[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 42 (Monday, March 3, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11410-11418]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-4030]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8527-2]


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); the 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP); and 
the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Program.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: An electronic copy of each complete 
document posted on the Applicability Determination Index (ADI) database 
system is available on the Internet through the Office of Enforcement 
and Compliance Assurance (OECA) Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/caa/adi.html. The document may be 
located by control number, date, author, subpart, or subject search. 
For questions about the ADI or this notice, contact Maria Malave at EPA 
by phone at: (202) 564-7027, or by 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 section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act 
regulations contain no specific regulatory provision providing 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 control number, date, office of issuance, 
subpart, citation, control number or by string word searches.
    Today's notice comprises a summary of 51 such documents added to 
the ADI on November 2, 2007. 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/monitoring/programs/caa/adi.html.

Summary of Headers and Abstracts

    The following table identifies the database control number for each 
document posted on the ADI database system on November 2, 2007; 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. This notice does not 
change the status of any document with respect to whether it is ``of 
nationwide scope or effect'' for purposes of section 307(b)(1) of the 
Clean Air Act. Neither does it purport to make any document that was 
previously non-binding into a binding document.

                                 ADI Determinations Uploaded on November 2, 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Control No.                Category          Subpart(s)                        Title
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A070001.......................  Asbestos.........  M................  Aluminum Sheds and Fruit Stands.
A070002.......................  Asbestos.........  M................  Residential Homes Demolished for Highway
                                                                       Expansion.
A070003.......................  Asbestos.........  M................  260 Linear Feet Regulatory Threshold.
A070004.......................  Asbestos.........  M................  Recycling Pipelines.
A070005.......................  Asbestos.........  M................  Asbestos-Containing Waste Material.
A070006.......................  Asbestos.........  M................  Rounding Reported Values.
M070001.......................  MACT.............  A, DDDDD.........  Alternative Monitoring for Gaseous Fuel
                                                                       Fired Sources.
M070002.......................  MACT.............  DDDDD............  Multi-Cyclone Collectors.
M070003.......................  MACT.............  RRR..............  Alternative Calibration for Thermocouple.

[[Page 11411]]

 
M070004.......................  MACT.............  RRR..............  Secondary Aluminum Production.
M070005.......................  MACT.............  DDDD, DDDDD......  Alternative Monitoring for CO.
M070006.......................  MACT.............  DDDD, DDDDD......  Integrated Heat Energy Systems.
M070007.......................  MACT.............  UUUU.............  Alternative Monitoring for Biofilter
                                                                       Effluent Conductivity.
M070008.......................  MACT.............  DDDDD............  Averaging Time and Performance Testing.
M070009.......................  MACT.............  DDDDD............  De Minimis Fuels and HBCA Operation.
M070010.......................  MACT.............  T................  Airless/Airtight Degreasers.
M070011.......................  MACT.............  HH...............  Volatile Hazardous Air Pollutants Content
                                                                       Determination.
M070012.......................  MACT.............  OOOO.............  Solvent-Based Fabric Finishing.
M070013.......................  MACT.............  MMMM, QQQQ.......  Coating Wooden Window Components.
M070014.......................  MACT.............  II...............  Large Yacht Repainting and Repair.
M070015.......................  MACT.............  GG...............  Aerospace Solvent Use.
Z070001.......................  NESHAP...........  M................  Debris Management and Disposal.
700001........................  NSPS.............  NNN, RRR.........  Testing, Monitoring and Recordkeeping for
                                                                       VOC Emissions.
700002........................  NSPS.............  VV...............  By-Product Chemical Mixture.
700003........................  NSPS.............  Db, Dc...........  Wood Gasification Systems.
700004........................  NSPS.............  UUU..............  Titanium Dioxide Spray Dryers.
700005........................  NSPS.............  MM...............  Performance Test Waiver Request.
700006........................  NSPS.............  Appendix B.......  RATA Extension and Alternative Monitoring.
700007........................  NSPS.............  Appendix B.......  RATA Extension and Alternative Monitoring.
700008........................  NSPS.............  VV...............  Alternative Monitoring for Leak Detection.
700009........................  NSPS.............  NNN..............  Alternative Flow Monitoring.
700010........................  NSPS.............  DD...............  Applicability of NSPS Subpart DD to Malted
                                                                       and Unmalted Processes.
700011........................  NSPS.............  A, Db............  Delay of Continuous Opacity Monitoring
                                                                       System.
700012........................  NSPS.............  GG...............  Initial Performance Test Waiver Request.
700013........................  NSPS.............  GG...............  Natural Gas Demonstration.
700014........................  NSPS.............  Db...............  Fuel Usage Monitoring Requirement.
700015........................  NSPS.............  GG...............  Custom Fuel Monitoring Schedule.
700016........................  NSPS.............  Dc...............  Change of Nozzle Tip to Accommodate
                                                                       Residual Fuel.
700017........................  NSPS.............  III..............  Notification of Exemption for Commercial
                                                                       and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerators.
700018........................  NSPS.............  Dc...............  Alternative Fuel Monitoring.
700019........................  NSPS.............  Db, Dc...........  Idaho Supreme Potato Boilers.
700020........................  NSPS.............  A, GG............  Custom Fuel Monitoring Schedule.
700021........................  NSPS.............  A, GG............  Initial Performance Test Deadline
                                                                       Extension Request.
700022........................  NSPS.............  A, I.............  Alternative Test Method for Performance
                                                                       Evaluation.
700023........................  NSPS.............  Dc...............  Reduction in Fuel Use Recordkeeping.
700024........................  NSPS.............  Ec...............  Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste
                                                                       Incineration.
700025........................  NSPS.............  Dc...............  Reduction in Fuel Use Recordkeeping and
                                                                       Alternative Fuel Monitoring.
700026........................  NSPS.............  Dc...............  Reduction in Fuel Use Recordkeeping.
700027........................  NSPS.............  Dc...............  Reduction in Fuel Use Recordkeeping.
700028........................  NSPS.............  Dc...............  Relocated Boiler.
700063........................  NSPS.............  NNN, RRR.........  Production of Biodiesel and Glycerin from
                                                                       Soybean Oil and Methane.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Abstract for [A070001]:
    Q: Could EPA clarify to the Florida Department of Transportation if 
aluminum sheds and fruit stands are subject to the notification and 
inspection requirements under the asbestos NESHAP, 40 CFR part 61, 
subpart M?
    A: EPA explains that prefabricated sheds and small structures that 
do not have utilities (water, electricity, and sewer) do not meet the 
definition of structures under the asbestos NESHAP regulations, and 
thus are not subject to the rule. If a structure meets the definition 
of structure in the asbestos NESHAP, which would include any structure 
acquired by the DOT, it must be inspected as required by Sec.  
61.145(a) of NESHAP subpart M.
    Abstract for [A070002]:
    Q: Could EPA clarify to the Air Pollution Control Program in 
Jefferson City, Missouri whether single family residences are subject 
to the Asbestos NESHAP, 40 CFR part 61, subpart M, if they are being 
demolished as part of a highway expansion?
    A: EPA explains that a group of residential buildings under the 
control of the same owner or operator is considered an installation 
according to the definition of ``installation,'' and thus is covered by 
the asbestos NESHAP. As an example, several houses located on a highway 
right-of-way that are all demolished as part of the same highway 
project would be considered an ``installation,'' even when the houses 
are not proximate to each other. In this example, the houses are under 
the control of the same owner or operator, that is, the highway agency 
responsible for the highway project.
    Abstract for [A070003]:
    Q: Could EPA clarify to the City of Newport News, Virginia, whether 
the regulatory threshold of 260 linear feet applies to other materials, 
other than pipes, such as caulking or roof flashing, under NESHAP, 40 
CFR part 61, subpart M?
    A: EPA explains that the regulatory threshold of 260 linear feet is 
applicable only to pipes under 40 CFR part 61, subpart M. Other 
materials, such as caulking or roof flashing, would be subject to the 
160 square foot standard. It is acknowledged that using the square foot 
requirement may reduce the chance of these materials triggering the 
regulated threshold.
    Abstract for [A070004]:
    Q1: Are pipelines at the South West Pipe Services facility in Texas 
subject to 40 CFR part 61, subpart M?
    A1: Yes. EPA finds that the pipeline is considered a facility 
component being renovated, and is subject to the asbestos NESHAP.
    Q2: If the pipeline renovation, containing more than one percent

[[Page 11412]]

asbestos and more than 260 linear feet, is made friable (i.e., 
crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder) subjecting the project to 
the regulations under 40 CFR part 61, subpart M, who is considered the 
owner/operator?
    A2: EPA finds that the owner/operator can be the owner of the 
pipeline, the contractor removing the pipe from the ground, and the 
company that purchases the pipe to recycle the steel pipe, based on the 
definition of owner or operator in the Asbestos NESHAP. Therefore, all 
entities involved in a pipeline renovation operation, which is subject 
to the requirements of the asbestos NESHAP, would have to comply with 
the asbestos NESHAP standards.
    Q3: If the pipeline renovation is not subject to the regulations 
under 40 CFR part 61, subpart M, and the pipe is sold to a third party, 
which by its work practice causes the pipe to become friable, is the 
pipe now regulated under the asbestos NESHAP?
    A3: Yes. EPA finds that the asbestos-impregnated tar or asbestos 
paper coating use on pipelines is considered Category II asbestos-
containing material. When it was removed as nonregulated, there is the 
expectation the coating would remain nonfriable and disposed in an 
approved landfill. Selling the pipe to a third party, who then causes 
the coating to become friable, defeats the purpose of the rule. Once 
the third party causes 260 linear feet of pipe coating to become 
friable the job is now regulated and all applicable regulations apply 
under the asbestos NESHAP.
    Q4: Are there guidelines for recycling of old pipelines under 40 
CFR part 61, subpart M?
    A4: No. EPA explains that there are no guidelines for recycling. 
However, the recycling operation may be subject to the asbestos NESHAP 
regulations if it causes the pipeline to become friable.
    Abstract for [A070005]:
    Q1: Could EPA clarify to the Iowa Department of Natural Resources 
at what point asbestos-containing material (ACM) becomes asbestos-
containing waste material (ACWM) subject to the provisions of under 40 
CFR 61.150?
    A1: EPA explains that ACM becomes ACWM once the asbestos-containing 
material is removed from a facility component or, as part of a larger 
facility component, a portion of the facility component is removed. The 
asbestos-containing material must meet one of the three regulated 
thresholds, i.e., the 260 linear feet threshold on pipes, the 160 
square feet threshold on other facility components, or the 35 cubic 
feet threshold where the length or area could not be measured 
previously for the asbestos-containing material to become asbestos-
containing waste material, as specified under the asbestos NESHAP.
    Q2: Does 40 CFR 61.150(a) provide a choice between the no visible 
emission standard and a control or waste treatment method?
    A2: Yes. EPA explains that the subject rule provision allows the 
owner/operator the ability to choose between two compliance 
alternatives, i.e., the ``no visible emission'' standard or the control 
or waste treatment methods specified in 40 CFR 61.150(a).
    Abstract for [A070006]:
    Q: Could EPA clarify to the Saint Louis County Health Department in 
Missouri how best to interpret the following phrase in 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart E: ``the value reported should be rounded to the nearest 
percent'', in connection with point counting results to determine the 
percentage of asbestos as between 1.0 percent and 1.5 percent and 
defining Category I and Category II nonfriable asbestos-containing 
material (ACM)?
    A: EPA explains that when a bulk sample is analyzed using Polarized 
Light Microscopy, and further quantified using the point counting 
method/formula in 40 CFR part 763, Subpart E, Appendix E, Section 
1.7.2.4, sample results are allowed to be rounded to the nearest 
percent. EPA interprets the rounding of results using the formula in 
Section 1.7.2.4 as, if the sample result yields a=4, ``a'' being the 
number of asbestos counts, the result is 1 percent, which does not meet 
the regulatory threshold of greater than 1 percent. If the sample 
result yields a=5, the result is 1.25 percent asbestos, which may be 
rounded down to 1 percent, which is not greater than 1 percent and 
therefore not regulated. If the sample result yields a=6, the result is 
1.5 percent asbestos, which would be rounded to 2 percent and therefore 
regulated.
    Abstract for [M070001]:
    Q1: Could EPA clarify to the International Paper Company whether 
the health-based compliance alternative (HBCA) includes the testing of 
natural gas fired sources under 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD?
    A1: EPA does not expect natural gas fired sources to emit regulated 
pollutants under Subpart DDDDD, and thus does not require that they be 
included in the HBCA.
    Q2: May a source request the use of an alternative monitoring under 
the health-based compliance alternative (HBCA) under 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart DDDDD?
    A2: Yes. EPA explains that a source may request alternative 
monitoring as allowed in the general provisions, under 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart A.
    Abstract for [M070002]:
    Q: Could EPA clarify to the American Forest and Paper Association 
whether multi-cyclone collectors on wood-fired boilers are considered 
``inherent process equipment'' as defined in the Compliance Assurance 
Monitoring (CAM) rule, and thus not subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
DDDDD as a ``control device''?
    A: EPA cannot conclude categorically that multi-cyclones always 
qualify as ``inherent process equipment'' as defined in the CAM Rule in 
40 CFR 64.1. However, there may be site-specific cases in which a 
multi-cyclone may serve as ``inherent process equipment'' rather than 
as a ``control device.'' Requests for site-specific determinations 
should be submitted in writing to the delegated agency responsible for 
implementing MACT subpart DDDDD.
    Abstract for [M070003]:
    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative to calibrating the thermocouple 
on an afterburner every six months for the City Wide Towing and Auto 
Wrecking facility in Springfield, Ohio, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
RRR?
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves an alternative method under MACT 
subpart RRR where dual thermocouples are used so that both the data 
logger and the digital read out each has its own thermocouple to allow 
sufficient current for proper readings. Both thermocouples read the 
same temperature and report to their own piece of equipment. As part of 
the standard operating procedure, a second set of thermocouples must be 
kept on site to replace a malfunctioning unit immediately.
    Abstract for [M070004]:
    Q1: Could EPA clarify to Bacchus Environmental if a specific 
facility can process a charge ``mixture'' in excess of the performance 
test weight under 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRR, if the charge weight of 
purchased scrap in a charge ``mixture'' does not exceed the performance 
test charge weight when 100 percent purchased scrap was melted? And may 
the facility exceed this weight when processing 100 percent clean 
charge?
    A1: EPA explains that the facility may exceed the performance test 
charge weight under MACT subpart RRR regulations as long as such 
exceedance does not result in the performance test no longer being 
representative of the facility operation that is likely to generate the 
highest emissions for the regulated pollutants.
    Q2: If a facility demonstrates through performance tests that each 
individual

[[Page 11413]]

emission unit within the secondary aluminum production unit is in 
compliance with the applicable emission limits, are the 3-day, 24-hour 
rolling average emission calculations of dioxin/furan (D/F) required 
for this secondary aluminum processing unit under 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart RRR?
    A2: EPA explains that a facility with a secondary aluminum 
processing unit (SAPU) that is meeting the requirements of Sec.  
63.1510(u) is not required to conduct the 3-day, 24 hour rolling 
average emission calculations of D/F in Sec.  63.1510(t) under MACT 
subpart RRR regulations. As an alternate to Sec.  63.1510(t), Sec.  
63.1510(u) requires, through performance tests, that each individual 
emission unit within the SAPU demonstrate compliance with the 
applicable emission limits
    Abstract for [M070005]:
    Q1: Is monitoring of firebox temperature in the Regenerative 
Thermal Oxidizer (RTO) units as required under 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
DDDD, Sec.  63.2269(b), a comparable alternative to carbon oxide (CO) 
monitoring required under the 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD, Sec.  
63.7510(c), in order to ensure adequate destruction of organic 
hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) at the Norbord Texas Industries 
facility in Marion County, Texas?
    A1: Yes. EPA approves the alternative monitoring plan request under 
the Boiler MACT to maintain the 3-hour block average firebox 
temperature of the RTO units at a level that is greater than or equal 
to the minimum firebox temperature established during the performance 
test as specifically required under the Plywood MACT, in Sec. Sec.  
63.2240(b) and 63.2262(k)).
    Q2: Because Norbord Industries has not yet conducted the 
performance test required under 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD, may it 
utilize an interim set point of 1500 degrees Fahrenheit for the RTO 
firebox minimum temperature control until testing occurs?
    A2: Yes. EPA finds that data collected as part of the Plywood MACT 
shows this temperature set point is acceptable in the interim for the 
RTO Units at Norbord's oriented strandboard (OSB) plant.
    Abstract for [M070006]:
    Q1: Is 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD, ``the Boiler MACT,'' 
applicable to the Integrated Heat Energy System (IHES) at the Norbord 
Industries LLP Jefferson Oriented Strandboard (OSB) Plant located in 
Marrion, Texas, given that 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD, ``the Plywood 
MACT,'' already applies?
    A1: Yes. EPA finds that the Teaford Furnace of the IHES is 
considered a process heater and an affected source under the Boiler 
MACT as defined in 40 CFR 63.7575. However, that portion of the 
combustion gases from the Teaford Furnace used to direct-fire the dryer 
unit is considered an affected source under the Plywood MACT, 40 CFR 
63.2232(b), and is exempted from the Boiler MACT under 40 CFR 
63.7491(l).
    Abstract for [M070007]:
    Q1: Does EPA approve the Viskase Companies request to monitor 
biofilter effluent conductivity as an alternative to effluent pH at two 
of its facilities located which are located in Loudon, Tennessee and 
Osceola, Arkansas under 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUU?
    A1: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the monitoring request to 
establish and monitor an effluent conductivity operating limit for the 
biofilter units. The effluent conductivity operating limit must be 
based on a performance test and can be supplemented by engineering 
assessments and/or manufacturer's recommendations.
    Q2: Could EPA clarify 40 CFR 63.505(c), which allows the owner or 
operator to supplement the parameter values measured during the 
performance test with engineering assessments and/or manufacturer's 
recommendations, for the Viskase Companies facility in Loudon, 
Tennessee?
    A2: EPA explains that 40 CFR 63.505(c) does not allow control 
device operating parameters to be based solely on good engineering 
practice and the manufacturer's recommendations. It does allow 
facilities to supplement the parameter monitoring levels established 
during the performance test with engineering assessments and/or 
manufacturer's recommendations. This supplementary data may allow 
facilities to avoid performance testing over the entire range of 
expected parameter values. Operating limits must be established during 
a performance test and can then be supplemented by engineering 
assessments and/or manufacturer's recommendations. Facilities subject 
to 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUU, must meet the performance testing 
requirements in 40 CFR 63.5535, as well as the requirements in 40 CFR 
63.7 of the General Provisions (GP). Facilities must also meet the 
applicable notification requirements in the General Provisions, 
including the performance testing notification requirements in 40 CFR 
63.9(e), as well as the notification of compliance status in 40 CFR 
63.9(h).
    Q3: Does EPA approve the Viskase Companies request that testing for 
closed vent systems be waived because the vent system is operated under 
negative pressure, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUU?
    A3: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the request to waive the closed 
vent system testing if the facility meets the requirements specified 
for negative pressure systems in other NESHAPs, (e.g., Pulp and Paper 
NESHAP) including an initial and annual demonstration of the negative 
pressure system using the procedures specified in the EPA response.
    Abstract for [M070008]:
    Q1: Could EPA clarify for the American Forest and Paper Association 
the averaging period for determining continuous compliance with the 
fuel operating limits under 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD?
    A1: EPA explains that there is no averaging period in MACT subpart 
DDDDD for determining continuous compliance with the fuel operating 
limit.
    Q2: Does a stack test conducted under the health-based compliance 
alternative (HBCA) (Appendix A) qualify as a performance test as 
referred to in 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD, Sec.  63.7540(a)(1)?
    A2: No. EPA explains that a stack test conducted under the HBCA 
does not qualify as a performance test under 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
DDDDD.
    Q3: Is soot blowing required during a stack test under 40 CFR part 
63, subpart DDDDD?
    A3: Yes. EPA explains that soot blowing should be included during 
the stack test under 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD.
    Q4: Does EPA allow alternate pH calibration plans under 40 CFR part 
63, subpart DDDDD?
    A4: Yes. EPA explains that owners/operators may submit a request 
for an alternative pH schedule under MACT subpart DDDDD.
    Abstract for [M070009]:
    Q1: May a de minimis threshold be established to exclude small 
quantities of miscellaneous fuels (e.g., waste paper, oily rags, used 
oil, etc.) from the testing requirements under 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
DDDDD?
    A1: No. EPA explains that MACT subpart DDDDD does not provide a de 
minimis threshold for small quantities of miscellaneous wastes.
    Q2: What are the operating limits and monitoring requirements under 
40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD, when the health-based compliance option 
is used, the manganese emission rate is determined by stack testing, 
and the total selected metals (TSM), not including manganese, was 
determined via fuel analysis?

[[Page 11414]]

    A2: The operating limits and monitoring requirements for manganese 
under the health-based compliance alternative (HBCA) are site-specific, 
determined by the owner or operator, and incorporated into the Title V 
operating permit. The operating limits and monitoring requirements for 
the remaining TSM using the fuel analysis option are in 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart DDDDD, Sec.  63.7521 and Table 6.
    Abstract for [M070010]:
    Q: Does 40 CFR part 63, subpart T, apply to ultrasonic airless/
airtight degreasers manufactured by the Tiyoda-Serec Company's facility 
in Ventura County, California?
    A: Yes. EPA finds that 40 CFR 63.461 defines a solvent cleaning 
machine as ``any device or piece of equipment that uses halogenated 
solvent liquid or vapor to remove soils from the surfaces of materials. 
Types of solvent cleaning machines include, but are not limited to, 
batch vapor, in-line cold, and batch cold solvent cleaning machines.'' 
Although airless/airtight ultrasonic cleaning machines are not 
specified in this definition, it is clear the definition does not 
exclude these types of machines.
    Abstract for [M070011]:
    Q: Does EPA agree with the Oklahoma Department of Environmental 
Quality alternative method for determining that the volatile hazardous 
air pollutants (VHAP) content of gas and liquid hydrocarbon process 
streams can be reasonably be expected never to exceed 10.0 percent by 
weight in accordance with NESHAP, Subpart HH, Sec.  63.772(a)(1), for 
the ONEOK Hydrocarbon, L.P. (ONEOK) facility located in Medford, 
Oklahoma?
    A: Yes. EPA explains that well documented data from online gas 
chromatograph analyzers that are maintained according to manufacturer's 
QA/QC recommendations, mass balance calculation methods, process stream 
knowledge (including MSDS information), and other ``good engineering 
judgment'' techniques can be used as methods for determining, under 
MACT subpart HH, that the VHAP content of gas liquid hydrocarbon 
streams can be reasonably expected never to exceed 10.0 percent by 
weight.
    Abstract for [M070012]:
    Q: Is solvent used to dilute textile finishing materials at two 
TSG, Incorporated (TSG) facilities, which are located in Pennsylvania 
and North Carolina, subject to the organic Hazardous Air Pollutants 
(HAP) emission limit for finishing operations, under 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart OOOO?
    A: Yes. The solvent used to dilute textile finishing materials is 
subject to the NESHAP subpart OOOO. The solvent that TSG uses to dilute 
stain repellent finishes is a transfer agent that is added to the 
finish as an auxiliary to improve the finishing process, and thus is a 
finishing material. For this reason, the added solvent, together with 
the other finishing materials used by TSG, would be subject to the 
0.0003 kg of organic HAP per kg of applied finishing materials emission 
limit established in Table 1 of NESHAP subpart OOOO.
    Abstract for [M070013]:
    Q1: Is the coating of wooden window components prior to assembly at 
the Pella facility in Pella, Iowa, subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
QQQQ?
    A1: Yes. EPA finds that adhesives are considered coatings under 
NESHAP subpart QQQQ. Adhesives serve the function of bonding window 
components to each other. Thus, applied adhesive is a functional layer, 
and its application in this context constitutes the finishing of a wood 
building product. Therefore, adhesives are subject to NESHAP subpart 
QQQQ requirements when applied to a wooden window component or to the 
window assembly.
    Q2: Is the coating of aluminum window components with high 
performance architectural coatings prior to assembly at the Pella 
facility in Pella, Iowa, subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM?
    A2: Yes. EPA finds that 40 CFR 63.3881(a) establishes that the 
surface coating of metal components (``parts'') of industrial, 
household, and consumer products is subject to NESHAP subpart MMMM. 
Windows are considered industrial, household, or consumer products 
since these are part of the NESHAP subpart MMMM wood building products 
source category. Therefore, coating aluminum window components with 
high performance architectural coatings is subject to applicable NESHAP 
subpart MMMM requirements. Adhesives applied to aluminum window 
components and used to bond them to other wood, glass, or metal 
components, or to the window assembly, are also metal coatings, and 
therefore, are subject to NESHAP subpart MMMM.
    Abstract for [M070014]:
    Q: Is the repainting and repair, at the Atlantic Marine facility in 
Jacksonville, Florida, of yachts that exceed 20 meters in length and 
are not used for military or commercial operations, subject to 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart II?
    A: No. EPA finds that repainting and repair services performed on 
yachts exceeding 20 meters in length are not subject to the 
requirements under NESHAP subpart II. EPA plans to propose revisions to 
NESHAP subpart II to address this issue.
    Abstract for [M070015]:
    Q: Are eight aerospace cleaning activities utilizing azeotropic 
blends as described by 3M, Incorporated, exempt from 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart GG? Could EPA clarify compliance options for 3M facilities 
using the azeotropes for cleaning activities that are not exempt from 
MACT, 40 CFR part 63, subpart GG? 3M manufactures segregated 
hydrofluoroether volatile organic compounds (VOCs) exempted by EPA, in 
an azeotropic blend with dichloroethylene (DCE), a non-exempt VOC.
    A: EPA made the following findings for the eight activities 
presented by 3M, which are based on the facts provided in the 
hypothetical given by 3M, and presumed to be facts for each scenario. 
Thus this response is considered only a guidance, and is not a binding 
adjudication of liability for any source, and does not constitute final 
agency action. Facilities needing a site-specific determination of 
applicability should discuss the specifics of their operation(s) with 
the appropriate delegated authority on a case-by-case basis.
    Activity 1: Cleaning of aircraft engine hydraulic fluid leaks is 
not exempt from MACT subpart GG requirements.
    Activity 2: Cleaning parts for non-destructive testing is not 
exempt from MACT Subpart GG requirements.
    Activity 3: Cleaning aircraft and helicopter wheel and brake 
assemblies is not exempt from MACT subpart GG requirements.
    Activity 4: Cleaning of hydraulic fluid leaks is not exempt from 
MACT subpart GG requirements.
    Activity 5: Cleaning during operation of electrical equipment may 
or may not be subject to MACT subpart GG requirements, as discussed 
below. Cleaning operations using nonflammable liquids on unshielded 
assembled aircraft electrical circuits on or within five feet of them, 
once electrical power is connected, are exempted from the hand-wipe 
cleaning requirements. Cleaning operations on unshielded electrical 
circuits that are performed prior to installation on an assembled 
aircraft, or that are performed after installation on the aircraft but 
without electrical power connection, are not exempted from the hand-
wipe cleaning requirements, unless they occur within five feet of an 
electrical system that is energized. Electric power tools, cooling 
fans, and portable power equipment are not energized electrical 
systems.

[[Page 11415]]

    Activity 6: Cleaning of composite systems prior to adhesive bonding 
is not exempt from MACT subpart GG requirements.
    Activity 7: Cleaning of electronic assemblies and printed circuit 
boards may or not be subject to MACT subpart GG requirements, as 
discussed below. Cleaning (including flux removal) of completed 
electronic assemblies is exempt from Subpart GG requirements prior to 
their permanent installation in the aircraft, when their cleaning is 
distinct from what other aircraft parts receive. Cleaning of printed 
circuit boards is exempt from Subpart GG requirements. Cleaning, 
including flux removal, of electronic assemblies using hand-wipe 
cleaning, either during manufacture or rework, is not subject to hand-
wipe cleaning requirements. However, for completed electronic 
assemblies that have been permanently installed in the aircraft, or 
that receive the same cleaning as other parts of the aircraft, the 
facility must satisfy the housekeeping requirements.
    Activity 8: Cleaning of aircraft instruments and instrumentation is 
exempt from MACT subpart GG requirements prior to their permanent 
installation.
    Abstract for [Z070001]:
    Q: Could EPA clarify the regulations regarding debris management 
and disposal under 40 CFR part 61, subpart M, in reference to the U.S. 
Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) and the State of Louisiana assisting the 
efforts to address the debris generated as a result of Hurricanes 
Katrina and Rita?
    A: EPA explains that if a building or other structure has been 
totally destroyed by a hurricane, NESHAP subpart M does not apply to 
subsequent activities. However, the demolition and disposal of 
``partially-damaged'' or ``standing-but-unsafe-to-enter'' structures 
are subject to Asbestos NESHAP requirements.
    Abstract for [0700001]:
    Q: May the Chalmette Refinery, located in Chalmette, Louisiana, 
comply with 40 CFR part 60, subpart RRR, in lieu of 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart NNN, for testing, monitoring, and recordkeeping related 
specifically to use of boilers and process heaters for compliance with 
the standards of both subparts?
    A: Yes. The facility's refinery fuel gas system comprises boilers 
and process heaters, some with heat input capacities equal to or 
greater than 150 MMBTU/hr and some with heat input capacities less than 
150 MMBTU/hr. Vent gases are mixed with other gaseous streams collected 
in the fuel gas system and distributed as a mixed gas stream that 
constitutes the primary fuel introduced into the flame zone of each 
boiler or process heater. None of the distillation vents are equipped 
with a bypass directly to the atmosphere. Thus, compliance with NSPS 
subpart RRR testing, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements in lieu 
of NSPS subpart NNN similar requirements is acceptable. However, the 
facility must provide a copy of the schematic required by 40 CFR 
60.705(s) and maintain the schematic in its onsite file for the life of 
the system to ensure that the affected vent streams are being routed to 
appropriate control devices under this approval.
    Abstract for [0700002]:
    Q1: The Cymetech facility in Calvert City, Kentucky, produces a by-
product which contains a mixture of chemicals, some of which are listed 
in 40 CFR 60.489. Does 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV, apply to the 
operation?
    A1: Yes. EPA finds that the operations are subject to NSPS subpart 
VV because the by-product includes listed chemicals and is sold because 
of the chemical characteristics of the listed chemicals.
    Q2: If the Cymetech facility in Calvert City, Kentucky, is subject 
to 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV, does the exemption in 40 CFR 
60.480(d)(3) apply?
    A2: Yes. EPA finds that because the affected facility produces 
heavy liquid chemicals only from heavy liquid feed or raw materials, 
the exemption in 40 CFR 60.480(d)(3) is applicable, and the facility is 
not subject to the standards in 40 CFR 60.482.
    Abstract for [0700003]:
    Q: Are wood gasification systems at Norbord South Carolina, Inc., 
in Kinards, South Carolina and the University of South Carolina in 
Columbia, South Carolina, subject to 40 CFR part 60, subparts Db or Dc? 
The wood gasification systems will consist of wood gasifiers that 
produce synthetic gas, followed by secondary combustion chambers which 
combust the synthetic gas. Exhaust from the secondary combustion 
chambers will be used in steam generating boilers (and in a hot oil 
generator for one unit).
    A: Yes. EPA finds that each secondary combustion chamber in 
combination with a steam boiler (and hot oil generator for one unit) is 
a steam generating unit affected facility. NSPS subpart Dc applies to 
steam generating units with a heat input capacity of 100 mmBtu/hr or 
less, but greater than or equal to 10 mmBtu/hr. NSPS subpart Db applies 
to steam generating units with a heat input capacity greater than 100 
mmBtu/hr.
    Abstract for [0700004]:
    Q: Are the fabric filters used to control titanium dioxide spray 
dryers at the DuPont facility in New Johnsonville, Tennessee, 
considered dry control devices and therefore, required to meet the 40 
CFR part 60, subpart UUU, opacity monitoring requirements? The 
company's argument that these are not subject is based on language from 
the Compliance Assurance Monitoring (CAM) rule at 40 CFR part 64, which 
exempts ``inherent process equipment'' from the CAM rule definition of 
``control device.''
    A: Yes. The opacity monitoring requirements in 40 CFR 60.734(b) 
apply to the titanium dioxide spray dryers controlled with fabric 
filters. The provisions of the CAM rule do not reduce or eliminate the 
monitoring requirements of existing regulations.
    Abstract for [0700005]:
    Q: Does EPA waive the 40 CFR part 60, subpart MM, performance 
testing requirement for the E-coat, guide coat, and top coat lines at 
BMW's Spartanburg, South Carolina assembly plant during any month when 
the average volatile organic compound (VOC) emission rate does not 
exceed 3.8 pounds per vehicle?
    A: Yes. Based upon historical emission rate data provided with 
BMW's request, demonstrating that the plant-wide VOC emission rate does 
not exceed 3.8 pounds per vehicle will provide adequate assurance of 
compliance for all three of the coating lines covered by the request. 
Given recordkeeping conducted in order to verify compliance with other 
applicable limits at the plant, BMW will have the information needed to 
verify NSPS subpart MM compliance during any month when the VOC 
emission rate does exceed 3.8 pounds per vehicle. Therefore, the 
request can be granted pursuant to 40 CFR 60.8(b)(4) of the General 
Provisions.
    Abstract for [0700006] and [0700007]:
    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative continuous emission monitoring 
frequency for NOX, CO, and O2, as provided by the 
quarterly cylinder gas audit (CGA) and the annual relative accuracy 
test audit (RATA) quality assurance procedures found under 40 CFR part 
60, appendix F, for the ANP Bellingham Energy Company, LLC (ANP) 
facilities located in Bellingham and Blackstone, MA? The facilities 
propose to follow the ``grace period'' provisions of 40 CFR part 75, 
appendix B, section 2.2.4 (for CGAs) and section 2.3.3 (for RATAs).
    A: Yes. EPA grants ANP Bellingham permission to conduct CGAs and 
RATAs following the ``grace period'' provisions of 40 CFR part 75, 
appendix

[[Page 11416]]

B, section 2.2.4 (for CGAs) and section 2.3.3 (for RATAs, which would 
require that a CGA be conducted at least once every four calendar 
quarters regardless of operation and conduct a RATA at least once every 
eight calendar quarters regardless of operation.
    Abstract for [0700008]:
    Q: Does EPA approve the use of sensory means (i.e., sight, sound, 
smell), as an alternative to using EPA Method 21 as required by 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart VV, for the identification of leaks from equipment in 
propionic acid service at the Eastman Chemical Company facility in 
Kingsport, Tennessee?
    A: Yes. The proposed alternative method for detection of leaks is 
acceptable. Monitoring results provided by Eastman indicate that leaks 
from equipment in propionic service are more easily identified through 
sensory methods than by using Method 21 because of the physical 
properties (high boiling points, high corrosivity, and low odor 
threshold) of propionic acid and the process conditions at the plant.
    Abstract for [0700009]:
    Q: Are the 40 CFR part 60, subpart RRR, flow monitoring procedures 
an acceptable alternative to the 40 CFR part 60, subpart NNN, 
requirements for the distillation operation at Degussa Corporation in 
Mobile, Alabama?
    A: Yes. EPA finds that the NSPS subpart RRR flow monitoring 
procedures are an acceptable alternative to the flow monitoring 
procedures required under NSPS subpart NNN in this case. The NSPS 
subpart RRR requirement to monitor diversions from the control device 
accomplishes the same result (i.e., providing a record of when vent 
streams are not controlled) as the NSPS subpart NNN requirement to 
monitor the flow to the control device.
    Abstract for [0700010]:
    Q1: Does 40 CFR part 60, subpart DD, apply only to the unmalted 
barley grain portion of the operation at the Grupu-Modelo Agriculture, 
Inc. (GMA) new malting facility located in Idaho Falls, Idaho?
    A1: Yes. EPA has concluded that NSPS subpart DD applies to the 
unmalted barley grain portion of GMA operation. However, it does not 
apply to the malting processes, the second part of the operations of 
the malting plant. NSPS subpart DD does not apply to malted barley 
because it is not considered a grain. Furthermore, NSPS subpart DD does 
not apply to operations involving malt because the rule addresses 
emissions resulting from handling processes and not from processes 
which effect a chemical or physical change in the product.
    Q2: Is GMA required to perform performance testing under EPA 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart DD, on the kiln vents used for drying green malt that 
has been transformed from barley?
    A2: EPA has determined the GMA kilns are not subject to NSPS 
subpart DD since these are used only for the malt process. Therefore, 
GMA is not required to conduct performance tests on the two kiln vents 
pursuant to NSPS subpart DD.
    Abstract for [0700011]:
    Q: Does EPA approve a delay in the installation of a Continuous 
Opacity Monitor System (COMS), under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db, on a 
boiler at the Bennett Forest Industries (BFI) facility located in 
Grangeville, Idaho, until the facility reaches steaming rates above 
half its physical and permitted capacity?
    A: No. EPA denies this request. A COMS must be installed and 
operated in accordance with the timeframes and requirements specified 
in NSPS subpart Db. The General Provisions require that the COMS be 
installed and operational no later than 180 days after initial startup 
of the BFI boiler. Furthermore, if COMS data will be used to 
demonstrate compliance with the opacity requirements as provided in 40 
CFR 60.11(e)(5), there are additional requirements that must be met 
prior to conducting the performance test, described in 40 CFR 60.13(c). 
Even if EPA were to construe the request for the delay of the 
installation of the COMS as a request for approval of alternative 
monitoring procedures, EPA does not believe BFI has provided sufficient 
justification for an alternative monitoring. EPA does not believe that 
the costs of complying with other environmental regulations alone 
provide a sufficient basis for an alternative monitoring request. BFI 
has not shown that timely installation of the COMS is technically or 
economically infeasible, or otherwise impracticable.
    Abstract for [0700012]:
    Q: Does EPA waive the initial performance test for a gas producer 
unit (turbine compressor and combustor) at Unocal Alaska's Dolly Varden 
Platform (Unocal) in Cook Inlet, Alaska?
    A: Yes. EPA waives the requirement to conduct an initial 
performance test pursuant to 40 CFR part 60, subpart A, Sec.  
60.8(b)(4), because Unocal has demonstrated compliance with the 
standard using other means.
    Abstract for [0700013]:
    Q: Does EPA approve Alyeska Pipeline Service Company's fuel gas 
demonstration for fuel gas combusted at the Trans Alaska Pipeline 
System (TAPS) pump stations 1 through 4?
    A: Yes. Based on the information submitted to EPA, Alyeska Pipeline 
Service Company has demonstrated that the fuel gas combusted at TAPS 
meets the definition of a natural gas as defined by 40 CFR 60.331(u).
    Abstract for [0700014]:
    Q1: Is an exclusively wood-fired boiler at the Bennett Forest 
Industries (BFI) facility located in Grangeville, Idaho, subject to the 
requirement to record the amount of wood combusted each day and to 
calculate the annual capacity factor for wood as detailed in 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart Db, Sec.  60.49b(d)?
    A1: No. EPA has determined that if BFI is subject to the more 
stringent emission limit for particulate matter of 0.10 lb/million Btu 
and a restriction to combust only wood, the requirement to record the 
amount of wood combusted each day is not needed for the purposes of 
calculating the annual capacity factor, as required by NSPS subpart Db, 
Sec.  60.49b(d). Assuming the restriction to burn only wood is required 
by a federally enforceable permit, EPA can be assured that the annual 
capacity factors for all other fuels aside from wood will be zero. If 
BFI is subject to the more stringent limit for particulate matter of 
0.10 lb/million Btu, there is also no need for BFI to calculate the 
annual capacity factor for wood.
    Q2: Does EPA accept the use of a steaming rate monitor, which is 
capable of calculating fuel usage, as an alternate method for 
determining the amount of wood combusted for a wood-fired boiler at a 
BFI facility? BFI has requested this alternative method because there 
are physical difficulties in measuring the actual mass of the wood that 
they combust as it comes in various forms resulting from their 
operation as a lumber mill.
    A2: Yes. EPA has determined that considering BFI's circumstances 
related to this request, if needed, this approach is acceptable for 
calculating the amount of wood combusted.
    Abstract for [0700015]:
    Q: Does EPA approve a custom fuel monitoring schedule under 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart GG, for Union Oil Company of California at its 
Steelhead Platform, Cook Inlet Alaska?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the custom fuel monitoring schedule according 
to an August 14, 1987, national policy which allows EPA regional 
offices to approve NSPS subpart GG custom fuel monitoring schedules on 
a case-by-case basis. In this case, what is being approved is the 
inclusion of a new turbine into the existing custom fuel monitoring 
schedule.
    Abstract for [0700016]:

[[Page 11417]]

    Q: Is the changing of a nozzle tip to accommodate residual fuel in 
Boiler 3 at the Idahoan Foods (Idahoan) facility located in 
Lewisville, Idaho, considered a modification according to 40 CFR 60.14 
of the General Provisions?
    A: No. Idahoan intended to purchase a boiler that was designed to 
accommodate multiple liquid fuel types at its construction. EPA 
determines that the need to change-out the nozzle tips to accommodate 
different fuels is an inherent design of the boiler, and therefore 
Boiler 3 was originally designed to accommodate residual and 
diesel fuel in addition to natural gas. Under 40 CFR 60.14(e)(4), the 
use of an alternative fuel, if prior to the applicability date the 
existing facility was designed to accommodate that alternative fuel, 
shall not by itself be considered a modification.
    Abstract for [0700017]:
    Q1: Does EPA agree that three of Unocal Alaska incinerators located 
at Granite Point Platform, Swanson River Field, and Trading Bay 
Production Facility that are subject to 40 CFR Part 62, subpart III, 
for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerators (CISWI), meet 
the criteria for the exemption for municipal waste combustion units 
under 40 CFR 62.14525(c)(2)?
    A1: Yes. EPA agrees that the three Unocal's incinerators meet the 
exemption in 40 CFR 62.14525(c)(2) and therefore, accepts this 
notification of exemption under 40 CFR 62.14525(c)(2).
    Q2: Is Unocal currently required to submit a Title V permit 
application for an incinerator, located at the East Foreland Dock 
Facility (EFDF), that was subject to 40 CFR part 62, subpart III, but 
that was permanently shut down as of June 15, 2004?
    A2: No. Unocal is no longer required to submit a Title V permit 
application for the EFDF incinerator because it has been permanently 
shut down and is no longer operating.
    Abstract for [0700018]:
    Q: Does EPA approve a reduction in the fuel usage recordkeeping 
requirement in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, Sec.  60.48(c), from daily 
to monthly, for a natural gas-fired boiler at a BARI facility in Idaho 
Falls, Idaho?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the request from BARI for a reduction in the 
fuel usage recordkeeping requirement in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, 
Sec.  60.48(c), from daily to monthly, and to use a gas meter to record 
monthly fuel usage, with the monthly fuel bill as a back-up record in 
the event of a meter malfunction.
    Abstract for [0700019]:
    Q: Does EPA waive applicability of 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db, and 
40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, for Boilers No. 3 and No. 4 at the Idaho 
Supreme Potato (ISP) facility in Firth, Idaho, given that an assumed 
modification of replacing nozzles reported on February 13, 2001, did 
not actually happen?
    A: Yes. EPA has determined that Boilers No. 3 and No. 4 were not 
modified pursuant to 40 CFR 60.14, and therefore, are currently not 
subject to NSPS subparts Db or Dc. This determination is based on the 
assumption that although Boiler No. 4 still has the physical ability to 
burn coal in Boiler No. 4 it will not do so. In a previous EPA 
applicability determination on ISP's Boiler No. 4 dated March 13, 1995, 
EPA assumed that this boiler would not burn coal in the future. 
Therefore, if coal were to be burned in Boiler No. 4 in the future, the 
1995 EPA determination would no longer be valid. In such an event, NSPS 
and PSD review would be triggered.
    Abstract for [0700020]:
    Q: Does EPA approve a custom fuel monitoring schedule under 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart GG, for ConocoPhillips Alaska's Alpine Development 
Project in North Slope, Alaska?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the custom fuel monitoring schedule according 
to an August 14, 1987, national policy which allows EPA regional 
offices to approve NSPS subpart GG custom fuel monitoring schedules on 
a case-by-case basis. In this case, what is being approved is a custom 
fuel monitoring schedule for fuel oil monitoring and demonstration that 
the facility's gaseous fuel meets the definition of a natural gas.
    Abstract for [0700021]:
    Q: Does EPA grant an extension of the initial performance test date 
for stationary gas turbines, subject to 40 CFR part 60, Subpart GG, 
which are located at the ConocoPhillips Alpine (CPA) Development 
Project, in North Slope, Alaska?
    A: No. EPA denies CPA's request for an extension.
    Abstract for [0700022]:
    Q: Does EPA approve alternative test methods for the performance 
evaluation to demonstrate compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart I, 
Sec.  60.90, at the Alaska Roadbuilders' (ARB) RB350 ADM Asphalt Plant 
in Alaska?
    A: Yes. EPA concludes that the proposed testing meets the 
requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart I, and the EPA test methods 
specified therein. Assigning a value of 30.0 to the dry gas molecular 
weight, in lieu of actual measurements of O2 and CO is an 
acceptable alternative for processes burning natural gas, coal or oil 
according to EPA Method 3, Section 1.3, subject to the approval of the 
Administrator.
    Q2: Does EPA waive the 30-day notice prior to conducting a 
performance evaluation that is required according to 40 CFR Sec.  
60.7(a)(5) and 60.8(d) at the ARB RB350 ADM Asphalt Plant?
    A2: Yes. EPA grants the request for a waiver of this requirement 
pursuant to 40 CFR 60.19(f)(3).
    Abstract for [0700023]:
    Q: Does EPA approve a reduction in the fuel usage record-keeping 
requirement in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, Sec.  60.48c, from daily to 
monthly, as well as the use of one gas meter to record monthly natural 
gas usage for four boilers at the Saint Lucas Regional Medical Center 
(SLRMC)?
    A: Yes. EPA approves a reduction in the fuel usage record-keeping 
requirement in NSPS Subpart Dc from daily to monthly and the use of one 
gas meter to record monthly natural gas usage for SLRMC's four boilers. 
The approval for the reduction in the recordkeeping to monthly instead 
of daily is based on a memorandum dated February 20, 1992, from the EPA 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards which states that there is 
little value in requiring daily recordkeeping of the amounts of fuel 
combusted for an affected unit that fires only natural gas with clean 
low-sulfur fuel oil (sulfur content less than 0.5 percent) as a backup.
    Abstract for [0700024]:
    Q: Is the incineration unit at a pet crematory in Palmer, Alaska, 
exempted from the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ec, for 
Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incineration (HMIWI), because only 
pathological wastes will be combusted? Is a permit required for this 
operation?
    A: EPA has determined that provided the requirements are met for 
the pathological wastes, according to 40 CFR 60.50c(b), the 
incineration unit is not subject to the HMIWI regulation. A Federal 
Title V Air Operating Permit (Title V permit) is not required for the 
purposes of the HMIWI regulation if the exemption is maintained.
    Abstract for [0700025]:
    Q1: Does EPA approve monthly instead of daily monitoring of natural 
gas usage for a vaporizer subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, at the 
BOC Edwards (BOC) facility in Hillsboro, Oregon?
    A1: Yes. EPA conditionally approves monthly instead of daily 
monitoring of natural gas usage for the BOC affected vaporizer pursuant 
to NSPS subpart Dc.
    Q2: Does EPA approve the use of fuel receipts from a gas supplier 
to serve as

[[Page 11418]]

monthly monitoring method, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc?
    A2: Yes. EPA approves the use of fuel receipts from a gas supplier 
to serve as monthly monitoring method under NSPS subpart Dc.
    Q3: Could EPA determine whether the amount of natural gas used by 
the affected facility (vaporizer) can be determined by the following 
calculation method rather than direct measurement: (monthly vaporizer 
gas usage) = (monthly site natural gas usage from fuel bill)-(average 
monthly site natural gas usage before installation of the vaporizer).
    A3: Yes. EPA finds that the amount of natural gas used by the 
affected facility (vaporizer) can be determined by the calculation 
method proposed rather than by direct measurement, as long as the 
average monthly site natural gas usage before installation of the 
vaporizer was nearly constant and will remain the same with no new 
natural gas usage.
    Abstract for [0700026]:
    Q1: Does EPA approve a request for a reduction in the fuel usage 
recordkeeping requirement in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, Sec.  60.48c, 
from daily to monthly for two 25.13 MMBTU/hr boilers fueled by propane 
and located at Glanbia Foods Inc. (Glanbia) facility in Richfield, 
Idaho?
    A1: Yes. EPA approves the request for a reduction in the fuel usage 
recordkeeping requirement in 40 CFR 60.48c from daily to monthly. This 
approval is based on a memorandum dated February 20, 1992, from the EPA 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, which states that there 
is little value in requiring daily recordkeeping of the amounts of fuel 
combusted for an affected unit that fires only natural gas, and the 
definition of natural gas, from the Acid Rain Program, in 40 CFR part 
72.
    Q2. Does EPA approve one gas meter for two boilers that will 
measure the total natural gas usage per month?
    A2. Yes. When more than one boiler is firing propane 
simultaneously, they will divide each boiler design heat input capacity 
by the total of the design heat input capacities of each boiler, and 
use this to prorate the natural gas usage of each boiler on a monthly 
basis. EPA determines that this will adequately determine the fuel 
usage by each boiler.
    Abstract for [0700027]:
    Q1: Does EPA approve a reduction in the fuel usage recordkeeping 
requirement in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, Sec.  60.48c, from daily to 
monthly for boilers fueled by natural gas, diesel fuel and/or biomass 
located at the Glanbia Foods Incorporated facility in Gooding, Idaho?
    A1: EPA finds that boiler No. 1 is not subject to NSPS subpart Dc 
requirements since it was installed before the applicability date of 
the rule. EPA approves the request from Glanbia for a reduction in the 
fuel usage record-keeping requirement in 40 CFR 60.48c of Subpart Dc 
from daily to monthly for Boilers 2, 3, and 4, which burn natural gas 
exclusively or natural gas with diesel fuel as a backup. The approval 
for boilers No. 2 through 4 is based on a memorandum dated February 20, 
1992, from the EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards which 
states that there is little value in requiring daily recordkeeping of 
the amounts of fuel combusted for an affected unit that fires only 
natural gas or natural gas with clean low-sulfur fuel oil (sulfur 
content less than 0.5 percent) as a backup.
    Q2: Does EPA approve one gas meter for several boilers fueled by 
natural gas that will measure the total natural gas usage per month?
    A2: Yes. EPA determines that this will adequately determine the 
fuel usage by each boiler. When more than one boiler is firing natural 
gas simultaneously, they will divide each boiler design heat input 
capacity by the total of the design heat input capacities of each 
boiler, and use this to prorate the natural gas usage of each boiler on 
a monthly basis. For boilers 2 and 3, which are capable of firing low 
sulfur diesel fuel, each boiler will maintain individual fuel oil 
meters.
    Q3: Does EPA approve a reduction in the fuel usage record-keeping 
requirement in 40 CFR 60.48c from daily to monthly for boiler No. 5, 
which is fueled by biogas, from the wastewater treatment effluent 
process as the primary fuel and can burn natural gas as a backup?
    A3: No. EPA cannot approve this request at this time because the 
decision to reduce this requirement for certain boilers is based on the 
assumption that that fuel has low sulfur content. The sulfur content of 
natural gas is well known; however, the use of biogas in the context of 
this regulation has not been addressed before and it is uncertain what 
the sulfur content of biogas would be in this particular case.
    Abstract for [0700028]:
    Q: Is 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc, applicable to Trident's Boiler 
No. 6, which was installed at the facility in 1994 but which the 
manufacturer's nameplate shows as constructed in 1976?
    A: No. NSPS subpart Dc applies to ``Each steam generating unit for 
which construction, modification, or reconstruction is commenced after 
June 9, 1989.'' The boiler was operated prior to June 9, 1989, 
elsewhere in Alaska before its relocation and it has not been rebuilt, 
reconstructed, or modified since its original installation. Under the 
NSPS general provisions, 40 CFR 60.14(e)(6), the relocation or change 
in ownership of an existing facility shall not, by itself, be 
considered a modification.
    Abstract for [0700063]:
    Q: Do 40 CFR part 60, subpart NNN (Distillation Operations in the 
Synthetic Organic Chemical Industry (SOCMI)) and 40 CFR Part 60, 
Subpart RRR (Reactor Operations in the SOCMI), apply to the 
manufacturing of biodiesel and glycerin from soybean oil and methanol 
at the North Prairie Productions (NPP) facility located in Evansville, 
Wisconsin?
    A: Yes. NSPS subparts NNN and RRR apply to the production of 
glycerin from soybean oil and methanol at the NPP biodiesel 
manufacturing facility, although certain exemptions may apply to the 
facility based on its production capacity and vent stream 
characteristics. The Agency finds that the production of glycerin in 
the process described by NPP is SOCMI, as both glycerin and methanol 
are SOCMI chemicals and appear on the chemical use trees. Additionally, 
the NPP process will use distillation and reaction operations, the 
units defined as affected facilities under Subparts NNN and RRR, 
respectively, which will result in emissions of volatile organic 
compounds (VOCs), which are the pollutants of concern under those NSPS.

    Dated: November 16, 2007.
Lisa C. Lund,
Acting Director, Office of Compliance.

    Editorial Note: This document was received at the Office of the 
Federal Register on February 27, 2008.

 [FR Doc. E8-4030 Filed 2-29-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P