[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 30 (Thursday, February 13, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7373-7379]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-3585]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-7451-9]


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. This notice also clarifies the 
Notice of Availability published in the Federal Register on November 
15, 2001 (66 FR 57453).

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 email 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 40 CFR part 63 NESHAP and section 111(d) 
of the Clean Air Act regulations contain no specific regulatory 
provision that sources may request applicability determinations, EPA 
does respond to written inquiries regarding applicability for the part 
63 and section 111(d) programs. The NSPS and NESHAP also allow sources 
to seek permission to use monitoring or recordkeeping 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 on December 20, 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.

Clarification to November 15, 2001 Notice of Availability

    EPA has received questions regarding the applicability of the 
documents whose availability was noticed in the November 15, 2001 
Notice of Availability (66 FR 57453). EPA has reviewed those documents, 
and through today's notice clarifies that to the extent any of those 
documents constituted ``final action of the Administrator'' for 
purposes of section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, they were not 
``nationally applicable'' actions within the meaning of section 
307(b)(1). For purposes of establishing venue for judicial review of 
any such document, the document may be considered a ``local or 
regionally applicable'' action as that phrase is employed in section 
307(b)(1).

Summary of Headers and Abstracts

    The following table identifies the database control number for each 
document posted on the ADI database system on December 20, 2002; the 
applicable category; the subpart(s) of 40 CFR parts 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.

[[Page 7374]]



                                ADI Determinations Uploaded on December 20, 2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Control No.                   Category              Subpart                       Title
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A020001..........................  Asbestos............  M..................  Moving Structures.
M020008..........................  MACT................  RRR................  Alternative Scrap Inspection
                                                                               Monitoring.
M020009..........................  MACT................  S..................  UNOX Alternative Monitoring.
M020010..........................  MACT................  R, CC..............  Waiver for Backup Portable
                                                                               Combustion Unit.
M020011..........................  MACT................  T..................  Degreaser Freeboard Temperature
                                                                               Measurement.
M020012..........................  MACT................  RRR................  Aluminum Foil Delaminator.
M020013..........................  MACT................  S..................  Alternative Monitoring.
M020014..........................  MACT................  F, G...............  Gas Streams Combusted in Fuel Gas
                                                                               System.
M020015..........................  MACT................  T..................  Cold Clean Operation or Stripping
                                                                               Operation.
M020016..........................  MACT................  T..................  Cold Clean Operation or Stripping
                                                                               Operation.
M020017..........................  MACT................  RRR................  Aluminum Delacquering Kiln & Chip
                                                                               Dryers.
M020018..........................  MACT................  G..................  Classification of Drains Subject
                                                                               to HON.
M020019..........................  MACT................  LLL................  Alternative Testing for Roller
                                                                               Mill Transfer Chutes.
M020020..........................  MACT................  LLL................  Alternative Monitoring for Finish
                                                                               Mill Stacks.
M020021..........................  MACT................  LLL................  Method 9 Waiver for Portland
                                                                               Cement Facility.
M020022..........................  MACT................  LLL................  Method 9 Waiver for Coal Mill
                                                                               Stack.
0200050..........................  NSPS................  GG.................  Custom Fuel Monitoring.
0200051..........................  NSPS................  GG, A..............  Initial Performance Test Waiver.
0200052..........................  NSPS................  GG.................  Custom Fuel Monitoring.
0200053..........................  NSPS................  GG.................  Custom Fuel Monitoring.
0200054..........................  NSPS................  GG.................  Custom Testing & CEMS QA/QC
                                                                               Approval.
0200055..........................  NSPS................  O..................  Alternative Monitoring for Oxygen.
0200056..........................  NSPS................  GG.................  Exemption for Test Turbine
                                                                               Facility.
0200057..........................  NSPS................  PPP................  Definition of Wet Scrubbing
                                                                               Control Devices.
0200058..........................  NSPS................  GG.................  Alternative Testing for Simple
                                                                               Cycle Gas Turbine Units.
0200059..........................  NSPS................  J..................  Alternative Monitoring for
                                                                               Portable Combustor at Loading
                                                                               Rack.
0200060..........................  NSPS................  A, J...............  FCCU Air Grid Replacement.
0200061..........................  NSPS................  WWW................  Use of Higher Temperature
                                                                               Operating Value.
0200062..........................  NSPS................  Y, A...............  Reporting and Recordkeeping
                                                                               Exemption.
0200063..........................  NSPS................  A..................  Reporting and Recordkeeping
                                                                               Exemption.
0200064..........................  NSPS................  K, Ka, Kb..........  Custody Transfer Exemption
                                                                               Clarification.
0200065..........................  NSPS................  GG.................  Custom Fuel Monitoring.
0200066..........................  NSPS................  GG.................  Custom Fuel Monitoring/Alternate
                                                                               Test Method.
0200067..........................  NSPS................  GG.................  Alternate Test Method.
0200068..........................  NSPS................  GG.................  Custom Fuel Monitoring.
0200069..........................  NSPS................  GG, Da.............  Custom Fuel Monitoring/Alternate
                                                                               Test Plan.
0200070..........................  NSPS................  GG.................  Custom Fuel Monitoring.
0200071..........................  NSPS................  GG.................  Custom Fuel Monitoring.
0200072..........................  NSPS................  GG.................  Custom Fuel Monitoring.
0200073..........................  NSPS................  GG.................  Custom Fuel Monitoring/Alternate
                                                                               Test Plan.
0200074..........................  NSPS................  Dc.................  Custom Fuel Usage Monitoring.
0200075..........................  NSPS................  GG, A..............  Alternate Test Plan.
0200076..........................  NSPS................  J, A...............  Alternative Monitoring for
                                                                               Refinery Facility.
0200077..........................  NSPS................  GG.................  Custom Fuel Monitoring.
0200078..........................  NSPS................  GG.................  Approval of Flow Meters.
0200079..........................  NSPS................  GG.................  Custom Fuel Monitoring.
0200080..........................  NSPS................  GG.................  Custom Testing & CEMS QA/QC
                                                                               Approval.
0200081..........................  NSPS................  NNN, RRR...........  Use of Alternate Control System.
0200082..........................  NSPS................  NNN, RRR...........  Gas Streams Combusted in a Fuel
                                                                               Gas System.
0200083..........................  NSPS................  AA, AAa............  Electric Arc Furnaces.
0200084..........................  NSPS................  DDDD, CCCC.........  Outdated Pharmaceutical & CISWI.
0200085..........................  NSPS................  H..................  Definition of Sulfuric Acid Plant.
0200086..........................  NSPS................  OOO, UUU...........  Lightweight Aggregate Production
                                                                               Facilities.
0200087..........................  NSPS................  OOO, A.............  Notification & Reporting
                                                                               Requirements.
0200088..........................  NSPS................  OOO................  Applicability to Conveyors.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abstract

    Abstract for [A020001]:
    Q1: Are residential structures owned by the State subject to the 
asbestos NESHAP if they have less than four dwelling units?
    A1: Yes, if the structures are part of a State project such as road 
construction or urban renewal.
    Q2: Is spray on ceiling texture considered part of the wall system 
like tape joint compound?
    A2: No. The analyses of these individual layers may not be 
composited with the wallboard analyses.
    Q3: If the ceilings are not disturbed or demolished during the 
move, does the asbestos need to be removed before the move?
    A3: Prior to the move, the owner or operator must determine if the 
move will break up, dislodge, or similarly disturb the asbestos. If 
such disturbances occur, the owner or operator may be subject to 
enforcement action.
    Q4: Can the State avoid the requirements of the asbestos NESHAP by 
having the demolition of a residential structure occur prior to the 
State taking official ownership?
    A4: If the structure is part of an installation, as occurs when a 
group of houses are demolished for a project, such activities would be 
considered

[[Page 7375]]

circumvention which is prohibited by the part 61 NESHAP general 
provisions.
    Q5: Is the movement of a single-family home purchased from a 
private party subject to the asbestos NESHAP?
    A5: No, unless the home is part of an installation, planned 
development, or public project.
    Q6: Is the movement of a single-family home purchased from a land 
developer subject to the asbestos NESHAP?
    A6: Yes. Residential structures that are demolished or renovated as 
part of a commercial or public project are not exempt from the rule.
    Q7: Is the movement of a structure that has been used for 
educational purposes and will contain four or less dwelling units 
subject to the asbestos NESHAP?
    A7: Yes. Mobile classroom structures are considered institutional 
buildings.
    Q8: Is the movement of a single-family home (not modular or mobile) 
purchased from a house manufacturing company subject to the asbestos 
NESHAP?
    A8: No, based on the limited information provided.
    Q9: Is the movement of portable school classrooms subject to the 
asbestos NESHAP?
    A9: Yes. Large mobile structures for public or commercial use are 
regulated.
    Q10: Is the movement of agricultural buildings subject to the 
asbestos NESHAP?
    A10: Agricultural buildings used for commercial purposes, such as a 
dairy barn or crop storage structure, are subject. However, the rule 
does not apply to sheds used to store equipment for a homeowner's 
garden, or to farm stands that sell fresh produce and have no 
utilities.
    Q11: Is the movement of garages subject to the asbestos NESHAP?
    A11: Yes, if the residential structure associated with the garage 
is subject, if the garage is located at a commercial operation, or if 
the garage itself is used for commerce.
    Abstract for [M020008]:
    Q: Will EPA approve an alternative scrap inspection monitoring 
program for a facility that accepts no fabrication or press scrap 
containing paint or coatings?
    A: Yes, provided the facility includes a recordkeeping provision 
like 40 CFR 63.1510(p)(6).
    Abstract for [M020009]:
    Q: Can the Boise Cascade paper mill in International Falls, 
Minnesota use the UNOX system biomass, as calculated using the mixed 
liquor volatile suspended solids (MLVSS), to meet the continuous 
monitoring requirements for kraft pulping condensates? The pulp and 
paper NESHAP does not specify a monitoring parameter for closed 
biological systems.
    A: Yes. The UNOX system destruction efficiency depends on the 
number of biological organisms in the system, the biomass accounts for 
the majority of organic solids, and MLVSS is a measure of organic 
solids. Boise Cascade must use the average MLVSS measured during a 
compliant performance test as the minimum MLVSS demonstrating 
continuous compliance.
    Abstract for [M020010]:
    Q: Will EPA waive the performance test for a backup portable vapor 
combustion unit that Marathon Ashland Petroleum (MAP) has used at its 
St. Paul Park, Minnesota refinery to control VOC emissions from a 
gasoline loading rack during maintenance and repair work on the primary 
carbon adsorption unit controls?
    A: Yes. Tests showed that the unit's VOC emissions were only 15 
percent of the emission standard at another MAP location. The unit is 
scheduled for use at other MAP facilities, and bringing it back to St. 
Paul Park for a test would not provide any new information.
    Abstract for [M020011]:
    Q: What is the correct location for measuring freeboard 
refrigeration temperature in a halogenated solvent cleaning machine?
    A: The temperature should be measured in the center of the chilled 
air blanket, at the center cooling coil of the machine.
    Abstract for [M020012]:
    Q: Is a facility that includes a chamber that delaminates aluminum 
foil from paper and plastic subject to the secondary aluminum NESHAP?
    A: No. Subpart RRR defines a scrap dryer as a unit used to remove 
organic contaminants from aluminum scrap prior to melting. No melting 
occurs at the facility in question, and there are no other affected 
sources subject to subpart RRR.
    Abstract for [M020013]:
    Q: Will EPA approve surrogate parameters for daily monitoring of an 
open biological treatment system?
    A: Yes, based on the information submitted, EPA approves the 
request. However, EPA may require use of another specified monitoring 
method if it finds reasonable grounds to dispute the results obtained 
under this alternative monitoring method.
    Abstract for [M020014]:
    Q: A refinery has process area reactors and distillation columns 
whose only gas streams are combusted in the refinery's fuel gas system. 
These gas streams are exempt from any compliance monitoring 
requirements under 40 CFR part 63, subpart G. Does 40 CFR 63.110(d)(10) 
also exempt those gas streams from the requirements of NSPS subparts 
NNN and RRR?
    A: No. 40 CFR 63.110(d)(10) does not exempt the gas streams from 
meeting the requirements of NSPS subparts NNN and RRR.
    Abstract for [M020015]:
    Q: Do the halogenated solvent cleaner NESHAP standards apply to the 
process described for stripping epoxy resins from steel bowls?
    A. The applicability section of this rule, 40 CFR 63.460(a), states 
that if any of the named solvents, including methylene chloride, which 
this facility uses, is used in any of four types of solvent cleaning 
machines as a cleaning and/or drying agent, then the subpart applies. 
Although the hand cleaning portion of the removal of the epoxy resin 
from the steel bowl is exempt from Subpart T, the mechanical cleaning 
inside the custom design tank is not exempt, but rather is an 
applicable batch cold cleaning machine under the halogenated solvent 
MACT standard.
    Abstract for [M020016]:
    Q: Do the halogenated solvent cleaner NESHAP standards apply to the 
stripping (thinning/diluting) of a coating of catalyzed epoxy resin in 
various stages of cure from metal bowls in the following process? The 
metal bowl is placed upside down in a custom designed tank containing 
approximately 3'' of Methylene Chloride liquid. The tank cover is 
closed and spray is directed upward into the part in a 45 minute 
stripping process. The parts are removed and then hand cleaned about 15 
minutes per bowl. Is this a cold cleaning operation or a stripping 
operation?
    A: 40 CFR 63.461 defines a cold cleaning machine as any device or 
piece of equipment that contains and/or uses liquids, into which parts 
are placed to remove soils from the surface of the parts. In this case, 
the cleaning of the parts once they exit the solvent bath using spray 
headers to begin the stripping process and then the continued cleaning 
of parts by hand would identify this operation as a stripping 
operations. Based on the information supplied, EPA has determined that 
the operation is not subject to the halogenated solvent cleaning 
NESHAP.
    Abstract for [M020017]:
    Q1: USGC Almeg has a processing chamber in which foil is 
delaminated from paper and plastic. This processing chamber operates at 
a maximum temperature of 900 degrees Fahrenheit; no melting occurs 
here, nor does melting occur subsequently in any of

[[Page 7376]]

USGC Almeg's operations. Is USGC Almeg subject to subpart RRR?
    A1: Yes. Units that use heat to remove contaminants from scrap 
aluminum are subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRR, irrespective of 
whether the aluminum is subsequently melted.
    Q2: USGC Almeg has a unit that dries aluminum chips in the absence 
of any melting of aluminum at the site. Is the unit subject to subpart 
RRR?
    A2: Yes. A device that uses heat to evaporate water, oil, or oil/
water mixtures from unpainted/uncoated aluminum chips is subject to the 
requirements of subpart RRR.
    Abstract for [M020018]:
    Q: What is the correct wastewater classification of low-point 
drains which are drained on a routine basis as part of proper function 
of the process?
    A: The procedures followed by Celanese result in process wastewater 
because the draining of the wastewater is essential to maintaining the 
proper function of the process equipment; the draining occurs at a 
frequent, routine, planned interval; and the draining is not done for 
the purposes of maintenance or repair.
    Abstract for [M020019]:
    Q: Will EPA approve an alternative initial performance test for 
roller mill transfer chutes at a Portland cement facility?
    A: Yes. Because of the design and operation of the chutes and the 
nature of the material being processed, EPA believes that emissions are 
not likely and accordingly approves the request for an alternative 
initial performance test.
    Abstract for [M020020]:
    Q: Will EPA approve alternative monitoring using a bag leak 
detection system in lieu of daily visual observations for finish mill 
stacks?
    A: Yes. EPA approves a request for the use of a bag leak detection 
system (BLDS) in lieu of daily visual observations on finish mill 
stacks.
    Abstract for [M020021]:
    Q: Will EPA approve a waiver from Method 9 initial performance 
testing for transfer chutes, load spouts and Magnetic Separator 
Discharge Chute at a Portland cement facility?
    A: EPA approves the waiver from Method 9 for transfer chutes, load 
spouts and Magnetic Separator Discharge Chute at the facility on 
condition that any change in operation will require further EPA review.
    Abstract for [M020022]:
    Q: Will EPA approve a waiver from Method 9 initial performance 
testing and monitoring for the coal mill stack and related air 
pollution control device at a Portland cement facility?
    A: Yes. EPA approves a waiver of performance testing and 
alternative monitoring for the coal mill stack. Performance test 
requirements and the monitoring requirements shall be applicable to the 
main kiln stack and its related air pollution control device.
    Abstract for [0200050]:
    Q: Can Consolidated Edison Energy Massachusetts obtain a relaxed 
sulfur-in-fuel monitoring schedule under NSPS subpart GG for the 
operation of two stationary gas turbines which operate solely on 
natural gas?
    A: Yes, EPA routinely grants custom monitoring schedules under 40 
CFR part 60, subpart GG for units burning low sulfur fuels.
    Abstract for [0200051]:
    Q: Can Consolidated Edison Energy Massachusetts obtain a waiver 
from the requirement to conduct an initial performance test for 
NOX under 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG?
    A: Yes, EPA will waive the performance test requirement where it 
believes that the source can demonstrate compliance with the standard 
using other means. In this case, the source will demonstrate compliance 
with the subpart GG NOX limit by installing, operating, and 
maintaining a NOX continuous emission monitoring (CEM) 
system in accordance with 40 CFR part 75, and conducting an initial 
RATA certification for the CEM system.
    Abstract for [0200052]:
    Q: Can Massachusetts Institute of Technology obtain a relaxed 
sulfur-in-fuel monitoring schedule under NSPS subpart GG for the 
operation of a stationary gas turbine which operates solely on natural 
gas?
    A: Yes, EPA routinely grants custom monitoring schedules under 40 
CFR part 60, subpart GG for units burning low sulfur fuels.
    Abstract for [0200053]:
    Q: Can Sithe's Fore River and Mystic facilities obtain a relaxed 
sulfur-in-fuel monitoring schedule under NSPS subpart GG for the 
operation of stationary gas turbines with a primary fuel of natural gas 
and a secondary fuel of very-low sulfur distillate oil?
    A: Yes, EPA routinely grants custom monitoring schedules under 40 
CFR part 60, subpart GG for units burning low sulfur fuels.
    Abstract for [0200054]:
    Q: May Sithe's Fore River and Mystic facilities measure nitrogen 
oxides (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and 
particulate matter (PM) at the heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) 
outlet instead of measuring upstream and downstream of the duct burner 
during the subparts GG and Da initial performance test? Also, may Sithe 
use method 20 instead of method 7E for the initial performance test? 
Can Sithe obtain a custom CEMS quality assurance/quality control (QA/
QC) regimen?
    A: Yes, EPA has determined that in these specific cases the 
proposed alternatives to the test methods, sampling points, and CEMS 
QA/QC requirements will continue to ensure compliance with the emission 
limits.
    Abstract for [0200055]:
    Q: Contrary to what is required under 40 CFR 60.153(b)(2), subpart 
O, is it permissible to locate an oxygen monitor downstream of any 
multiple hearth incinerator rabble shaft cooling air inlet into the 
incinerator exhaust gas stream, fan, ambient air recirculation damper, 
or any other source of dilution air?
    A: Yes, providing certain conditions are met. EPA has concurred 
with a multiple hearth incinerator owner/operator's determination that 
a stack gas extractive oxygen CEMS can provide a valid surrogate 
indicator of incinerator exhaust gas oxygen content with minimal 
interference from sources of dilution air, provided certain testing and 
operation and maintenance (O&M) practices are implemented, including 
reporting requirements.
    Abstract for [0200056]:
    Q: Will EPA exempt the U.S. Navy under 40 CFR 60.332 for a new 
Turbine Test Facility to be installed in the City of Philadelphia?
    A: Yes, Region III approves the exemption from the nitrogen oxides 
standard in subpart GG because this new installation meets the 
conditions specified in 40 CFR 60.332 as both a military turbine 
installation and a manufacturer test facility for efficiency 
improvements and emissions reductions.
    Abstract for [0200057]:
    Q: Does EPA consider a ``drop out'' box with water sprays an 
example of a wet scrubbing control device?
    A: Yes. The Stationary Source Control Techniques Document for Fine 
Particulate Matter (EPA, 1998) defines wet scrubbers as ``particulate 
matter (PM) control devices that rely on direct and irreversible 
contact of a liquid with the PM.'' Therefore, a ``drop-out'' box with 
water sprays is considered to be an example of a wet scrubbing control 
device and should be in compliance with the regulations accordingly.
    Abstract for [0200058]:
    Q: Will EPA approve an alternative testing procedure for four 
simple cycle combustion turbines that use a certified continuous 
emission monitor that has been certified under 40 CFR part 75?
    A: The owner has demonstrated that the concentration of oxygen is 
not

[[Page 7377]]

stratified across the diameter of the exhaust stack. Therefore, subject 
to certain conditions, EPA approves this request.
    Abstract for [0200059]:
    Q: Will EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan for a portable 
combustor at the gasoline loading rack at Marathon Ashland Petroleum 
LLC's Detroit, Michigan refinery?
    A: Yes. Because the request is consistent with EPA's policy for 
approval of an alternative monitoring plan for miscellaneous fuel gas 
streams, EPA approves the request.
    Abstract for [0200060]:
    Q1: Does the replacement of an air grid on an FCCU catalyst 
regenerator trigger NSPS subpart J?
    A1: If the Air Grid Replacement Project does not cause an increase 
in the emission rate of PM, SO2, or CO, as presented by MAP, 
it will not trigger NSPS. MAP is required to demonstrate that there 
will be no emission increase via CEM data and emissions tests.
    Q2: Does the Air Grid Replacement Project qualify for the exemption 
of modification for routine maintenance, repair, and replacement in 40 
CFR 60.14(e)(1)?
    A2: No. The Air Grid Replacement Project is not a regular, 
customary or standard undertaking for the purposes of maintaining the 
plant in its present condition.
    Abstract for [0200061]:
    Q: Will EPA approve a higher operating temperature for ten wells at 
a landfill?
    A: Yes. Based on the supporting information presented by the 
landfill, it appears that the methanogenic process is still at an 
anaerobic phase at the higher landfill gas temperatures and no evidence 
of subsurface landfill fire is present at the site.
    Abstract for [0200062]:
    Q: Will EPA grant a coal preparation plant a waiver from the NSPS 
general provision reporting and recordkeeping requirements for all of 
its coal handling system, except the dust collector?
    A: No. The NSPS general provisions do not provide for the complete 
waiving of such reporting or recordkeeping requirements.
    Abstract for [0200063]:
    Q: Will EPA grant a waiver from the NSPS general provision 
reporting and recordkeeping requirements for a coal mine's processing 
and conveying equipment?
    A: No. The NSPS general provisions do not provide for the complete 
waiving of such reporting or recordkeeping requirements.
    Abstract for [0200064]:
    Q: At what point does the custody transfer exemption apply to 
petroleum liquid storage vessels in natural gas production processes?
    A: There is no set point for every facility where the custody 
transfer exemption applies. If the petroleum liquid storage vessels are 
located after any type of processing or treatment, the custody transfer 
exemption does not apply. It is possible that the custody transfer 
exemption may apply to different facilities at different points in the 
natural gas production process.
    Abstract for [0200065]:
    Q1: Are turbines manufactured before October 3, 1977 and maintained 
by Alyeska before that date, but that did not begin initial operation 
on the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) until after that date 
subject to NSPS subpart GG?
    A1: In the case of stationary gas turbines that are mass-produced 
and purchased in completed form, EPA considers the manufacturer as the 
original owner or operator. The turbines are not subject to subpart GG 
provided that they were not modified or reconstructed after October 3, 
1977.
    Q2: Are turbines manufactured before October 3, 1977 and not 
purchased by Alyeska until after that date, and that therefore did not 
begin initial operation on the TAPS until after that date subject to 
subpart GG?
    A2: In the case of stationary gas turbines that are mass-produced 
and purchased in completed form, EPA considers the manufacturer as the 
original owner or operator. The turbines are not subject to subpart GG 
provided that they were not modified or reconstructed after October 3, 
1977.
    Q3: Are turbines manufactured before October 3, 1977, and purchased 
by Alyeska after that date from another owner who bought them before 
that date, subject to subpart GG even if they may not have been placed 
into operation by the previous owner before October 3, 1997?
    A3: In the case of stationary gas turbines that are mass-produced 
and purchased in completed form, EPA considers the manufacturer as the 
original owner or operator. The turbines are not subject to subpart GG 
provided that they were not modified or reconstructed after October 3, 
1977.
    Q4: Do the requirements of subparts A and GG apply only to a 
turbine, as the ``affected facility,'' so that a turbine that is 
subject to these subparts is operated as a GG turbine no matter where 
it is operated on the TAPS?
    A4: Under subparts A and GG, the turbine is the affected facility 
and the requirements of these subparts follow a turbine constructed, 
modified, or reconstructed after October 3, 1977, regardless of where 
the turbine is relocated. The affected facility is the stationary gas 
turbine and does not include the equipment that is powered by the 
turbine (such as a generator or pump).
    Q5: Do turbines manufactured before October 3, 1977, become subject 
to subpart GG if they are treated as a pool of identical turbines and 
moved from location to location between TAPS pump stations to allow for 
the maintenance of turbines?
    A5: Assuming that the maintenance does not result in a modification 
or reconstruction, and that the turbines are not otherwise modified or 
reconstructed, relocation of the turbine as part of a pool of identical 
turbines would not subject the turbine to subpart GG.
    Q6: Does a turbine that is not subject to subpart GG (because it 
was not constructed, modified, or reconstructed after October 3, 1977) 
become subject to subpart GG if it is rotated into a location to 
replace a turbine that is subject to this subpart?
    A6: No. A turbine that was not constructed, modified, or 
reconstructed after October 3, 1977, does not become subject to subpart 
GG simply because it is rotated into a location to replace a turbine 
that is subject to this subpart.
    Abstract for [0200066]:
    Q1: Will EPA approve a custom fuel monitoring schedule under NSPS 
subpart GG for a facility?
    A1: 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 subpart GG custom fuel monitoring schedules 
on a case-by-case basis.
    Q2: Will EPA approve use of the length-of-stain tube test for 
certain gas turbines?
    A2: Yes, EPA approves the use of the length-of-stain tube test 
provided that the sulfur content of the gaseous fuel is well below the 
2,000 ppmw threshold.
    Abstract for [0200067]:
    Q: Will EPA approve use of the length-of-stain tube test for 
certain gas turbines?
    A: Yes, EPA approves the use of the length-of-stain tube test 
provided that the sulfur content of the gaseous fuel is well below the 
1,600 ppmw threshold.
    Abstract for [0200068]:
    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 subpart GG custom fuel

[[Page 7378]]

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 on 
following specific conditions for confirming sulfur variability of the 
pipeline natural gas.
    Abstract for [0200069]:
    Q1: Will EPA approve a custom fuel monitoring schedule under NSPS 
subpart GG for a facility?
    A1: 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 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 on following 
specific conditions for confirming sulfur variability of the pipeline 
natural gas.
    Q2: Will EPA approve use of the length-of-stain tube test for 
certain gas turbines?
    A2: Yes, EPA approves the use of the length-of-stain tube test 
provided that the sulfur content of the gaseous fuel is well below the 
1,600 ppmw threshold.
    Q3: Will EPA approve a request to perform fuel sampling and 
analysis in lieu of sulfur dioxide stack testing under subpart Da?
    A3: Yes, based upon the fact that sulfur dioxide emissions 
generated by burning pipeline quality natural gas should be at least 
one order of magnitude below the standard in subpart Da, EPA approves 
the request to perform fuel sampling in lieu of stack testing.
    Abstract for [0200070]:
    Q1: Will EPA grant a request to use the procedures for fuel sulfur 
content determination in section 2.3.3.1 of appendix D to part 75?
    A1: Yes, EPA approves the use of this method when pipeline quality 
natural gas is the only fuel being burned.
    Q2: Will EPA approve a custom fuel monitoring schedule under 
subpart GG for a facility?
    A2: 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 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.
    Abstract for [0200071]:
    Q1: Will EPA approve a custom fuel monitoring schedule under NSPS 
subpart GG for a facility?
    A1: 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 subpart GG custom fuel monitoring schedules 
on a case-by-case basis. In this case, approval is based on the sulfur 
content of the fuel being used and an understanding that there is no 
fuel-bound nitrogen.
    Q2: Will EPA approve use of the length-of-stain tube test for 
certain gas turbines?
    A2: Yes, EPA approves the use of the length-of-stain tube test 
provided that the sulfur content of the gaseous fuel is well below the 
1,600 ppmw threshold.
    Abstract for [0200072]:
    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 subpart GG custom fuel monitoring schedules 
on a case-by-case basis. In this case, approval is based on the sulfur 
content of the fuel being used and the understanding that there is no 
fuel-bound nitrogen.
    Abstract for [0200073]:
    Q1: Will EPA approve a custom fuel monitoring schedule under NSPS 
subpart GG for a facility?
    A1: 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 subpart GG custom fuel monitoring schedules 
on a case-by-case basis. In this case, approval is based on the sulfur 
content of the fuel being used and the understanding that there is no 
fuel-bound nitrogen.
    Q2: Will EPA approve use of the length-of-stain tube test for 
certain gas turbines?
    A2: Yes, EPA approves the use of the length-of-stain tube test 
provided that the sulfur content of the gaseous fuel is well below the 
1,600 ppmw threshold.
    Q3: Will EPA approve use of NOX CEMS as an alternative 
monitoring method to monitor the ratio of water to fuel?
    A3: Yes, EPA grants this request because it is consistent with 
approval in a March 12, 1993, EPA guidance memorandum.
    Q4: Will EPA approve a request not to have to correct 
NOX CEMS data to ISO conditions?
    A4: Yes, EPA finds it acceptable to maintain NOX 
emissions below 25 ppmvd at 15 percent oxygen as it would ensure 
compliance with the applicable ISO--corrected subpart GG under all 
reasonably ambient conditions.
    Q5: Will EPA allow use of NOX reference test method data 
collected during a RATA conducted on the plant's CEMS as an alternative 
to the initial NOX performance test?
    A5: Yes, EPA will allow this use because the amount of sampling 
conducted during the RATA (a minimum of nine 21-minute test runs using 
the EPA reference methods) provides enough representative emissions 
data to determine compliance status.
    Abstract for [0200074]:
    Q: Will EPA approve a custom fuel usage monitoring schedule under 
subpart Dc for a facility?
    A: Yes, the request is consistent with previous custom fuel usage 
monitoring schedules allowed under subpart Dc.
    Abstract for [0200075]:
    Q: Will EPA approve an alternative ASTM test method for monitoring 
the nitrogen content of fuel being burned?
    A: Yes, because the proposed alternative method is capable of 
measuring close to the test target levels with minimal deviation and 
well within 5 percent of the mean, EPA approves the test method.
    Abstract for [0200076]:
    Q: Will EPA approve alternative monitoring requests for a refinery 
facility subject to subpart J?
    A: Yes, EPA will approve the alternative monitoring requests, but 
with specific conditions and one modification from the proposed 
approach.
    Abstract for [0200077]:
    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 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 on following 
specific conditions for confirming sulfur variability of the pipeline 
natural gas.
    Abstract for [0200078]:
    Q: Will EPA approve water and fuel flow meters for two gas 
turbines?
    A: Yes, EPA approves these meters because their accuracy meets the 
requirements of 40 CFR 60.334(a).
    Abstract for [0200079]:
    Q: Will EPA approve custom fuel monitoring for nitrogen and sulfur 
for a planned natural gas-fueled, turbine-driven pipeline compressor 
subject to subpart GG?
    A: Yes, EPA approves a custom monitoring schedule, per 40 CFR 
60.334(b)(2), that allows for no monitoring of fuel nitrogen as long as 
the affected source is supplied with solely pipeline quality natural 
gas. In addition, EPA approves a custom fuel monitoring schedule for 
sulfur. The

[[Page 7379]]

schedule requires monitoring twice monthly for the first six months, 
and, if the affected source has test results less than 50 percent of 
the sulfur limit, then twice a year, during the first and third 
calendar quarters, as long as the affected source maintains compliance.
    Abstract for [0200080]:
    Q1: Will EPA allow Mirant Kendall to measure NOX, 
SO2, and PM for the new natural gas unit number 4 at the 
HRSG outlet instead of upstream and downstream of the duct burner 
during the subpart GG and subpart Da initial performance test? Can 
Kendall use Method 20 instead of Method 7E for the initial performance 
test?
    A1: Yes, EPA has determined that in these specific cases the 
proposed alternatives to the test methods and sampling points will 
continue to ensure compliance with the emission limits.
    Q2: Will EPA allow a custom CEMS QA/QC regimen?
    A2: Yes, EPA has determined that in these specific cases the 
proposed alternative to the CEMS QA/QC requirements will continue to 
ensure compliance with the emission limits.
    Abstract for [0200081]:
    Q: Is the use of an adsorber and incinerator an acceptable 
alternate control system for subpart NNN and subpart RRR affected 
facilities?
    A: Yes. Use of the control system and the proposed procedures for 
monitoring and ensuring proper operation and maintenance are 
acceptable.
    Abstract for [0200082]:
    Q: A refinery has process area reactors and distillation columns 
whose only gas streams are combusted in the refinery's fuel gas system. 
These gas streams are exempt from any compliance monitoring 
requirements under 40 CFR part 63, subpart G. Does 40 CFR 63.110(d)(10) 
also exempt those gas streams from the requirements of NSPS subparts 
NNN and RRR?
    A: No. Section 63.110(d)(10) does not exempt the gas streams from 
meeting the requirements of NSPS subparts NNN and RRR.
    Abstract for [0200083]:
    Q: Are electric arc furnaces in steel forging plants regulated by 
subparts AA and AAa?
    A: If a plant manufactures a product that comes from a mold and 
that product, as it comes out from the mold, is modified by rolling, 
forging, hot or cold working to alter its shape, the furnaces are 
regulated.
    Abstract for [0200084]:
    Q. Is outdated pharmaceutical waste considered an industrial waste 
that would make an incinerator a Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste 
Incineration (CISWI) Unit?
    A. No. As the waste in question is from a warehouse, it is a 
municipal waste and, as a result, the unit is not subject to the CISWI 
regulations.
    Abstract for [0200085]:
    Q: For purposes of NSPS subpart H, what portions of a facility 
containing both sulfuric acid and liquid sulfur dioxide operations 
constitute a sulfuric acid plant?
    A: On the basis of the information provided on this particular 
facility, only the sulfuric acid operations constitute a sulfuric acid 
plant under subpart H.
    Abstract for [0200086]:
    Q: A facility mines and crushes argillite and then fires it in 
kilns to produce lightweight aggregate. Are the lightweight aggregate 
product crushers/grinders, conveyors, screeners, and storage bins which 
follow the kilns subject to subpart OOO?
    A: Yes. Even if no crushing or grinding takes place after the 
kilns, the subsequent material handling equipment would still be 
subject to subpart OOO as it is part of the nonmetallic mineral 
production line in which crushing and grinding of raw material takes 
place. The lightweight aggregate product is a nonmetallic mineral. The 
facility should also consider the potential applicability of subpart 
UUU to specific operations at the facility.
    Abstract for [0200087]:
    Q: Should facilities subject to NSPS subpart OOO submit routine 
reports to the appropriate agency with delegated authority for 
implementing the regulation, instead of EPA Region 4?
    A: Yes. Facilities subject to NSPS subpart OOO only need to submit 
routine reports to the appropriate agency with delegated authority for 
implementing the regulation. There is no need to submit the reports to 
EPA Region 4.
    Abstract for [0200088]:
    Q: A facility crushes and grinds clay and then deposits it onto a 
storage pile. The clay is later removed from the storage pile and 
transferred by a conveyor to brick manufacturing equipment in a making 
room. Is the conveyor subject to subpart OOO?
    A: No. The conveyor is not an affected facility in a production 
line at a nonmetallic mineral processing plant.

    Dated: February 4, 2003.
Michael M. Stahl,
Director, Office of Compliance.
[FR Doc. 03-3585 Filed 2-12-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P