
document which provides a brief description of the subject matter. We 
have also included an abstract of each document identified with its 
control number after the table. These abstracts are provided solely to 
alert the public to possible items of interest and are not intended as 
substitutes for the full text of the documents.

                           ADI Determinations Uploaded Between May 2002 and July 2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Control No.                  Category                    Subpart                       Title
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M020003...................  MACT......................  RRR......................  Opacity Monitoring
                                                                                    Alternative.
M020004...................  MACT......................  LLL......................  Performance Test Waiver and
                                                                                    Alternative Monitoring.
0200002...................  NSPS......................  WWW......................  Gas Extraction Well Operating
                                                                                    Temperature Increase
                                                                                    Requests.
0200003...................  NSPS......................  Db.......................  Duct Burner Applicability
                                                                                    Determination.

[[Page 58029]]

 
0200004...................  NSPS......................  G, A.....................  Monitoring and Excess
                                                                                    Emission Related Issues.
0200001...................  NSPS......................  J, A.....................  Alternative Monitoring for
                                                                                    Bypass of Sulfur Recovery/
                                                                                    Tail Gas Units.
0200005...................  NSPS......................  Dc.......................  Fuel Usage Recordkeeping.
0200006...................  NSPS......................  GG.......................  Alternative Method for Sulfur
                                                                                    Analysis.
0200007...................  NSPS......................  GG.......................  Alternative Method for Sulfur
                                                                                    Analysis.
0200008...................  NSPS......................  NNN, A...................  Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                    Approach.
0200009...................  NSPS......................  BB.......................  Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                    Proposals.
0200010...................  NSPS......................  GG, A....................  Initial Test Extension.
0200011...................  NSPS......................  GG, A....................  Initial Test Extension.
0200012...................  NSPS......................  OOO......................  Initial Notification and
                                                                                    Report Submittal
                                                                                    Requirements.
0200013...................  NSPS......................  Da.......................  Alternative SO2 Monitoring
                                                                                    Proposal.
0200014...................  NSPS......................  GG, A....................  Initial Test Extension.
0200015...................  NSPS......................  GG, A....................  Initial Test Extension.
0200016...................  NSPS......................  WWW, A...................  Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                    Request for Landfill Gas
                                                                                    Vent Flare.
0200017...................  NSPS......................  RR.......................  Applicability to Process
                                                                                    Printing Machine.
0200018...................  NSPS......................  GG.......................  Alternative ASTM Test Method
                                                                                    for Fuel Nitrogen Content.
0200019...................  NSPS......................  WWW......................  Waiver of Initial Performance
                                                                                    Test.
0200020...................  NSPS......................  A........................  Drift Test Waiver.
0200021...................  NSPS......................  GG.......................  Custom Fuel Monitoring
                                                                                    Schedule.
0200022...................  NSPS......................  GG.......................  Custom Fuel Monitoring
                                                                                    Schedule.
0200023...................  NSPS......................  GG.......................  Alternative to ASTM Sulfur
                                                                                    Content Test Method.
0200024...................  NSPS......................  Da.......................  Use of Part 75 Relative
                                                                                    Accuracy Test Audits
                                                                                    Procedures.
0200025...................  NSPS......................  Cc, B....................  Part 62 Landfill Regulations
                                                                                    and Superfund Sites.
0200026...................  NSPS......................  GG.......................  Alternative Test Methods for
                                                                                    Monitoring Fuel Sulfur
                                                                                    Content.
0200027...................  NSPS......................  WWW......................  Tier 2 Emissions Submission.
0200028...................  NSPS......................  WWW, A...................  Municipal Solid Waste
                                                                                    Landfill and Krysol Process.
0200029...................  NSPS......................  Ce.......................  Method 23 Sampling Time.
0200030...................  NSPS......................  BB.......................  Parallel Brown Stock Washer
                                                                                    Systems.
0200031...................  NSPS......................  GG.......................  Part 60 and Part 75
                                                                                    Continuous Emission
                                                                                    Monitoring Quality Assurance/
                                                                                    Quality Control
                                                                                    Inconsistencies.
0200032...................  NSPS......................  GG.......................  Custom Fuel Monitoring
                                                                                    Schedule.
0200033...................  NSPS......................  GG.......................  Alternate Performance Test
                                                                                    Method for Gas Turbine.
0200034...................  NSPS......................  GG.......................  Alternate Performance Test
                                                                                    Method for Gas Turbine.
0200035...................  NSPS......................  A, GG....................  Alternate Performance Test
                                                                                    Method for Gas Turbine.
0200036...................  NSPS......................  GG.......................  Alternative Fuel Analysis for
                                                                                    Testing Nitrogen Content.
C020003...................  CFC.......................  F........................  Interpretation of Refrigerant
                                                                                    Disposal.
M020005...................  MACT......................  R........................  Gasoline Vapor Combustion
                                                                                    Unit.
M020006...................  MACT......................  S........................  Applicability to Mill without
                                                                                    Virgin Pulping or Bleaching.
M020007...................  MACT......................  RRR......................  Stand-Alone Aluminum
                                                                                    Shredding Devices.
Z020001...................  NESHAP....................  L, V.....................  Tar Pitch Traps.
0200038...................  NSPS......................  GG.......................  Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                    Procedures.
0200039...................  NSPS......................  Dc.......................  Fuel Usage Monitoring.
0200040...................  NSPS......................  CCCC.....................  Air Curtain Incinerator at
                                                                                    Residential Construction
                                                                                    Site.
0200041...................  NSPS......................  GG.......................  Initial Performance Testing
                                                                                    Using Base Load Only.
0200042...................  NSPS......................  GG.......................  Alternative Testing and
                                                                                    Monitoring.
0200043...................  NSPS......................  H........................  Sulfuric Acid Plant as
                                                                                    Control Device.
0200044...................  NSPS......................  A, Kb....................  Modification of Petroleum
                                                                                    Storage Vessels.
0200045...................  NSPS......................  RR.......................  Applicability to Electrode
                                                                                    Process Line.
0200046...................  NSPS......................  A, Dc....................  Modification of a Small
                                                                                    Industrial, Commercial,
                                                                                    Institutional Steam
                                                                                    Generating Unit.
0200047...................  NSPS......................  A........................  Replacement of Boiler Wall.
0200048...................  NSPS......................  A........................  Reconstruction of Oil-Fired
                                                                                    Boiler.
0200049...................  NSPS......................  VV.......................  Equipment Leaks of Volatile
                                                                                    Organic Compounds at a
                                                                                    Synthetic Organic Chemicals
                                                                                    Manufacturing Industry
                                                                                    Facility.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abstracts

Abstract for [M020003]
    Q1: Is the monitoring that Gulf Coast Metals has proposed as an 
alternative to installation of an opacity monitor or a broken bag 
detector on two rotary furnaces at its secondary aluminum plant in 
Hillsborough County, Florida acceptable?
    A1: No. Because the company did not address several of the 
submittal requirements in 40 CFR 63.1510(w), an alternative monitoring 
approach cannot be approved at this time.
    Q2: Can the initial performance test required for the rotary 
furnaces be waived?
    A2: Although the authority to approve performance test waivers 
under 40 CFR part 63 has been delegated to the Florida Department of 
Environmental Protection, Region 4 recommends that the request be 
denied since low opacity alone will not ensure compliance with the 
applicable particulate mass emission standard.
Abstract for [M020004]
    Q: May a Portland Cement facility use an alternative initial 
performance testing and monitoring for inaccessible, totally enclosed, 
and partially enclosed conveyor system transfer points (CSTPs) and 
storage bins under NESHAP subpart LLL? This request includes 
alternative initial performance testing and monitoring for sources 
inside buildings.
    A: A Portland Cement facility may use alternative initial 
performance testing and monitoring for inaccessible, totally enclosed, 
and partially enclosed CSTPs

[[Page 58030]]

and storage bins. However, for alternative initial performance testing 
inside buildings, the EPA Regional Office has not been delegated the 
authority to approve the request.
Abstract for [0200001]
    Q1: Will EPA approve a request for an alternative monitoring plan 
to be used during bypasses of the sulfur recovery units to unmonitored 
stacks?
    A1: No. EPA will not approve this request because the alternative 
monitoring plan would not make representative measurements of the 
sulfur dioxide emissions during bypasses of the sulfur recovery units 
to unmonitored stacks.
    Q2: Will EPA approve a request for an alternative monitoring plan 
to be used during bypasses of the tail gas treating units to 
unmonitored stacks?
    A2: No. EPA will not approve this request because the alternative 
monitoring plan would not make representative measurements of the 
sulfur dioxide emissions during bypasses of the tail gas treating units 
on sulfur recovery units to unmonitored stacks.
Abstract for [0200002]
    Q: Will EPA grant a waiver from the operating temperature of 55.0 
degrees Celsius in 40 CFR 60.753(c)?
    A: EPA will grant a waiver to 65.6 degrees Celsius for certain 
wells that show high methane production, low oxygen, carbon monoxide 
levels below 100 ppm, and no charred debris in the gas collection 
system.
Abstract for [0200003]
    Q: Is a duct burner (along with the associated heat recovery steam 
generator) that is too small to be covered under NSPS subpart Da 
covered by NSPS subpart Db?
    A: Yes, if it meets the definition of an affected facility under 
NSPS subpart Db. NSPS subpart Db was intentionally written to be very 
broad in nature as to what constitutes an affected facility.
Abstract for [0200004]
    Q1: What is the definition of excess emissions for reporting and 
compliance purposes under NSPS subpart G?
    A1: Excess emissions under NSPS Subpart G are defined as any three-
hour period during which the average nitrogen oxides emission rate 
exceeds the 1.5 kilograms per metric ton (3.0 pounds per ton) emission 
limit in 40 CFR 60.72(a)(1).
    Q2: Do excess emissions constitute a violation of the standard in 
NSPS subpart G?
    A2: Under the ``any credible evidence'' provisions in 40 CFR 
60.11(g), the continuous emission monitoring (CEMS) data used for 
excess emission reporting can be used to cite violations for any three-
hour period(s) during which the CEMS data indicate that emissions would 
have been in excess of the applicable standard had a performance test 
been conducted.
    Q3: If excess emissions do constitute a violation of the standard 
in NSPS Subpart G, how are the averaging time and the duration of the 
violation determined?
    A3: Since the emission limit has an averaging time of three hours, 
CEMS data must be averaged over a three-hour period in order to 
determine whether the nitrogen oxides emission rate has exceeded the 
applicable limit. A single three-hour period during which the average 
emission rate exceeds the limit would be reported as three hours of 
excess emissions. If there are consecutive, overlapping three hour 
periods during which the average nitrogen oxides emission rate exceeds 
the applicable limit, the duration of the excess emission period should 
be determined based upon the number of hours between the beginning and 
the end of the exceedance period.
    Q4: Does 40 CFR 60.8(c) allow violations during nitric acid plant 
startups, and, if so, are facilities exempt from enforcement for 
violations of the standard during startup?
    A4: Since NSPS subpart G does not include language specifically 
indicating that the nitrogen oxides limit applies at all times, 
facilities would be exempt from the limit during startup under the 
provisions in 40 CFR 60.8(a). Although facilities are exempt from the 
emission limit during startup, facility owners and operators could be 
cited for a violation of 40 CFR 60.11(d) if steps to minimize emissions 
are not taken during startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
    Q5: If 40 CFR 60.8(c) does provide an exemption from enforcement 
during startups, is there any time limit associated with the exemption?
    A5: Although NSPS subpart G does not specify a limit on the amount 
of time that a facility is exempt from the nitrogen oxides emission 
limit during startup, enforcement under the provisions in 40 CFR 
60.11(d) can be pursued if steps are not taken to minimize emissions 
during startup regardless of the duration of the excess emission 
period.
Abstract for [0200005]
    Q1: Are proposals to reduce the frequency for fuel usage 
recordkeeping at National Linen Services and the University of West 
Florida acceptable?
    A1: Yes. The proposed alternative recordkeeping and reporting 
frequencies are consistent with those that EPA has previously approved 
for other facilities. If the University of West Florida does not have a 
separate gas meter for its NSPS subpart Dc boiler, it will be necessary 
to obtain approval for a way of apportioning the University's total gas 
usage in order to determine the amount of fuel burned in the NSPS 
subpart Dc unit.
    Q2: Can future proposals for alternative fuel usage recordkeeping 
frequencies be approved by the Florida Department of Environmental 
Protection without being submitted to EPA Region 4 for case-by-case 
reviews?
    A2: Yes. Based upon the history of previous EPA approvals, there is 
no environmental benefit associated with submitting future proposals to 
EPA for case-by-case reviews if records will be kept on at least 
monthly basis, reports will be submitted on at least an annual basis, 
and an appropriate apportionment approach will be used when the total 
amount of fuel burned in multiple gas-fired units is measured with a 
common gas meter.
Abstract for [0200006]
    Q: Is the ASTM Test Method D5504-98 method an acceptable 
alternative method for determining the sulfur content of the natural 
gas burned in stationary gas turbines at four compressor stations 
located in Florida?
    A: Yes. The proposed alternative method is acceptable. Also, the 
results of sampling conducted at one compressor station can be used for 
turbines at multiple compressor stations provided that no new gas 
enters the pipeline between the stations in question.
Abstract for [0200007]
    Q: Is ASTM Test Method D5504-98 method an acceptable alternative 
method for determining the sulfur content of the natural gas burned in 
stationary gas turbines at four compressor stations located in Florida?
    A: Yes. The proposed alternative method is acceptable. Also, the 
results of sampling conducted at a compressor station in Florida can be 
used for the turbines at a compressor station in Mount Vernon, Alabama, 
provided that no new gas enters the system between these stations.
Abstract for [0200008]
    Q: Is an alternative monitoring approach proposed by General 
Electric Plastics (GEP) for a phosgene monitoring system on a 
distillation operation at its plant in Burkville,

[[Page 58031]]

Alabama acceptable under NSPS subpart NNN?
    A: Yes. GEP must obtain approval for an alternative monitoring 
approach because NSPS subpart NNN does not specify monitoring 
procedures for the type of control system used by the company. Issues 
addressed in the approval letter include the measurement range of the 
phosgene monitoring system, the basis for waiving the requirement to 
correct analyzer results to three percent oxygen, acceptable procedures 
for calculating three-hour average emission rates, and the analyzer 
calibration frequency.
Abstract for [0200009]
    Q1: Is the Georgia Pacific Corporation (GPC) proposal to monitor 
scrubber liquid flow rate more acceptable than monitoring the pressure 
drop for the scrubber installed on a lime kiln at a kraft pulp mill in 
New Augusta, Mississippi to comply with NSPS Subpart BB?
    A1: Yes. Based upon the design of the scrubber installed on the 
lime kiln, the proposed alternative monitoring parameter will be a 
better indicator of control device performance than pressure drop will 
be.
    Q2: Will EPA waive the requirement to monitor the combustion 
temperature of the power boiler used to destroy the total reduced 
sulfur compounds contained in non-condensable gas streams at a kraft 
pulp mill?
    A2: Yes. Because the non-condensable gas streams generated at the 
mill are burned in a power boiler, rather than an incinerator, 
combustion temperature monitoring is not required under NSPS subpart 
BB.
Abstract for [0200010]
    Q1: Will EPA grant an initial performance testing extension 
requested by the Gainesville Regional Utilities for Combined Cycle Unit 
No. 1 at the J.R. Kelly Generating Station to comply with NSPS subparts 
A and GG?
    A1: Yes. Unit No. 1 will not be capable of operating until the 
reinstallation of parts that were returned to the manufacturer for 
repairs. Therefore, the deadline for completing an initial performance 
can be extended for up to 720 operating hours following the restart of 
the unit.
    Q2: Can certification testing for the continuous emission 
monitoring systems installed on Unit No. 1 be delayed for up to 30 days 
beyond the completion date of the initial performance test on the unit?
    A2: Yes. The proposed schedule for monitor certification is 
consistent with the provisions in 40 CFR 60.13(c).
    Q3: Can the requirement to provide notification at least 30 days 
prior to conducting the initial performance test be waived?
    A3: Conditional. Providing less than 30 days prior notification is 
acceptable provided that it does not prevent the Florida Department of 
Environmental Protection from observing the testing.
Abstract for [0200011]
    Q: Will EPA grant an initial performance testing extension 
requested by Gainesville Regional Utilities (GRU) for Combined Cycle 
Unit No. 1 at the J.R. Kelly Generating Station to comply with NSPS 
subparts A and GG?
    A: No. Because 40 CFR part 60 does not contain provisions for 
extending the initial performance testing deadlines in 40 CFR 60.8(a), 
GRU is technically in violation of the requirement to complete an 
initial performance test within 60 days after reaching the maximum 
firing rate on Unit No. 1. Because the turbine operating problems that 
have delayed the performance testing are largely out of GRU's control, 
it is recommended that a decision regarding whether to pursue 
enforcement for missing the testing deadline be deferred until after 
the testing is actually completed.
Abstract for [0200012]
    Q: Must NSPS Subpart OOO sources in Kentucky submit notifications 
and reports to U.S. EPA Region 4?
    A: No. Because NSPS subpart OOO has been delegated to the Kentucky 
Department for Environmental Protection and to the Air Pollution 
Control District of Jefferson County, submitting notifications and 
reports to these agencies will be sufficient.
Abstract for [0200013]
    Q: Is an alternative sulfur dioxide monitoring proposal for Units 1 
and 2 at the Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA) Northside Generating 
Station acceptable to comply with NSPS subpart Da?
    A: No. In order for the alternative monitoring approach to be 
approved, it must contain a provision for initiating daily as-fired 
coal sampling in the event that the 30-day average sulfur dioxide 
removal efficiency calculated ever drops below 80 percent. In addition, 
it will be necessary for JEA to measure the pre-control sulfur dioxide 
emission rate for at least 30 consecutive boiling operating days in 
order to collect the data needed to satisfy the requirements for an 
initial performance test.
Abstract for [0200014]
    Q: Is an initial performance testing extension requested by the 
Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA) for a combustion turbine at its 
Brandy Branch installation acceptable to comply with NSPS subparts A 
and GG?
    A: No. Because 40 CFR part 60 does not contain provisions for 
extending the initial performance testing deadlines in 40 CFR 60.8(a), 
JEA is technically in violation of the requirement to complete an 
initial performance test within 60 days after reaching the maximum 
firing rate on Unit 1. Because the turbine operating problems that have 
delayed the performance testing are largely out of JEA's control, a 
decision regarding whether to pursue enforcement for missing the 
testing deadline should be deferred until after the testing is actually 
completed.
Abstract for [0200015]
    Q: Is an initial performance testing extension requested by the 
City of Tallahassee for Unit No. 8 at its Purdom Generating Station 
acceptable to comply with NSPS subparts A and GG?
    A: Yes. Unit Number 8 will not be capable of sustained operation 
until the cause of vibrations during oil firing is identified and 
corrected. Therefore, the deadline for completing an initial 
performance can be extended for up to 720 operating hours following the 
restart of the unit on oil.
Abstract for [0200016]
    Q: Does a gas vent flare, which is sometimes referred to as a 
``candle flare'' because it has a constant sparking device at the flare 
tip, meet the requirements of 40 CFR 60.18(f)(2)?
    A: No. EPA does not consider open (or candle) flares with constant 
sparking devices to be equivalent to the thermocouple, ultraviolet beam 
sensor requirements for flares found at 40 CFR 60.18(f)(2).
Abstract for [0200017]
    Q: Is a process printing machine subject to the NSPS subpart RR 
regulations for pressure sensitive tape and label materials coating?
    A: Yes. The printing machine meets the definition of ``precoat'' 
under 40 CFR 60.441(a).
Abstract for [0200018]
    Q: Will EPA approve ASTM Test Method D5762-01 to monitor nitrogen 
content for turbines?
    A: Yes. This test method has the necessary reproducibility and 
repeatability and accuracy to be used in lieu of ASTM Test Method D3228 
for the monitoring requirement under NSPS subpart GG.

[[Page 58032]]

Abstract for [0200019]
    Q: Will EPA grant a waiver from the initial performance test 
required in NSPS subpart WWW, for landfill gas used in a large process 
heater (more than 44 megawatts)? The landfill gas is to be compressed, 
filtered, and refrigerated before being sent to the process heater.
    A: Yes. EPA considers compressing, filtering, and refrigerating 
landfill gas for use in an energy recovery project to be ``treatment'' 
under NSPS subpart WWW. Therefore, no initial performance test is 
required.
Abstract for [0200020]
    Q: Will EPA approve a 7-day drift test at less than 50% capacity 
boiler operation to comply with NSPS subpart A?
    A: If the normal operation of the boilers is to operate at less 
than 50% capacity, EPA can approve a lower boiler operation in 
accordance with statements made in the Agency's Emission Measurement 
Center Guideline Document covering Appendix B, Performance 
Specification 2, under the definition of ``normal'' load.
Abstract for [0200021]
    Q1: Will EPA allow a company with combined-cycle natural gas-fired 
turbines to sample fuel sulfur content on a quarterly basis during the 
next 12 months of operation with semiannual monitoring for all 
subsequent years to comply with NSPS subpart GG?
    A1: Yes, but only if pipeline natural gas, as defined in 40 CFR 
72.2, is the only fuel being burned. The company must substantiate its 
request with sulfur monitoring data below the sulfur standard, with 
little variability. This data must be collected with a test method 
approved under 40 CFR 60.335(d). The custom fuel monitoring schedule is 
based on the schedule provided in a 1987 policy memorandum from the 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS).
    Q2: Will EPA waive the nitrogen fuel monitoring requirement for a 
facility with combined-cycle natural gas-fired turbines proposes?
    A2: Yes. EPA will not require monitoring of fuel nitrogen content 
while pipeline natural gas, as defined in 40 CFR 72.2, is the only fuel 
fired in the gas turbine. This is based on a 1987 policy memorandum 
from OAQPS.
Abstract for [0200022]
    Q1: Will EPA allow a company with combined-cycle natural gas-fired 
turbines to waive the water-to-fuel monitoring requirement in 40 CFR 
60.334(a)?
    A1: No. EPA will not waive the water-to-fuel monitoring requirement 
in 40 CFR 60.334(a). However, EPA will allow the facility to use 
certified CEMs to monitor NOX emissions as an alternative to 
monitoring the water-to-fuel ratio to demonstrate compliance with 
60.334(a).
    Q2: Is it acceptable for a company with combined-cycle natural gas-
fired turbines to use ASTM Test Method D 5504-94 to measure the fuel 
sulfur content?
    A2: No. The ASTM test methods that are accepted in 40 CFR 60.335(d) 
have experimental results for repeatability or reproducibility which 
ASTM Test Method D 5504-94 and ASTM Test Method D 5504-98 do not.
    Q3: Is it acceptable for a company with combined-cycle natural gas-
fired turbines to use a custom fuel monitoring schedule?
    A3: Yes, but only if pipeline natural gas, as defined in 40 CFR 
72.2, is the only fuel being burned. The company must substantiate its 
request with sulfur monitoring data below the sulfur standard and 
showing little variability. This data must be collected with a test 
method approved under 40 CFR 60.335(d). The custom fuel monitoring 
schedule is based on the schedule provided in a 1987 policy memorandum 
from the Office of Air Quality and Planning Standards.
Abstract for [0200023]
    Q: May the GPA Test Method 2377-86 be used in lieu of approved ASTM 
test methods for analyzing the sulfur content of natural gas?
    A: Yes. The GPA test method entitled ``Test for Hydrogen Sulfide 
and Carbon Dioxide in Natural Gas Using Length of Stain Tubes'' (GPA 
Standard 2377-86) is an alternative method that EPA has approved for 
other facilities that combust pipeline quality natural gas.
Abstract for [0200024]
    Q1: May the quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) requirements 
of part 75 be used to satisfy NSPS QA/QC requirements for CEMs at a 
boiler unit that operates as a peaker?
    A1: Yes. NSPS subpart A requires Relative Accuracy Test Audits 
(RATA) once every four consecutive calendar quarters for CEMs at a 
continuously operated boiler unit. For an infrequently operated unit, 
EPA's Acid Rain Program rules at part 75 may be used in lieu of NSPS 
requirements, subject to certain conditions.
    Q2: May low emission rate criteria adopted under part 75 rules be 
used during the RATA?
    A2: No. In this case, a problem with past RATA testing had been 
addressed, so it is no longer necessary to rely on the low emission 
rate provisions.
    Q3: May we use diluent capping procedures of part 75?
    A3: No. It is better to provide regulatory agencies with the actual 
data, even when the F-factor used creates an inaccuracy in the emission 
calculations. Moreover, during periods of startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction, the source is not subject to the nitrogen oxide emissions 
standards as set forth at Sec.  60.46a(c). The regulatory agencies will 
review the data to determine whether the numbers, in fact, represent 
excess emissions.
Abstract for [0200025]
    Q: How is a landfill that is a Superfund site affected by the 
Federal Plan for landfills, when it would otherwise be considered 
subject to the Plan?
    A: The site is governed by a Federal consent decree. Through the 
incorporation of the Record of Decision (ROD), the consent decree 
establishes the applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements 
(ARARs) for the landfill in accordance with the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). The 
ROD remedy included the installation of a landfill gas collection and 
control system at the JDF. During future 5-year reviews of the remedy, 
it may be appropriate to consider some aspect of Federal Plan 
requirements to ensure that the selected remedy remains protective of 
human health and the environment.
Abstract for [0200026]
    Q1: Is it acceptable for a company with simple-cycle natural gas-
fired turbines to use an on-site sulfur gas chromatograph that uses 
ASTM Test Method D 5504-94 to measure the fuel sulfur content?
    A1: No. The ASTM test methods that are accepted in 60.335(d) have 
experimental results for repeatability or reproducibility which ASTM D 
5504-94 and ASTM D 5504-98 do not.
    Q2: Is it acceptable for a company to use the Gas Processors 
Association (GPA) test method entitled ``Test for Hydrogen Sulfide and 
Carbon Dioxide in Natural Gas Using Length of Stain Tubes'' (GPA 
Standard Test Method 2377-86) as a backup to using the on-site sulfur 
gas chromatograph and ASTM Test Method D 5504-94 to demonstrate 
compliance with 40 CFR 60.333(b)?
    A2: No. Based on the answer to the first question, EPA will not 
allow the facility to use GPA Standard Test

[[Page 58033]]

Method 2377-86 as a backup test method.
Abstract for [0200027]
    Q: How late will EPA accept the Tier 2 and Tier 3 testing options 
contained in NSPS subpart WWW for municipal solid waste (MSW) 
landfills?
    A: EPA cannot consider Tier 2 or Tier 3 testing after the NSPS 
final compliance deadline.
Abstract for [0200028]
    Q: Are landfill gases treated by the Krysol gas treatment process 
subject to the NSPS subpart WWW for municipal solid waste landfills?
    A: No. Gases that have been treated by the Krysol gas treatment 
process, which includes compression, drying, and removal of CO2 and 
other contaminants, are not subject. Nevertheless, any waste gases that 
would be vented from the treatment process to the atmosphere, whether 
vented to the on-site internal combustion engine, the thermal oxidizer, 
or the open flare, must meet the appropriate control requirements.
Abstract for [0200029]
    Q: Is the proposal to shorten the sampling time for dioxin testing 
on the medical waste incinerators at the Children's Hospital and at 
American 3CI from fours hours to one hour acceptable to comply with 
NSPS subpart Ce?
    A: Conditionally acceptable. Based upon the magnitude of the 
applicable dioxin standard for the facilities in question, the 
detection limit for a one-hour sample should be low enough for 
verifying compliance. In order to reduce the possibility that a retest 
will be needed, however, the testing contractor should verify this 
using the actual detection limit for the laboratory that will be 
analyzing the samples from these facilities.
Abstract for [0200030]
    Q1: Do an existing and a new brown stock washer operating in 
parallel constitute a single affected facility or two separate affected 
facilities under NSPS subpart BB?
    A1: Based upon the definitions in NSPS subpart BB, the parallel 
brown stock washers constitute a single affected facility.
    Q2: If the parallel brown stock washers constitute a single 
facility, how would modification and reconstruction issues be addressed 
when the new brown stock washer is installed?
    A2: For reconstruction, if the existing brown stock washer is 
permanently taken out of service, the cost of the new brown stock 
washer must be considered when determining whether reconstruction has 
occurred. For modification, an increase in the brown stock washer 
system throughput or the total reduced sulfur emission rate following 
the installation of the new brown stock washer would constitute a 
modification which would trigger the applicability of NSPS subpart BB.
Abstract for [0200031]
    Q: The Berkshire Power, LLC's Agawam, Massachusetts facility is 
subject to NSPS subpart GG and to the federal Acid Rain requirements in 
part 75. How should the Massachusetts Department of Environmental 
Protection (MDP) resolve some 40 CFR part 60 and 40 CFR part 75 CEM 
requirement inconsistencies?
    A: EPA Region 1 recognizes that for facilities with very low 
NOX emission limits in their New Source Performance (NSR) /
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permits, some of the 
relative accuracy limits and ranges in parts 60 and 75 may not be 
appropriate. After consultation with OAQPS, EPA Region 1 has tried to 
provide reasonable alternatives in this letter.
Abstract for [0200032]
    Q: Will EPA approve a custom fuel monitoring schedule under NSPS 
Subpart GG for a facility?
    A: Yes. EPA will approve the custom fuel monitoring schedule 
according to an August 14, 1987, national policy which allows the EPA 
Regional Offices to approve NSPS subpart GG custom fuel monitoring 
schedules on a case-by-case basis. In this case, approval is based on 
the understanding that there is no fuel-bound nitrogen and that the 
available free nitrogen does not appreciably contribute to 
NOX emissions.
Abstract for [0200033]
    Q: Will EPA allow the use of an alternate performance test method 
for stationary gas turbines subject to NSPS Subpart GG?
    A: Yes, but only if the probe is designed and conforms to the tests 
specified in EPA Guideline Document GD-031.
Abstract for [0200034]
    Q: Will EPA allow the use of an alternate performance test method 
for stationary gas turbines subject to NSPS subpart GG?
    A: Yes, but only if the probe is designed and conforms to the tests 
specified in EPA Guideline Document GD-031.
Abstract for [0200035]
    Q1: Will EPA allow the use of an alternate performance test method 
for stationary gas turbines subject to NSPS Subpart GG?
    A1: Yes. However, EPA must approve modifications to test methods 
prior to their use. In this case, EPA approves the modification because 
it believes that this is a minor modification that will generate 
acceptably accurate data.
Abstract for [0200036]
    Q: Will EPA allow an alternative fuel analysis method for testing 
nitrogen content in distillate fuel to comply with NSPS subpart GG?
    A: Yes. EPA will allow an alternative fuel analysis method, but 
only if the method can be shown to determine the nitrogen content with 
an accuracy of within 5 percent. In this case, information the facility 
submitted to EPA from its laboratory failed to demonstrate that the 
alternative method could meet the precision criteria.
Abstract for [C020003]
    Q1: At what point in the final disposal process is a final disposal 
facility violating 40 CFR 82.156(f) if a charged small appliance is 
found by an EPA inspector during a compliance inspection?
    A1: EPA believes that a violation of 40 CFR 82.156(f) occurs if a 
charged appliance is found after the last reasonable inspection point 
in the disposal process. EPA also believes that the ``final step'' in 
the disposal process may occur even though the disposal facility has 
not staged an appliance for destruction or placed an appliance in a 
staging area for destruction.
    Q2: Under what circumstance is a statement of evacuation the only 
verification required under 40 CFR 82.156(f) by a final disposal 
facility before the final step in the disposal process can occur 
without violating 40 CFR 82.156(f)? According to the final rule 
preamble (58 FR 28704) a certification accepted ``in good faith'' 
relieves the disposal facility of its liability. If however, the entity 
``knows or should know that refrigerant remains in the appliance,'' it 
will still be held liable.
    A2: The Agency believes that verification statements of evacuation 
accepted in good faith by a disposal facility satisfies the 
requirements of 40 CFR 82.156(f)(2).
    Q3: Is a verification statement required for each and every 
appliance accepted by the final disposal facility if the facility has a 
contract with a supplier stipulating that all refrigerant will be 
removed from appliances prior to delivery? Is a long term (more than 1 
shipment) contract all that is required

[[Page 58034]]

under 40 CFR 82.156(f) as verification of refrigerant evacuation?
    A3: If the final disposal facility chooses not to recover remaining 
refrigerant from appliances, verification must include a signed 
statement of evacuation from the person from whom the appliance is 
received. Final disposal facilities may also accept statements of 
evacuation for shipments of appliances. Regular suppliers to a final 
disposal facility, with whom long-standing business relationships are 
maintained, may sign a contract that stipulates that one party has the 
responsibility to remove refrigerant from equipment before delivery to 
the facility.
    Q4: Is a statement of evacuation accepted under 40 CFR 
82.156(f)(2), which is missing any information listed as required in 40 
CFR 82.156(f), a violation of 40 CFR 82.156(f)(2)? Does a violation of 
40 CFR 82.156(f) occur if a company has or may have the missing 
information in other company records?
    A4: The Safe Disposal Program regulations require that certain 
specific information must be included as part of any statement of 
evacuation. 40 CFR 82.156(f)(2) is very clear concerning the 
information that must be part of any statement of evacuation. Any 
information required by the regulation that is missing from a statement 
of evacuation is a violation of 40 CFR 82.156(f)(2).
    Q5: Are there any circumstances under which a final disposal 
facility would be violating the reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements of 40 CFR 82.156(f) if an empty small appliance is found 
by an EPA inspector in a staging area during a compliance inspection?
    A5: For empty appliances, as for all appliances, the disposal 
facility must recover the refrigerant or obtain a signed statement 
which meets the requirements of 40 CFR 82.156(f)(2) from the person 
delivering the appliance. This statement must be obtained prior to 
placing the appliance in the final staging area for disposal.
Abstract for [M020005]
    Q: Would EPA classify the John Zink Gasoline Vapor Combustion Unit 
as a thermal oxidization system or a flare?
    A: In previous applicability determinations for similar units, EPA 
has determined that these types of units should be classified as 
thermal oxidation systems. Therefore, these units are subject to the 
temperature monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 63.427(a)(3). EPA had 
only intended for the flare monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 
63.427(a)(4) to apply to open flame flares.
Abstract for [M020006]
    Q: If a facility purchases fibers (wood pulp, cotton, fiber glass, 
burlap, and hemp) and additives to produce a variety of paper products, 
but the paper mill neither produces virgin pulp nor operates a bleach 
system, is it subject to NESHAP subpart S?
    A. No. If the paper mill does not contain a pulping or bleaching 
system as defined 40 CFR 63.441, then the mill does not contain an 
affected source as defined under NESHAP subpart S, and the facility is 
not subject to NESHAP subpart S.
Abstract for [M020007]
    Q: Does NESHAP subpart RRR apply to stand-alone aluminum shredding 
devices where no further processing or charging is done on-site or at 
another facility?
    A: No. The stand-alone aluminum shredding device would not meet the 
definition of ``aluminum scrap shredder'' at 40 CFR 63.1503 and would 
not be subject to NESHAP subpart RRR.
Abstract for [Z020001]
    Q: Are tar pitch traps in metallurgical coke plants subject to 40 
CFR part 61, subparts L and V?
    A: Based on the information submitted in this case, the tar 
decanter pitch traps are not subject to either NESHAP subpart L or 
NESHAP subpart V as the amount of benzene in the stream is not high 
enough to qualify as ``in benzene service'' under NESHAP subpart V and 
the equipment is not a tar decanter, tar intercepting sump or tar 
storage tank as understood by NESHAP subpart L.
Abstract for [0200038]
    Q: Will EPA approve alternative monitoring procedures under subpart 
GG for stationary gas turbines used for peaking purposes?
    A: Yes. EPA will approve alternative monitoring procedures 
consistent with its 1987 Policy on custom fuel monitoring plans. 
Approval in this case is contingent on the fact that only clean fuels 
will be combusted (as specified in State permits) and that a certified 
Continuous Emission Monitoring system will be used.
Abstract for [0200039]
    Q: Will EPA allow QVC, Inc. to do monthly rather than daily fuel 
usage monitoring under NSPS subpart Dc?
    A: Yes. Under circumstances such as those in this case, EPA has 
allowed the use of monthly rather than daily fuel usage monitoring for 
very small boilers combusting natural gas as the primary fuel.
Abstract for [0200040]
    Q: Does EPA consider an air curtain incinerator located at a 
residential construction site a commercial or industrial facility under 
NSPS subpart CCCC?
    A: No. EPA has determined that an air curtain incinerator located 
at a residential construction site is not considered an industrial or 
commercial ``facility'' since the incinerator is not permanently 
located at the site. Neither is the residential construction site 
itself a permanent industrial or commercial ``facility''. Therefore, 
NSPS subpart CCCC, the commercial and industrial solid waste 
incineration regulations, do not apply to the air curtain incinerator 
at the residential construction site.
Abstract for [0200041]
    Q: Will EPA allow a source to conduct the initial NOX 
performance testing at base load only instead of at all four loads 
under NSPS subpart GG?
    A: Yes. EPA will allow the testing to be conducted at base load 
only under the following conditions: the turbine burns pipeline natural 
gas, the NOX CEM system provides a continuous record of 
emissions, and the base load is the peak load.
Abstract for [0200042]
    Q1: Will EPA allow a source to conduct the initial NOX 
performance testing at base load only instead of at all four loads 
under NSPS subpart GG?
    A1: Yes. EPA will allow the testing to be conducted at base load 
only under the following conditions: the turbine burns pipeline natural 
gas, the NOX CEM system provides a continuous record of 
emissions, and the base load is the peak load.
    Q2: Will EPA approve the use of a CEM to monitor NOX 
emissions on a source which uses water injection to control 
NOX and be required to continuously correct the data to ISO 
standard ambient conditions?
    A2: Yes. EPA approves the use of a CEM, and the source does not 
have to correct the CEM data to ISO standards because it has 
demonstrated that the emissions are well below the standard.
    Q3: Will EPA allow semiannual monitoring frequency for sulfur 
content under a custom fuel monitoring plan?
    A3: Yes. If the source has demonstrated low data variability and 
sulfur content results which are below the standard and follows a 
schedule.
Abstract for [0200043]
    Q: Is a sulfuric acid plant that is installed as a control device 
for sulfur dioxide emissions from a molybdenum

[[Page 58035]]

ore roasting operation subject to NSPS subpart H?
    A: No. The definition for ``sulfuric acid production unit'' in NSPS 
subpart H does not include facilities where a sulfuric acid plant is 
used ``primarily'' to control sulfur dioxide emissions. However, this 
determination is subject to reevaluation if a significant change occurs 
at the facility in question. In addition, EPA Region 7 clarifies and 
corrects a previous determination for this facility made with input 
from the Office of Enforcement and Compliance (OECA). In a letter to 
Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) dated June 3, 1996, EPA 
stated that the exemption in the definition of ``sulfuric acid 
production unit'' in NSPS subpart H applied to acid plants used only as 
an emission control device and that the introduction of any elemental 
sulfur would change the acid plant from an emission control device to a 
sulfuric acid production process. The guidance provided by OECA at that 
time was derived from a narrow application of the regulation, without 
any research into the background documents or the process chemistry 
involved in acid production plants, both for production and process 
control. Therefore, this interpretation supercedes and corrects the 
previous one.
Abstract for [0200044]
    Q1. Does a change in liquid service of a storage vessel at a 
facility from a low vapor pressure material (stormwater or diesel fuel) 
to a high vapor pressure material (crude oil or gasoline) constitute a 
modification under 40 CFR 60.14?
    A1. In recent determinations, EPA found the activity of a petroleum 
vessel storage facility changing the type of petroleum product stored 
(i.e., diesel fuel to gasoline) was equivalent to the use of an 
alternative fuel and exempted from the definition of modification as 
provided in 40 CFR 60.14(e)(4). These determinations were based on the 
assumption that petroleum products were essentially equivalent and, 
therefore, any petroleum storage vessel could reasonably accommodate an 
alternative petroleum product. Please note that EPA's determinations 
only pertained to petroleum storage vessels. A storage vessel 
converting from water or other non-petroleum liquid storage over to 
petroleum storage would not be exempted from the NSPS modification 
definition. With regard to the example, EPA would find the activity of 
a vessel changing from diesel fuel storage to gasoline storage was not 
a modification as defined in 40 CFR 60.14 and, therefore, the vessel 
would not be subject to the NSPS subpart Kb.
    Q2. What are the specific criteria for determining whether a vessel 
was designed to accommodate an alternative use? If the original 
construction specifications are not available, how is such a 
determination made?
    A2. EPA did not develop any specific criteria for determining if a 
fuel storage vessel could accommodate an alternative petroleum material 
in these determinations. As described previously, EPA's determinations 
centered on assuming that petroleum products are similar and that a 
petroleum storage vessel could reasonably accommodate different types 
of petroleum products. However, if EPA did receive a request for a 
determination on a specific storage vessel significantly altering its 
design to accommodate an alternative petroleum product, EPA may adjust 
its determination considering the specific facts of the case.
Abstract for [0200045]
    Q. Is the electrode process line of a facility that produces 
medical EKG electrodes subject to the requirements of the NSPS subpart 
RR?
    A. Yes. Upon review, EPA finds that the electrode process line 
would be subject to the requirements of NSPS subpart RR. The subpart's 
applicability provision states the provisions of this subpart apply to 
an affected facility whose coating line is used in the manufacture of 
pressure sensitive tape and label materials. Pressure sensitive tape 
includes ``any'' adhesive that coats a web substrate including adhesive 
gels with pressure sensitive properties. Our understanding is that the 
medical EKG electrode uses an adhesive gel and is applied to the skin 
through pressure. Consequently, the Region has determined that NSPS 
subpart RR is applicable to the process line producing these 
electrodes.
Abstract for [0200046]
    Q. A facility has modified two 13.9 MMBtu/hr wood-fired boilers. 
Would the boiler modifications constitute a modification as defined in 
NSPS subpart A, and thereby, make the facility subject to NSPS subpart 
Dc?
    A. No. The physical changes do not constitute a modification as 
specified in 40 CFR 60.14. Thus, the boilers at issue are not subject 
to the requirements of NSPS subpart Dc. The physical modifications of 
the boilers increased their heat input capacity and likewise their 
potential to emit for all pollutants; however, pollution prevention 
controls were simultaneously instituted that in fact caused a reduction 
of particulate matter emission rate. Sulfur dioxide emission rates were 
increased by increasing the heat input capacity of the wood-fired 
boilers; however, sulfur dioxide emissions from wood-fired boilers are 
relatively small (.02 lb/MMBtu) and in fact are not covered by the 
sulfur dioxide standard of NSPS subpart Dc that pertains only to units 
using coal or oil fuel. Thus, the sulfur dioxide emission rates are not 
applicable to these wood-fired boilers and the physical changes do not 
constitute a modification.
Abstract for [0200047]
    Q. A facility submitted an amendment application to its air 
emissions license for the replacement of the existing tangential 
overfire air system in Power Boiler No. 1 with an ``Opposed Wall'' 
system. Does this replacement constitute an NSPS modification as 
defined in 40 CFR 60.14?
    A. No. This project is not considered a modification and is exempt 
from additional NSPS requirements. This system does not affect any of 
the emission limits nor does it increase emissions nor increase the 
production capacity of the boiler. Replacements such as this are not 
considered modifications and are exempt from NSPS requirements.
Abstract for [0200048]
    Q1. Do internal costs of engineering and installation constitute 
``fixed capital costs'' even though a company would typically not 
capitalize them, or are only external contractor and consultant fees 
counted as fixed capital costs under 40 CFR part 60, subpart A?
    A1. In a May 11, 1998 applicability determination pertaining to 
reconstruction costs, EPA stated that the engineering, purchase and 
installation costs, and contractor fees should be included in the 
affected facility reconstruction costs (i.e., fixed capital cost) to 
the extent that they are associated with reconstruction of affected 
process equipment.
    Q2. Do the repair and ultimate replacement of a rear boiler wall 
constitute ``fixed capital costs'' even though these costs were 
expensed?
    A2. The failed repair attempts should not be included in fixed 
capital costs; however, the costs of actual replacement of the rear 
boiler wall should be included in the fixed capital costs.
    Q3. What is meant by ``comparable entirely new facility'' in the 
definition of reconstruction under NSPS subpart A? When evaluating the 
costs associated with a comparable entirely new facility to replace the 
boiler, should the cost of

[[Page 58036]]

installing a low NOX burner be included?
    A3. The term ``comparable entirely new facility'' would consist of 
a new boiler with identical components to the repaired boiler. 
Reconstruction calculations do not include air pollution control 
equipment; therefore, the source would not include the cost of 
installing low NOX burners on the new facility unless they 
are being added to the existing facility.
Abstract for [0200049]
    Q. Is a Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) 
facility that produces heavy liquid chemicals only from heavy liquid 
feed or raw material subject to the NSPS subpart VV?
    A. Yes. The SOCMI facility is subject to NSPS subpart VV. However, 
the facility only needs to comply with the recordkeeping and reporting 
provisions of NSPS subpart VV since it meets the exemption definition 
under 40 CFR 60.480(d)(3). In addition, the facility is exempt from the 
SOCMI facility standard in 40 CFR 60.482 since it produces heavy liquid 
chemicals only from heavy liquid feed or raw material as defined in 40 
CFR 60.480(d)(3).

    Dated: August 30, 2002.
Michael M. Stahl,
Director, Office of Compliance.
[FR Doc. 02-23367 Filed 9-12-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P