National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Final Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions From Magnetic Tape Manufacturing Operations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 9, 60 and 63

[AD-FRL-5115-6]

RIN 2060-AD99

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Final

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions From Magnetic Tape

Manufacturing Operations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action promulgates final standards that limit the

emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from existing and new

magnetic tape manufacturing operations that are located at major

sources. These final standards implement section 112(d) and 112(h) of

the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (the Act). The purpose of this

final rule is to protect the public by requiring all new and existing

major sources to control emissions to the level corresponding to the

maximum achievable control technology (MACT).

The EPA is also finalizing performance specifications for

continuous emission monitors (CEM's) for volatile organic compounds

(VOC) and gas chromatographic CEM's.

DATES: Effective Date. December 15, 1994.

Judicial Review. Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, judicial

review of national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants

(NESHAP) is available only by filing a petition for review in the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days of

today's publication of this final rule. Under section 307(b)(2) of the

Act, the requirements that are the subject of today's notice may not be

challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to

enforce these requirements.

ADDRESSES:

Docket

Docket No. A-91-31, containing information considered by the EPA in

developing the promulgated NESHAP for magnetic tape manufacturing

operations is available for public inspection and copying between 8

a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except for Federal holidays,

at the EPA's Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Room

M1500, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20460; telephone (202) 260-7548. A reasonable fee may be

charged for copying.

Background Information Document

A background information document (BID) for the promulgated NESHAP

may be obtained from the docket; the U. S. EPA Library (MD-35),

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919)

541-2777; or from National Technical Information Services, 5285 Port

Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161, telephone (703) 487-4650.

Please refer to ``Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions from Magnetic Tape

Manufacturing Operations--Background Information for Promulgated

Standards'' (EPA-453/R-94-074b). The BID contains a summary of the

public comments made on the proposed magnetic tape manufacturing

standard and EPA responses to the comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Gail Lacy of the Coatings and

Consumer Products Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U. S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

27711, telephone (919) 541-5261. For more information on Performance

Specifications 8 and 9 contact Mr. Bill Grimley of the Source

Characterization B Group, telephone (919) 541-1065, and Ms. Rima

Dishakjian of the Source Characterization A Group, telephone (919) 541-

0443, respectively, in the Emissions, Monitoring and Analysis Division

(MD-14), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,

North Carolina 27711.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information presented in this preamble

is organized as follows:

I. Background

II. Summary

A. Summary of Promulgated Standards

B. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal

III. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts

A. Environmental and Energy Impacts

B. Cost Impacts

C. Economic Impacts

IV. Public Participation

V. Significant Comments and Responses

A. Applicability of Standard

B. Selection of Compliance Dates

C. Selection of Emission Limits and Equipment/Work Practice

Specifications

D. Regulation of Wastewater

E. Selection of Test Methods and Monitoring Requirements

F. Alternative Compliance Plans and Selection of the Affected

Source

G. Performance Specifications

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

B. Executive Order 12286

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

E. Miscellaneous

I. Background

Section 112(b) of the Act lists 189 HAP and requires the EPA to

establish national emission standards for all major sources and some

area sources emitting those HAP. On July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576), EPA

published a list of major and area sources for which NESHAP are to be

promulgated, and on December 3, 1993 (58 FR 83941), EPA published a

schedule for promulgating those standards. The magnetic tape

manufacturing source category is included in the list of major sources

to be regulated for which the EPA is to establish national emission

standards by November 1994.

This NESHAP was proposed in the Federal Register on March 11, 1994

(59 FR 11662). A public hearing on the proposed rule was held on April

13, 1994. In addition, 17 letters commenting on the proposed rule were

received.

II. Summary

A. Summary of Promulgated Standards

The final rule applies to major sources performing magnetic tape

manufacturing operations, which is the affected source subject to these

standards. The standards do not apply to research and laboratory

facilities or to owners or operators whose magnetic tape production on

a coating line is 1 percent or less of total production from that

coating line (in terms of square footage coated) in any 12-month

period.

Table 1 summarizes the standards for magnetic tape manufacturing

operations. In general, an overall HAP control efficiency of at least

95 percent is required for emissions from each storage tank, piece of

mix preparation equipment, coating operation, waste handling device,

and condenser vent in solvent recovery. If an owner or operator uses an

incinerator to control these emission points, an outlet HAP

concentration of no greater than 20 parts per million by volume (ppmv)

by compound may be met instead of achieving 95 percent control, as long

as the efficiency of the capture system is 100 percent. If a coating

with a HAP content no greater than 0.18 kilograms per liter (kg/L) of

coating solids is used for a coating operation, that coating operation

does not require further control. Owners or operators may choose to

control HAP emissions from all coating operations at a source by an

overall HAP control efficiency of at least 97, 98, or 99 percent in

lieu of controlling 10, 15, or 20 HAP solvent storage tanks,

respectively, that do not exceed 20,000 gallons each in capacity.

Table 1.--Summary of the Standard

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

Emission point Standards

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

Each solvent storage tank Sec. 63.703(c)(1): Overall (i.e., capture x

control devide efficiency) HAP control

efficiency of 95 percent; or

Sec. 63.703(c)(2): For incinerators an

alternate outlet HAP concentration of 20 ppmv; or

Sec. 63.704(c)(4): Do not control but control

coating operations at higher efficiencies

specified in rule; or

Sec. 63.703(i): Establish an alternate

maximum HAP outlet concentration monitored

with CEM to demonstrate compliance during

periods when coaters are not operating.

Each piece of mix Sec. 63.703(c)(1): Overall HAP control

preparation equipment. efficiency of 95 percent; or

Sec. 63.703(c)(2): For incinerators an

alternate outlet HAP concentration of 20ppmv; or

Sec. 63.703(i): Establish an alternate

maximum HAP outlet concentration monitored

with CEM to demonstrate compliance during

periods when coaters are not operating.

Each coating operation... Sec. 63.703(c)(1): Overall HAP control

efficiency of 95 percent; or

Sec. 63.703(c)(2): For incinerators an

alternate outlet HAP concentration of 20 ppmv; or

Sec. 63.703(c)(4): Control all coating

operations at specified higher efficiencies

instead of storage tanks; or

Sec. 63.703(c)(5): Use coating with HAP

content no greater than 0.18 kg/L coating

solids.

Each waste handling Sec. 63.703(c)(1): Overall HAP control

device. efficiency of 95 percent; or

Sec. 63.703(c)(2): For incinerators an

alternate outlet HAP concentration of 20 ppmv; or

Sec. 63.703(i): Establish an alternate

maximum HAP outlet concentration to

demonstrate compliance during periods when

coaters are not operating.

Each condenser vent Sec. 63.703(c)(1): Overall HAP control

insolvent recoverya. efficiency of 95 percent; or

Sec. 63.703(c)(2): For incinerators an

alternate outlet HAP concentration of 20 ppmv; or

Sec. 63.703(i): Establish an alternate

maximum HAP outlet concentration to

demonstrate compliance during periods when

coaters are not operating.

Each particulate transfer Sec. 63.703(d)(1): Use enclosed transfer; or

operation.

Sec. 63.703(d)(2): Vent to baghouse/fabric

filter that exhibits no visible emissions

while controlling particulate HAP transfer.

Each wash sink for Sec. 63.703(e)(1)(i): Overall HAP control

cleaning removable parts. efficiency of percent; or

Sec. 63.703(e)(1)(ii): Minimum freeboard

ratio of 75 percent; or

Sec. 63.703(i): Establish an alternate

maximum HAP outlet concentration to

demonstrate compliance during periods when

coaters are not operating.

Each piece of equipment Sec. 63.703(f)(1)(i): Overall HAP control

for flushing fixed lines. efficiency of 95 percent; or

Sec. 63.703(f)(i)(ii): Use closed system; or

Sec. 63.703(i): Establish an alternate

maximum HAP outlet concentration to

demonstrate compliance during periods when

coaters are not operating.

Each wastewater treatment Sec. 63.703(g): Treat to remove HAP by the

operation. fraction removed specified in Table 9 of 40

CFR part 63, subpart G or so that total

VOHAP concentration at exit is aExcept the vent on the condenser serving as an add-on air pollution

control device.

Owners or operators of existing affected sources are required to

comply with these standards within 2 years after the effective date,

unless a new control device is needed to comply with the requirements

of Sec. 63.703 (c) or (g). If a new control device is needed, an owner

or operator of an existing affected source must comply within 3 years

of the effective date. All new and reconstructed sources must comply

immediately upon startup.

Owners or operators of affected sources must demonstrate initial

compliance following the test methods and procedures of Sec. 63.705

unless the criteria of Sec. 63.705(a) (1), (2) or (3) are met.

Continuous compliance is demonstrated by conducting monitoring in

accordance with Sec. 63.704(c). Continuous compliance monitoring

requirements are summarized in Table 2. Compliant monitoring parameter

values are established in accordance with Sec. 63.704(b), which also

contains procedures to determine the compliant outlet HAP concentration

during periods when coating operations are not occurring.

Table 2.--Summary of Continuous Monitoring Requirements

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

Control/capture technique Monitoring requirements

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

Any add-on air pollution Sec. 63.704(c)(3): Continuously inlet and

control device (APCD). outlet HAP or VOC concentration or

continuously monitor outlet HAP or VOC

concentration; or

See below: If using condenser or incinerator

as APCD, can perform alternate monitoring.

Sec. 63.704(c)(10): Monitor bypass lines that

could divert flow from APCD, or install car-

seal or lock-and-key.

Solvent recovery device Sec. 63.704(c)(9): Perform material balance

controlling only coating over each 7-day period.

operations.

Condenser................ Sec. 63.704(c)(4): Continuously monitor

temperature of condenser vapor exhaust

stream.

Thermal incinerator...... Sec. 63.704(c)(5) Continuously monitor

combustion temperature.

Catalytic incinerator.... Sec. 63.704(c)(6): Continuously monitor gas

temperature upstream and temperature across

the catalyst bed.

Capture system........... Sec. 63.704(c)(7): Continuously monitor site-

specific operating parameter established

according to Sec. 63.704(b)(6)

Steam stripper........... Sec. 63.704(d)(1): Continuously monitor steam-

to-feed radio.

Steam stripper/other Sec. 63.704(d)(2): Monthly monitoring of

control technique. VOHAP concentration.

Baghouse/fabric filter... Sec. 63.704(e): Continuously monitor

ventilation airflow rate and daily visible

emission testing.

Low-HAP coating.......... Sec. 63.704(c)(8): Determine HAP content of

coating used.

Other control techniques. Sec. 63.704(f): Submit monitoring plan to

Administrator for approval.

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

Owners or operators of affected sources shall maintain records and

submit reports in accordance with Secs. 63.706 and 63.707. Records are

consistent with those required by subpart A, and also include records

associated with freeboard ratio measurement, bypass valve monitoring,

material balance calculations, and demonstrating compliance with the

low-HAP coating limit. Reports include an initial notification, a

notification of compliance status, compliance summary reports, a report

to establish an alternate HAP outlet concentration limit for periods

when the coating operations are not occurring, performance test

results, and alternate compliance and monitoring reports.

The final rule also includes provisions, in Sec. 63.703 (b) and (h)

that an owner or operator of a magnetic tape manufacturing operation

may choose to be subject to in order to obtain a Federally enforceable

limit on their potential to emit HAP. These provisions do not preclude

an owner or operator from using avenues other than this subpart to

limit their potential to emit HAP. Moreover, this subpart does not

apply to any plant that is already an area source without these

provisions. The provisions would require limits on the usage of HAP in

the magnetic tape manufacturing operation over 12-month periods as

surrogates for potential emissions. Recordkeeping and reporting would

be required to demonstrate compliance with the usage limits.

B. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal

In response to public comments received and additional analysis

performed by EPA, the following major changes have been made to the

final rule since proposal:

1. The rule does not apply to research and laboratory facilities or

to owners or operators whose magnetic tape production on a coating line

is 1 percent or less of total production from that line in terms of

square footage coated in any 12-month period.

2. Leader tape production is not included as part of magnetic tape

manufacturing operations.

3. The rule does not apply when nonmagnetic tape products are

manufactured in affected sources.

4. The applicability and intent of the HAP usage limits have been

clarified in Sec. 63.703 (b) and (h).

5. The final rule (Sec. 63.703(c)(4)) allows owners or operators of

affected sources the option of controlling coating operations more

stringently in lieu of controlling HAP emissions from solvent storage

tanks.

6. The final rule includes an alternative standard to control HAP

from particulate transfer; it requires venting particulate HAP to a

baghouse or fabric filter that has no visible emissions.

7. The test methods and procedures for determining compliance with

wastewater provisions have been clarified. The percent removal required

for HAP has been changed from 99 percent to values found in 40 CFR part

63 subpart G, the Hazardous Organic NESHAP for the synthetic organic

chemical manufacturing industry (hereafter called the HON). Any control

technique may be used to meet the treatment requirements. Also, monthly

monitoring of the wastewater concentration is allowed to demonstrate

continuous compliance.

8. The compliance time for existing affected sources has been

changed to 2 years after the effective date, unless a new control

device is needed to comply with Sec. 63.703 (c) or (g). If a new

control device is needed, an owner or operator of an existing affected

source must comply within 3 years of the effective date.

9. The final rule (Secs. 63.703(i) and 63.704(b)(11)) contains

procedures for establishing an alternate HAP concentration limit to

demonstrate compliance with the standards when coating operations are

not occurring.

10. The material balance averaging time was changed in the final

rule. The averaging time is now 7 days to determine compliance with the

standard.

11. The definition of affected source was changed from each coating

line, piece of mix equipment, storage tank, etc., to the entire

magnetic tape manufacturing operation.

12. A low-HAP content coating standard has been added to the final

rule. A facility that uses a coating with a HAP content of no greater

than 0.18 kg/L of coating solids for a coating operation is not

required to further control that coating operation.

The rationale for the above changes is discussed in detail in

section V of this preamble, which summarizes the major comments

received on the proposed rule and EPA's responses to these comments.

III. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts

A. Environmental and Energy Impacts

The environmental and energy impacts for this rule were not

affected by changes made to the rule between proposal and promulgation.

B. Cost Impacts

Several commenters provided comments on the estimate of nationwide

compliance costs for the standard. The commenters stated that actual

compliance costs could be as much as 15 times the costs estimated by

the Agency. The EPA's evaluation of industry compliance costs was based

on a careful analysis of information provided by industry during

development of the proposed regulation. The costs are estimates and may

be higher for some facilities and lower for others. Additionally, costs

are based on the least expensive method for controlling emissions;

sources that choose to utilize more expensive methods for control will

find that their compliance costs are higher than those estimated for

the standard.

The Agency did revise facility specific cost impacts between

proposal and promulgation based on information received from one

facility. The revised industrywide annual costs to comply with the

standards are $822,000/yr. This cost includes the annual cost of

control ($596,120/yr), annual compliance costs including initial

performance tests and ongoing monitoring ($115,638/yr), and annual

reporting and recordkeeping costs ($110,240/yr). The total industrywide

capital investment is estimated to be $5,206,920. The associated cost

effectiveness is $390 per megagram (Mg) of HAP controlled ($354/ton

HAP).

The costs for new sources are unchanged from proposal. New source

costs vary depending on whether a carbon adsorber or an incinerator is

used as the control device but either system requires a total capital

investment of approximately $500,000. Total annual costs for new

sources are $349,360/yr if carbon adsorption is used and $270,367/yr if

incineration is used, with associated cost effectivenesses of $2,470/Mg

($2,250/ton) and $1,910/Mg ($1,740/ton), respectively. New source costs

were calculated assuming six new coating lines constructed within the

first 5 years of the standard.

C. Economic Impacts

The economic impacts of this rule were recalculated to reflect a

revision in the estimated industrywide annual costs associated with

this rule. Despite the cost revisions, the conclusion of the economic

impact analysis remains the same. The economic impacts of this rule are

not considered to be significant. Under this rule, the average price of

magnetic tape products would only need to increase by 0.03 percent in

order for the magnetic tape industry to fully recover the new

annualized costs.

IV. Public Participation

Prior to proposal of the magnetic tape manufacturing rule, a

meeting of the National Air Pollution Control Techniques Advisory

Committee (NAPCTAC) was held to discuss the development of the draft

rule for magnetic tape manufacturing operations. That meeting was held

on November 17-18, 1992. The meeting was open to the public, and each

attendee was given an opportunity to comment on the draft rule.

The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on March

11, 1994 (59 FR 11662). The preamble to the proposal discussed the

availability of the proposal BID (Hazardous Air Pollutants from

Magnetic Tape Manufacturing-- Background Information for Proposed

Standards (EPA-453/R-93-059)), which describes in detail the regulatory

alternatives considered and the impacts associated with those

alternatives. Public comments were solicited at the time of proposal,

and copies of the proposal BID were made available to interested

parties.

The public comment period ended on April 25, 1994. A public hearing

was held on April 13, 1994 and the docket remained open until May 13,

1994 for submission of rebuttal and supplementary information.

Altogether, 17 comment letters were received. The comments were

carefully considered, and, where determined by the Administrator to be

appropriate, changes were made in the final rule.

V. Significant Comments and Responses

Comments on the proposed rule were received from magnetic tape

manufacturers, State and local air pollution control agencies, and

environmental organizations. A detailed discussion of these comments

and responses can be found in the promulgation BID (see ADDRESSES

section). The summary of comments and responses in the promulgation BID

serves as the basis for the revisions that have been made to the rule

between proposal and promulgation. The major comments and responses are

summarized in this preamble.

A. Applicability of Standards

1. HAP Usage Cutoff

Although all comments on the HAP usage exemption in Sec. 63.701(a)

of the proposed rule generally supported it, the commenters questioned

the applicability and intent of the exemption. The commenters stated

that an exemption in terms of utilization ignores actual emissions that

may emanate from a magnetic tape operation. One of these commenters

pointed out that the exemption is not available to facilities that have

installed control devices (and now have the potential to emit less than

10 tons/yr of HAP) yet can be used by uncontrolled facilities that emit

less than 10 tons/yr of HAP; therefore, the exemption penalizes those

that have installed controls. Commenters maintained that if potential

to emit is used as the basis for the exemption, magnetic tape coating

operations can choose to become exempt from the regulation by

installing control devices or accepting Federally enforceable permit

conditions to limit their emissions to below the stated threshold.

Three commenters stated that with the HAP usage exemption, it was

not clear whether the proposed standard applied to area source magnetic

tape manufacturing operations that are located at major sources.

Two commenters suggested allowing sources subject to the control

requirements to use the HAP usage exemption at a later date if, for

example, sources do not exceed the low HAP usage threshold for several

consecutive years. The reason given was to encourage pollution

prevention.

The EPA agrees with the commenters that the proposed HAP usage

cutoff requires clarification in the final rule. The first

clarification is that only magnetic tape manufacturing operations at

major sources of HAP emissions are required to comply with subpart EE.

However, the owner or operator of any stationary source with magnetic

tape manufacturing may choose to be subject to the HAP usage limits in

subpart EE to obtain a Federally enforceable limit on the potential to

emit HAP from magnetic tape manufacturing operations. Essentially, the

HAP usage limits are a surrogate for the potential to emit HAP. A

reason the owner or operator may want to use this mechanism in subpart

EE is if the stationary source would be a major source, unless it had

the potential to emit limit established by this subpart. The owner or

operator could use the potential to emit established for magnetic tape

manufacturing operations (determined by the HAP usage limit), in

conjunction with the potential to emit from the other HAP emission

points at the stationary source, to be an area source. Note that the

determination of whether a stationary source is major or area is

dependent on the potential emissions from all points within the

stationary source, or group of stationary sources located within a

contiguous area and under common control.

Subpart EE does not preclude the determination of potential to

emit, considering controls, by other mechanisms. For example, without

controls, the potential to emit HAP could be low because the solvents

used in coating are not HAP. An operation that has emission controls

may have its potential to emit established by a Federally enforceable

State operating permit. The definition of ``Federally enforceable'' in

the General Provisions, subpart A of part 63, includes other examples

of limits that are federally enforceable. The EPA did not include

specific provisions in subpart EE to create enforceable limits for

controls because, for this source category, very detailed and complex

provisions would be required. The HAP usage limits, by comparison, are

straightforward to determine, record, and can be easily confirmed by

regulatory authorities. Because of the availability of the other

mechanisms and the few plants in this source category, the EPA decided

to include in this subpart only the HAP usage limits.

If a stationary source becomes an area source by subjecting its

magnetic tape manufacturing operations to the HAP usage limits in

subpart EE, then the control requirements of subpart EE would not

apply. Furthermore, for purposes of section 112 of the Act, it would

not be a regulated area source that would be required to have an

operating permit under 40 CFR part 70. In other words, being subject to

the HAP usage limits in the rule does not in and of itself make the

facility subject to part 70. However, there may be other reasons that

the stationary source is required to comply with part 70. For example,

it may be a major source of emissions of volatile organic compounds.

The HAP usage limits at magnetic tape manufacturing operations have

been changed from their proposed values of 10 tons/yr of an individual

HAP and 25 tons/yr of combined HAP to take into account the potential

emissions from other emission points at the stationary source. In the

final rule, the HAP usage limits for the magnetic tape manufacturing

operation are to be the values that, when summed with the values of the

potential to emit each HAP from emission points other than magnetic

tape manufacturing operations at the stationary source, are less than

10 tons/yr of an individual HAP and 25 tons/yr of combined HAP.

To illustrate how the HAP usage limits would be determined, three

example situations have been developed. The first example is a

stationary source at which the only HAP emission points are in the

magnetic tape manufacturing operations. Since no other points go into

the calculation in this case, the limits would be less than 10 tons/yr

of an individual HAP and less than 25 tons/yr of a combination of HAP.

The second example is a stationary source at which the only HAP

emission points are the magnetic tape operation and a boiler. Assume

that the boiler, without controls, has the potential to emit 1 ton/yr

of HAP, and that the HAP from the boiler are different from those

emitted from magnetic tape manufacturing. The limits on HAP usage in

the magnetic tape manufacturing operation would be to not exceed 10

tons/yr for each individual HAP and 24 tons/yr for the combination of

HAP (i.e., the 25 tons/yr major source threshold minus the 1 ton/yr

potential to emit of the boiler).

The third example is a stationary source in which the HAP emission

points, except those associated with magnetic tape, have controls with

Federally enforceable emission limits, such as a new source performance

standard (NSPS) under section 111 of the Act. Assume that these

Federally enforceable limits have the effect of limiting the potential

HAP emissions from these emission points to 4 tons/yr of a solvent that

is also used in magnetic tape manufacturing (e.g., toluene). The limit

on the magnetic tape manufacturing HAP usage for toluene would be to

not exceed 6 tons/yr, for other individual HAP to not exceed 10 tons/

yr, and for the combination of HAP to not exceed 21 tons/yr.

Two commenters remarked that a 12-month period is too long for

determining if the threshold had been exceeded; the commenters

suggested a 12-month rolling total. The EPA agrees; the final rule

requires that the HAP usage be calculated monthly.

In the final rule, the EPA has removed the proposed requirement

that after a source has been subject to the control requirements of the

maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standard, the owner or

operator can not take advantage of the HAP usage limit anymore. The

points made by the commenters who suggested this change are being

considered as part of a general policy on the timing aspects of

limitations on potential to emit, which is beyond the scope of this

rulemaking. Therefore, this rulemaking does not include any specific

requirements of this nature.

One commenter suggested that the HAP usage cutoff be defined in

terms of net usage to encourage onsite solvent recovery and reuse. The

EPA agrees that net usage encourages pollution prevention by

subtracting out the amount that is recycled at the facility. Therefore,

the definition of ``utilize'' has been changed to incorporate this

concept into the final rule by allowing the owner or operator to

determine utilization as the HAP inventory for the magnetic tape

manufacturing operation at the beginning of a 12-month period plus the

amount purchased during the 12-month period minus the amount in

inventory at the end of the 12-month period. However, the proposed

definition is also included as a choice, because owners or operators of

a plant that uses HAP for other purposes may not keep their inventory

of HAP bought for the magnetic tape manufacturing operations separate.

Therefore, they may prefer a record based on the amount of HAP actually

put into the process.

The proposed rule stated that when a source exceeded the HAP usage

limit, the owner or operator would be required to comply with the

control requirements of the rule by 1 year after the exceedance; this

time had been selected to be consistent with the period given for

existing sources to comply after the effective date. In the final rule,

the EPA has clarified that the source shall be required to comply with

the control requirements for major sources only if the owner or

operator chooses to no longer be subject to the HAP usage limits and,

in doing so, becomes a major source. In such a case, the owner or

operator would be required to notify the Administrator or delegated

State of this intent. The owner or operator would then have the same

amount of time to comply with the control requirements as would an

existing source, according to Sec. 63.6(c)(5) of the General

Provisions. The HAP usage limits would continue to apply until the

control requirements were met.

An exceedance of a HAP usage limit would be a violation of the HAP

usage provisions of subpart EE. If the source also has exceeded the

major source definition thresholds by exceeding the HAP usage limit,

and the source does not have an operating permit for major sources

under 40 CFR part 70, the source potentially could be found in

violation of the requirements of part 70 as well.

Another clarifying change in the rule is that the owner or operator

is not required to include 12 months of HAP usage data in the initial

notification report required by the General Provisions; this

requirement would have required sources to keep records before the

effective date of the rule. Instead, the owner or operator is required

to submit the values of the limits on the amount of HAP utilized, as

determined in Sec. 63.703(b)(2), along with supporting calculations,

with the initial notification.

As in the proposed rule, the owner or operator would be required to

submit an annual report on HAP usage, with the first one covering the

12-month period before the compliance date of the rule (which, in the

final rule, would be 2 years after the effective date, instead of the

proposed 1 year). Because the final HAP usage limits are calculated

monthly on a rolling 12-month basis, the final rule would require a

report within 30 days of any exceedance of a HAP usage limit. It would

be unreasonable to allow the owner or operator to wait until the annual

report to report an exceedance.

2. Regulation of Leader Tape and Other Nonmagnetic Tape Products

Two commenters suggested deleting Sec. 63.701(c) of the proposed

rule that specifies that nonmagnetic tape manufacturing operations that

take place using an affected source also are subject to the rule. The

commenters argued (1) that by including nonmagnetic tape operations

additional controls and solvent recovery equipment may be needed; (2)

there may be conflicts with future MACT standards for the ``paper and

other webs'' source category; (3) the nonmagnetic tape process was not

considered in developing the MACT floor or impacts associated with the

standard; and (4) the standard likely exceeds the MACT floor for

nonmagnetic tape manufacturing. One of the commenters also suggested

deleting ``leader tape'' from the definition of magnetic tape

manufacturing operation for the same reasons. Upon review of the

comments, the EPA has decided not to regulate HAP emissions from leader

tape production and from nonmagnetic tape products manufactured using

affected sources. Although there may be configurations for which

controlling leader tape and nonmagnetic tape products is feasible, the

EPA has chosen not to regulate either under subpart EE. There may be

instances in which the solvents used to manufacture magnetic products

and the solvents used to manufacture nonmagnetic and leader tape

products are incompatible with respect to a solvent recovery device.

The regulation of leader tape and nonmagnetic tape products

manufacturing would be considered when the MACT standard for paper and

other webs is promulgated; leader tape and nonmagnetic tape products

should be covered by that standard. The EPA agrees that it did not

adequately consider leader tape in the analysis of the floor for this

source category. The comments brought to EPA's attention that leader

tape manufacture is not necessarily as similar to magnetic tape

manufacture as was originally anticipated.

3. Regulation of Research and Laboratory Facilities

Four commenters stated that research and laboratory activities

should be exempt from the standard, regardless of whether they are

collocated at a production facility. One commenter cited section

112(c)(7) of the Act as rationale, which states that EPA is directed to

``* * * establish a separate category covering research or laboratory

facilities to assure equitable treatment of such facilities.''

Commenters noted that traditional controls cannot reasonably be applied

to research facilities because of the wide variety and small amounts of

materials that are used, the batch nature of research operations, and

the different methods of research operations. Commenters also noted

that requiring control devices for research and laboratory facilities

dramatically reduces the amount of research that can be conducted and

impacts competition.

The proposed rule used the definition of research and laboratory

facilities from section 112 (c)(7) of the Act. This section provides

that ``research or laboratory facility'' means any stationary source

whose primary purpose is to conduct research and development into new

processes and products, where such source is operated under the close

supervision of technically trained personnel and is not engaged in the

manufacture of products for commercial sale in commerce, except in a de

minimis manner.

Three commenters responded to EPA's request for information on the

definition of de minimis manufacture of products for commercial sale

from a research and laboratory coating line. One commenter recommended

that the standard adopt the definition of research or laboratory

facility as proposed and not try to further define de minimis, because

de minimis may vary by the nature of product being produced or the

concurrent level of research activities. Two commenters suggested

defining the de minimis sale of products produced at research and

laboratory facilities according to the percent of time the facility is

used for commercial activities, and suggested less than 50 percent of

total operating time as de minimis. One commenter suggested that de

minimis be defined in terms of the HAP emission level; e.g., no more

than 5 tons/yr of any one HAP or 10 tons/yr of any combination of HAP

could be emitted from research and laboratory facilities.

The EPA had proposed regulation of research and laboratory

facilities collocated with production lines because the EPA believed

that the primary control device used to control HAP emissions from

coating operations could also be used to control HAP emissions from the

research lines. The EPA agrees that under section 112(c)(7) of the Act,

a separate category would need to be established to cover research and

laboratory facilities to assure the equitable treatment of such

facilities. Based on the information received at proposal, the EPA has

concluded that in many instances control of HAP emissions from research

and laboratory facilities is not technically feasible using the same

pieces of control equipment used to control manufacturing lines. This

is primarily due to the batch nature of operating the research and

laboratory lines, the types of emission points (such as laboratory

bench-scale equipment), and the fact that the solvents used in research

could differ from those used in production. This latter problem is of

specific concern when a solvent recovery device is used, because the

solvent recovery device (and associated distillation operations) are

designed for recovery of specific solvents. Therefore, in the final

rule, research and laboratory facilities are not regulated.

In the final rule, the definition of research or laboratory

facility remains unchanged from the proposed definition, which is

identical to the definition in section 112(c)(7) of the Act. The EPA

disagrees with the two commenters who suggested that the phrase in the

definition of research or laboratory facility ``not engaged in the

manufacture of products for commercial sale in commerce, except in a de

minimis manner'' be interpreted as not engaged in commercial

manufacture for more than 50 percent of its operating time. The EPA

does not believe that this is a reasonable interpretation of ``de

minimis manner.'' However, the Agency did not receive sufficient

information that ``de minimis manner'' could be defined for this source

category.

The EPA has evaluated the types of activities it considers to fit

the Act's definition of a research facility for this source category.

Research activities include those activities that are employed to

develop a new coating, substrate, or end product, and may also include

activities devoted to optimizing the manufacture of a new material. For

example, a magnetic tape facility may have laboratory research

operations directed to developing new coatings. Once a promising

coating is developed, the research activity may move to a laboratory-

scale or pilot plant coating line to determine if it can be properly

applied, dried, etc. Some marketing may take place at this stage to

determine the viability of the product in the market place. For

example, is there a demand for this type of product? Can it meet the

customer's specifications? If the facility wishes to further pursue the

coating, it may be moved to a line that operates the same as a

production line to determine how the coating could be manufactured on a

full-scale basis. The EPA believes that all of these activities are

research because their intention is to develop new products or

processes.

Once a facility determines that the manufacture of this product is

viable, however, the EPA believes that additional activities are likely

to be beyond the research phase. For example, the adjustment and

optimization of a process or product that is already operating on a

production line should not be considered research. Likewise, if a

product is being manufactured on a full-size production line and

introduced in a retail environment, even on a limited basis, the

product is likely to be fully developed. It could be argued that

research is continuing even beyond this point in that the facility is

testing to determine the correct market segment, price, advertising,

etc. The EPA believes, however, that this type of ``research'' is

beyond what was intended by the Act. The company is obviously planning

eventual full-scale production; the development of the new product and

process is over.

4. Overlap of Subpart EE With Future Standards

One commenter stated that the broad definition of magnetic tape

encompasses operations that should be considered as part of other

source categories. For example, although the commenter's facility

manufactures a product that contains magnetic particles, the actual

content of magnetic particles in the product is small. The overwhelming

majority of products manufactured at this facility, in terms of square

footage, are products that would be considered paper and other webs.

The commenter noted that only 1 percent of its annual production in

square feet would meet the definition of magnetic tape. Thus, the

commenter believes that it would be more appropriate to regulate this

facility under a standard for paper and other webs than under the

magnetic tape rule. The commenter suggested that EPA use primary

product rationale to distinguish between magnetic tape facilities and

facilities more appropriately classified as manufacturing paper and

other webs. The commenter alternatively suggested that EPA change the

definition of magnetic tape to be based on the percent of solids in the

coating mix to distinguish between source categories.

The Agency has considered the request made by the commenter and

agrees that a primary product distinction should be made in some cases

to avoid including coating lines under the magnetic tape NESHAP that

have such a small amount of magnetic tape production that it is more

appropriate to regulate them exclusively under paper and other web

coatings, rather than subpart EE. Therefore, the final rule specifies

that if, based on the annual square footage, 1 percent or less of all

products manufactured on a coating line are magnetic tape products,

then that coating line is not subject to subpart EE. A cutoff of 1

percent, rather than a higher percentage number was selected to

minimize potentially uncontrolled emissions from magnetic tape

production on a coating line that would otherwise be regulated under

the paper and other webs source category. The definition of magnetic

tape was not changed due to the uncertain nature of product

development. The percent composition of magnetic particles may change

with the development of new magnetic tape products, and a change in the

definition of magnetic tape might limit the effectiveness of subpart EE

to control emissions from magnetic tape manufacturing in the future.

B. Selection of Compliance Dates

Seven commenters stated that the compliance time of 1 year from the

date of promulgation is too short. Three commenters stated that a

minimum of approximately 2 years would be required to adequately plan,

design, fund, purchase, and install the required new equipment. The

commenters pointed out that some States require up to 10 months to

issue construction permits alone. Two commenters also remarked that the

1-year compliance period did not allow adequate time for sources to

apply for extensions, which must be submitted 12 months in advance of

the compliance date. One of the commenters suggested the regulation

distinguish between sources currently subject to the new source

performance standards (NSPS) for magnetic tape manufacturing (40 CFR

part 60, subpart SSS) and sources not subject to the NSPS, and allow

sources not subject to the NSPS 3 years to comply.

After reviewing the comments received, the Agency recognizes that a

1-year compliance period for affected sources may be inadequate for

some facilities to install a new control device or expand existing

controls. In addition, because this rule covers a wider range of

emission points than the NSPS, some facilities that are subject to the

NSPS also may need additional time to retrofit the emission controls

necessary to comply with the MACT standard. Therefore, the Agency has

increased the compliance period to 3 years for existing affected

sources that will need to install a new control device to meet the

requirements of Sec. 63.703(c) or (g). All other existing affected

sources will have to comply with the standards within 2 years of the

effective date. The Agency believes that these compliance timeframes

will allow facilities sufficient time to bring affected sources into

compliance with the rule while ensuring implementation of emission

control in a timely fashion. In addition, the increase in the

compliance time period allows additional time for State agencies to

implement title V permitting programs, and allows owners and operators

of affected sources at least 1 year to evaluate the need and apply for

an extension in accordance with Sec. 63.6(i) of subpart A.

C. Selection of Emission Limits and Equipment/Work Practice

Specifications

1. Emission Limits When Coating Operations Are Down

At proposal, the EPA noted that a 95 percent control efficiency may

not be feasible when the inlet HAP concentration to the control device

is low, such as when the coating operations are down. This is

especially a problem for owners or operators using solvent recovery

devices that continuously monitor percent efficiency or HAP outlet

concentration to demonstrate compliance with the standards. The rule

already contains an alternative HAP outlet concentration for owners or

operators of incinerators. The EPA, therefore, requested comment on

alternate continuous compliance requirements for solvent recovery

devices operating under low-inlet loading situations. Commenters agreed

this was a problem, but were not in agreement on the best way to

address the problem. Several commenters suggested extending the

averaging period to 30 days to account for low inlet conditions.

Commenters did not support the option of an owner or operator

establishing an alternate outlet concentration requirement for periods

of low inlet conditions. Primarily, the reasons cited were that it

would be costly to simulate all possible modes of operation during an

initial performance test, and outlet conditions are source-specific and

depend greatly on highly variable inlet conditions. The EPA recognizes

that it could be costly to simulate all possible modes of operation

during one performance test. Given the site-specific nature of outlet

conditions, it would be unfounded for EPA to set such an outlet

concentration to apply to the entire industry during periods of low

inlet condition, as EPA currently has no data to support such a limit.

The EPA does not believe that a 30-day averaging period is an

acceptable alternative, and no data were submitted to support that this

is the minimum averaging time that is technically feasible.

The EPA believes that compliance with an alternate outlet

concentration is the best way to establish compliance during those

periods when the inlet HAP concentration to the control device is low.

However, the Agency currently has no data to identify a limit. The EPA

has chosen to address this problem in the final rule by allowing

facilities to determine a site-specific outlet concentration during

periods of low inlet conditions. Owners or operators may conduct a

performance test during which the coating operations are not occurring,

and the control device is operated according to good control practices

and in the same manner as it was operated to achieve the emission

limits for coating operations. Alternatively, to minimize the burden on

affected facilities, the final rule also allows sources to establish

this number using CEM data collected under such conditions as noted

above. The final rule (Sec. 63.704(b)(11)(ii)) allows owners or

operators 6 months after the compliance date to collect these data and

submit a proposed limit to the Administrator or permitting authority,

as appropriate. To support the alternate concentration limit, the owner

or operator must also fulfill the reporting requirements in

Sec. 63.707(k).

2. Standard for Particulate HAP

One commenter recommended that EPA allow the use of manual charging

of particulate HAP into kettles with the use of a 99 percent efficient

dust collector as an equivalent method to enclosed transfer. The

commenter estimates a 99.975 percent control efficiency for its own

facilities. The commenter also claims that additional costs to convert

to enclosed transfer would be excessive compared to the resulting

emission reductions. The commenter noted that enclosed transfer systems

all have some purge capability usually associated with a fabric filter

that would vent to the atmosphere. Therefore, the ultimate difference

between enclosed transfer and open transfer with control would be

minimal.

Another commenter agreed, recommending that the proposed rule be

amended to require capture and control of at least 95 percent of

particulate emissions or the use of an enclosed transfer method. The

commenter stated that performance standards are almost always superior

to design standards, which are used only as a last resort when

performance standards are not possible. Their facility vents the

particulate HAP unloading area to a baghouse with greater than 99

percent control of particulate emission greater than 1 micron in

diameter, which they believe is at least as efficient as the enclosed

transfer method.

The final rule allows owners or operators to control emissions of

particulate HAP by venting the transfer operation to a baghouse or

fabric filter that operates with no visible emissions. The owner or

operator will also have to demonstrate that the ventilation rate is

sufficient to capture the particulate HAP through engineering

calculations (Sec. 63.707(h)). Guidance for determining a suitable

ventilation rate may be found in the Industrial Ventilation Manual of

Recommended Practice, published by the American Conference of

Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). The final rule contains

test methods and procedures for demonstrating that there are no visible

emissions from the baghouse or dust collector (Sec. 63.705(g)), as well

as monitoring provisions for demonstrating continuous compliance

(Sec. 63.704(e)). In addition, the definition of an enclosed transfer

device was left as a broad definition so as not to exclude equipment

that could achieve enclosed transfer. Supersack containers described by

one commenter appear to meet this definition as would mechanical

systems such as augers and conveyors. The final rule references such

equipment.

3. Low-HAP Coating Limit

Three commenters recommended that EPA allow an equivalent

compliance limit for reductions in HAP for facilities that use water-

based coatings or reduce the amount of HAP applied per unit of tape

manufactured. The commenters stated that this would be consistent with

the NSPS, and would encourage pollution prevention. One commenter also

suggested that emissions be averaged on a monthly basis, not a 3-day

rolling average, which it claims is not practical.

The EPA recognizes the advantages of a low-HAP coating limit and

has therefore included such a limit in the final rule as a means of

encouraging pollution prevention. The final rule includes a HAP coating

limit, whereby owners or operators are exempt from requirements for

coating operations if a coating containing less than 0.18 kg of HAP per

L of coating solids is used. This limit was calculated using the same

methodology used to establish the alternate limit for the NSPS. The

low-HAP coating limit in subpart EE was calculated by applying a 95

percent efficiency to a typical coating containing 0.8 gallons of

solvent per 0.2 gallons of solids, and that has a coating density of

7.5 pounds of solvent per gallon of coating. Data collected from

industry to support the NSPS found the typical magnetic tape coating to

be 80 percent solvent and 20 percent solids, and these coating

parameters were used in developing the low-VOC coating for the NSPS

(0.25 kg solvent/L coating solids). In the case of subpart EE, all

solvent is considered HAP; whereas in the NSPS, all solvent was

considered VOC because VOC's are regulated by the NSPS.

Owners or operators that opt to comply with the low-HAP limit must

determine the HAP content of each batch of coating used, following the

procedures of Sec. 63.705(c)(5) of the final rule. Thus, an averaging

period is not necessary. If a coating with an identical formulation is

subsequently used, the original calculations can be used to demonstrate

compliance. Section 63.706(f) requires the owner or operator using a

low-HAP coating to maintain records of the HAP content of each batch of

coating applied, and records of the formulation data that support the

HAP content calculations. In accordance with Sec. 63.707(i)(2), these

calculated HAP contents for each batch of coating are reported as the

monitored operating parameter value in the excess emissions and

continuous monitoring system performance report and summary report

required by Sec. 63.10(e) of subpart A.

D. Regulation of Wastewater

One commenter stated that condensate from the carbon adsorption

system should not be considered a wastewater stream because steam

strippers are part of a solvent purification process, not a wastewater

treatment system. The commenter further stated that only the water

stream exiting the solvent purification stripping column should be

considered wastewater, and because volatilization of HAP from this

stream is negligible, this stream should not be considered an emission

point.

The commenter is correct in that the steam stripper may be

considered a purification process to remove additional solvent from the

water phase after a carbon adsorption system is steam desorbed.

However, this interpretation of the process does not change the fact

that the water phase from steam desorption of the carbon adsorption

system is a potential HAP emission source. If a steam stripper or some

other treatment is not used to remove solvent from this water phase,

volatile HAP solvents could be emitted to the air. Based on EPA's data,

of the three existing major sources that use steam to desorb their

carbon beds, all three treat the resultant water with a steam stripper.

The MACT floor for this emission source was, therefore, selected as

treatment that achieves the same control level as a steam stripper.

One commenter maintained that EPA does not have sufficient data to

set the concentration limit for wastewater streams from the steam

stripper at 50 parts per million by weight (ppmw) of volatile organic

HAP. The commenter noted that the data to support the limit was not

obtained by Method 305 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 63. However, the

commenter did not supply any other data to support his comment. Another

commenter noted that the removal efficiency and outlet concentration is

highly dependent on the type of HAP compound present in the wastewater.

Therefore, EPA should either (1) limit the rule only to methyl ethyl

ketone (MEK), methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK), and toluene and make an

adjustment for the removal efficiency for MEK described in the HON (95

percent); or (2) conduct another MACT floor evaluation to include all

HAP and repropose this portion of the rule.

One commenter stated that facilities that do not use steam

stripping should not have to seek EPA approval to use reliable

technologies with demonstrated efficiencies in treating wastewater. The

commenter noted that heated distillation columns reliably remove

organics to less than 50 ppmw, and carbon adsorption is a reliable and

common method to remove trace amounts of VOC from wastewater.

The wastewater provisions in the final rule differ slightly from

those at proposal. The EPA agrees the rule should not limit the

treatment methods to steam stripping for removing HAP from wastewater.

Therefore, the final standards are expressed in terms of performance

limits, not technology; an owner or operator must achieve the reference

control efficiency for a given HAP or must achieve a total volatile

organic HAP outlet concentration of 50 ppmw. The standard is clear that

an owner or operator is required to meet only one of these

requirements; the outlet concentration or the removal efficiency. Any

technology can be used to meet these limits as long as it is

demonstrated to meet the standards in accordance with the test methods

and procedures in the rule, and as long as continuous compliance

monitoring is proposed, approved, and conducted.

At proposal, the EPA explained that the removal efficiency and

outlet HAP concentration limits were based on data gathered from this

industry, and further supported by data gathered during development of

the HON (40 CFR part 63, subpart G). In the proposed HON rule, the

removal efficiency for all HAP solvents typically used in magnetic tape

manufacturing was 99 percent. In the final HON, the value for MEK was

changed to 95 percent. The EPA agrees that the percent removals in

subpart EE should be the same as in the HON. Furthermore, the EPA does

not mean to limit subpart EE to only MEK, MIBK and toluene. Therefore,

Sec. 63.703(g) of subpart EE requires the removal efficiency specified

in Table 9 of the 40 CFR part 63, subpart G of the HON for HAP

compounds that may be present in wastewater. The final rule also

specifies that the HAP that must be removed are only those that are

from magnetic tape manufacturing operations. Thus, if methanol is in

the wastewater stream due to magnetic tape manufacturing, it must be

removed by 31 percent as specified in Table 9 in 40 CFR part 63,

subpart G. If the methanol is not from magnetic tape manufacturing

operations, subpart EE does not require a specific removal efficiency.

The test method to be used to demonstrate compliance with the

removal efficiency is unchanged from proposal. In the final rule,

owners or operators may demonstrate compliance with the outlet

concentration or removal efficiency by analyzing the wastewater for

volatile organic HAP using Method 305. However, the proposed rule

lacked specification regarding calculations related to Method 305. This

specification, which is consistent with the HON, has been added to the

final subpart EE. Also, alternate test methods may be used if they are

validated through Method 301 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A.

E. Selection of Test Methods and Monitoring Requirements

Section 114(a)(3) of the amended Act requires enhanced monitoring

and compliance certifications of all major stationary sources. The

annual compliance certifications certify whether compliance has been

continuous or intermittent. Enhanced monitoring shall be capable of

detecting deviations from each applicable emission limitation or

standard with sufficient representativeness, accuracy, precision,

reliability, frequency, and timeliness to determine if compliance is

continuous during a reporting period. The monitoring in this regulation

satisfies the requirements of enhanced monitoring.

Four commenters submitted comments concerning the establishment of

operating parameters for monitoring purposes. Commenters noted that the

monitoring parameter values that correspond to compliance with the

standard will vary based on varying inlet conditions, age of the

device, or other factors. For example, two commenters stated that, in

the case of catalytic incinerators, the temperature rise across the

catalyst bed varies according to the VOC concentration of the inlet gas

stream. Another commenter pointed out that the steam-to-feed ratio of a

stripping column would differ greatly over the range of feed rates,

depending on the age and performance of the activated carbon used in

the carbon system.

One commenter suggested that Sec. 63.704(c)(7) of the proposed

rule, which requires installation and operation of equipment to measure

the site-specific operating parameters of an enclosure for the capture

of HAP emissions, include a provision for a 5 percent variation of the

operating parameter used to determine compliance. The commenter claimed

that a 5 percent variation would satisfy the requirements for

maintaining a total enclosure, and, because the rule would then be

consistent with the NSPS, redundant recordkeeping would be avoided and

confusion between the two standards would be minimized.

The final rule (Sec. 63.704(b)(11)(i)) allows owners or operators

to conduct multiple tests to establish site-specific operating

parameters. Thus, for example, when catalytic incinerator inlet

conditions vary, the owner or operator will have a range of appropriate

temperatures for compliance determinations. Similarly, the final rule

allows owners or operators using a steam stripper the option of

conducting multiple tests to determine the appropriate range of steam-

to-feed ratios that are appropriate for a variety of operating

conditions. Because the final rule allows affected sources to conduct

multiple tests to establish site-specific values for various operating

parameters, the Agency does not believe that specifying a variance in

operating parameter values is warranted.

One commenter requested that EPA establish alternative monitoring

other than the monitoring of steam-to-feed ratio because a stripper can

operate at a wide range of steam-to-feed ratios and still be operating

properly. As noted above, the owner or operator could develop different

steam-to-feed ratios for different conditions. Furthermore, EPA has

included alternative monitoring requirements in the final rule to

demonstrate compliance with the wastewater standard. As an alternative

to monitoring steam-to-feed ratio, the final rule allows monthly

monitoring of the volatile organic HAP (VOHAP) concentration in the

wastewater from the outlet of the control device to demonstrate

continuous compliance with the 50 ppmw standard. Because the wastewater

stream is not expected to be greatly variable, monthly monitoring of

the concentration was determined to be an adequate frequency for

determining continuous compliance.

Two commenters suggested changing the material balance averaging

period from 3 days to 30 days. The first commenter stated that a 30-day

averaging period is consistent with the NSPS, and a 3-day averaging

period would not be feasible for solvent recovery systems with long

adsorption cycles. The solvent used in 1 day would not necessarily be

recovered in the same day and may result in incomplete balances over a

3-day averaging period. The second commenter stated that a 3-day

rolling average is impractical and unreasonable, with overly burdensome

recordkeeping requirements. The commenter further stated that any

facility that approaches 95 percent control would probably not use a

material balance mechanism to demonstrate compliance because of this

burden.

The EPA has increased the material balance averaging time period

from 3 days to 7 days in the final rule. The EPA agrees that a 3-day

average may not be able to adequately account for variability in

recovered solvent due to changes in production and the adsorption cycle

of the solvent recovery device as noted by the commenters. However, the

EPA does not believe that 30 days is necessary to achieve this, and

that 7 days is a reasonable averaging period for most facilities. Model

VOC rules developed for reasonably available control technology (RACT)

in State Implementation Plans require a 7-day rolling period for

material balance calculation of the overall emission reduction

efficiency of a solvent recovery control system (e.g., carbon

adsorber). The EPA does not agree with the commenters that a 7-day

averaging period will be more burdensome than a 30-day averaging period

because the records necessary to compute a material balance are of an

ongoing nature. The only significant difference is that the overall

efficiency will be calculated on a 7-day cycle rather than a 30-day

cycle. An owner or operator who does not believe that 7 days is an

adequate averaging period given their specific solvent recovery

circumstances, and who wishes to use alternate compliance techniques

may provide their reasoning in a petition to the Administrator in

accordance with Sec. 63.705(j) of subpart EE and Sec. 63.7(f) of

subpart A. Also, the final rule offers other compliance provisions for

users of solvent recovery devices.

Three commenters requested that the rule include specific

monitoring provisions for the use of innovative control technologies,

such as biofiltration, which may perform better than traditional

control technologies. One commenter stated that the proposed

requirements requesting approval of monitoring techniques for

innovative technologies discourage their use.

At proposal, the Agency was not aware of any biofiltration units in

place to control HAP or VOC emissions from magnetic tape manufacturing

operations. Further research on this technology at this time could

potentially delay promulgation of the final rule. However,

Sec. 63.704(f) of the final rule allows owners or operators of affected

sources to submit compliance monitoring provisions for alternate

control technologies to the Administrator for approval. The EPA

believes that an owner or operator of an affected source that is

exploring the use of biofiltration or other innovative control

techniques will be more informed and better able to propose appropriate

testing and monitoring. Furthermore, the EPA believes that the extended

compliance timeframe of 3 years in the final rule will allow owners or

operators of existing affected sources adequate time to propose

alternative testing and monitoring requirements.

F. Alternative Compliance Plans and Selection of the Affected Source

At proposal, in discussing the selection of the affected source

definition, the EPA noted that a broad definition of affected source

would be needed if emissions averaging provisions were contained in the

rule. The proposed rule did not contain emissions averaging provisions

because the EPA believes that there is very little opportunity for

emissions averaging in this source category. However, the EPA solicited

comments and information on emissions averaging for this source

category.

Three commenters recommended that EPA allow emissions averaging.

One commenter stated that controlling emissions from solvent storage

tanks with the same primary control device used to control other

emissions at a facility would not be cost effective. The commenter

noted that storage tanks may be located a considerable distance from

the main facility for safety and insurance reasons and controlling the

low level of emissions from storage tanks would not be cost effective

given the amount of ductwork that would be required to connect them to

the primary control device. The commenter also stated that compliance

with the regulation through control of storage tanks with a dedicated

small carbon canister would be very difficult and extremely expensive

particularly if installation of a CEM on the carbon canister is

necessary. The commenter believes that allowing emissions averaging in

the standard would alleviate these difficulties by not requiring

emission control and CEM's on all emission units. This commenter

suggested creating a simplified version of the emissions trading scheme

included in the HON final rule (59 FR 19402). The commenter stated that

EPA could disallow trading between HAP of varying risk factors and

require a slight excess HAP reduction of 10 percent to overcompensate

for any measurement inaccuracies. The commenter stated that the

drawbacks of emissions averaging regarding weighting factors would not

be an issue in this industry, because the solvent HAP used by this

industry all have the same weighting factor. The EPA also could

eliminate requirements for air emission monitoring, modeling, and risk

assessment since no trades between HAP of different risk factors would

be allowed.

The commenter further suggested that EPA eliminate the restriction

that excludes HAP emission reductions beyond the control device

reference technology control level in emission trading. The commenter

stated that a facility will normally operate its control device at a

level above the compliance limit to ensure compliance, even though this

practice results in higher operating costs; because this additional

control is usually achieved solely for compliance reasons, the Agency

should allow it to be included in emissions averaging calculations.

The second commenter also pointed out that some emission points

contribute more than others and suggested a prioritization scheme that

evaluates the relative contribution of each individual source relative

to the total emissions from the entire magnetic tape operation.

According to the commenter, prioritization would allow cost effective

control and could exempt from control emission points that in the

aggregate contribute no more than 5 percent of the total emissions. For

the remaining emissions, the commenter suggested 95 percent reduction.

As an alternative to this prioritization scheme, the commenter

suggested an emissions averaging scheme to achieve 95 percent control

of emissions from the entire operation.

The third commenter suggested averaging emissions from an entire

mix/coat operation so that more efficient emissions control achieved

from the coating line can offset less efficient control of the VOC-

dilute mix room exhaust. The commenter suggested that a group of

emission points collocated and ducted to a common abatement device

within a facility (e.g., all mix room equipment, or coating operations)

be treated as a single affected source. The commenter argued that under

this approach, environmental protection will be equal to, if not

greater than that with the narrower definition of affected source, and

domestic producers would not be further disadvantaged by the burden of

regulatory costs.

One commenter recommended that EPA not consider emissions averaging

any further. The commenter stated that emissions averaging most often

results in increased emissions of toxic chemicals that are more

difficult to control and may include HAP. Also, emissions averaging

programs have been difficult to administer, with burdensome compliance

and recordkeeping requirements, and have been difficult to enforce.

The prioritization scheme suggested by one of the commenters would

achieve less control than the main standard because it would exempt 5

percent of the uncontrolled emissions, and only require 95 percent

control of the nonexempted emissions. Furthermore, this plan would not

account for the fact that the underlying standard is not 95 percent

control for all emission points. Therefore, it was not considered

further by the EPA.

Several of the comments on emissions averaging for magnetic tape

manufacturing appear to involve concerns about compliance

demonstrations, rather than a need for emissions averaging. For

example, a commenter suggested that all emission sources vented to the

same control device be allowed to be ``averaged'' so that only the

common control device has to be monitored (such as the tanks in the mix

room and the coating operations). It is the EPA's intent that when

several sources are vented to a common control, the control device

itself is monitored; each emission point does not have to be monitored

separately. This point has been clarified in the final regulation.

This commenter also alluded to the problem for the primary control

device of achieving 95-percent control when the coating operations are

down because the other streams vented to the device have low flow rates

and low concentrations. The EPA has included in the final rule an

alternative standard in which the owner or operator would determine,

during a period when the control device is properly operated and

maintained, a concentration level for the control device when the

coating operations are not operating properly.

Another commenter expressed concern that the proposed regulation

would have required continuous emission monitors (CEM's) on carbon

canisters, which might be used to control storage tanks far from the

main control device. The EPA recognizes that the proposed rule had not

adequately considered monitoring for such situations and is including

alternative monitoring for nonregenerative carbon adsorbers in the

final rule.

One particular problem area that was mentioned in other comments as

well as in those on emissions averaging was the control of storage

tanks. Commenters noted that emissions from storage tanks are small and

may be cost ineffective to control in comparison with other control

costs imposed by this rule. This could be true particularly for those

that are sited away from the main coating operation (and the primary

control device) for safety or insurance reasons. As discussed in

section 2.6.2 of the background information document, based on

available information, there is no basis for subcategorizing among

storage tanks based on size or distance from the control device.

However, the EPA agrees that storage tanks could be cost ineffective to

control if far from the main control device and that the emissions are

small. The estimated uncontrolled HAP emissions from all the storage

tanks at a small facility total 0.01 ton/yr and at a large facility

total 1.2 tons/yr.

To meet this concern, the EPA developed an alternative compliance

option that would allow the owner or operator not to control certain

storage tanks in return for achieving more control of the largest

emissions source at magnetic tape manufacturing facilities. Under this

option, in exchange for accepting a requirement of 97 percent reduction

(instead of 95 percent as required by the basic standard) for all the

coating operations, the owner or operator may leave uncontrolled up to

10 storage tanks with a maximum individual capacity of 20,000 gallons.

There are also two additional tiers: To control all coating operations

by 98 percent in lieu of controlling 15 such storage tanks; or 99

percent in lieu of controlling 20 such storage tanks. Available

information indicates that this range of options is adequate to cover

the range of plants.

This alternative compliance option might appear at first to be

inconsistent with provisions of the HON (which is the first MACT

standard that provides for emissions averaging) in that the HON does

not permit a plant operator to gain averaging credit for using

reference control technology (the technology assumed in the development

of the standard) at a higher-than-required percentage reduction.

However, there are clear factual differences which distinguish the two

situations.

Emission limitations under the HON are applicable to emission

points whose characteristics equal or exceed specified cut-offs and are

based on the use of reference control technology. Emissions averaging

under the HON responds to concern that it may be unusually expensive to

apply reference controls to some of the covered emission points (such

as emission points located far from a control device). The HON

emissions averaging provisions allow a plant operator to avoid control

of some covered emission points (a) by applying the reference control

technology to exempt emission points (points whose characteristics are

below the cut-offs) or (b) by applying controls that are inherently

more effective than the reference control technology to other covered

emission points. Except for reductions achieved by pollution prevention

measures, the substituted controls must produce at least 110 percent of

the emission reductions that would have been achieved at the emission

points that will no longer be controlled. In addition, the permitting

authority must conclude that risk or hazard is not increased by the

averaging.

As stated above, the HON does not permit the plant operator to gain

averaging credit for using the reference technology at a higher-than-

required percentage reduction. Credits for operating a control

technology better than its rated control efficiency are not allowed for

two main reasons. One is the fact that in the development of the

standard, the rated efficiency of the reference technology was set on a

lowest-common-denominator basis. Due to the variable nature of the

pollutant streams encountered among plants subject to the HON

(variations from plant to plant in the mix of pollutants, operating

rates, and other factors), the selection of a single percentage

reduction applicable to each control technology in all circumstances

required a lowest-common-denominator approach, and in many cases such

equipment will achieve substantially higher percentage reductions under

normal design and operating conditions. If credit were allowed for this

differential, a plant operator would gain an undeserved windfall due to

the manner in which the rated control efficiencies were derived.

In the case of magnetic tape manufacturing, the EPA is considering

a much simpler situation than in the HON. Magnetic tape facilities have

generally smaller variability in the plant-to-plant mix of pollutants,

operating rates, and other factors. Rather than including any emission

point as in the HON, only two types of emissions points are eligible

for the alternative compliance plan for magnetic tape operations: the

coating operations and the storage tanks. Because of the simpler nature

of magnetic tape processes and the magnitude of the additional

emissions control, EPA concludes that the emissions from the

uncontrolled storage tanks are adequately offset by additional control

at the coating operations. The required two percent additional increase

in control efficiency at the largest emission point at magnetic tape

manufacturing plants creates additional emissions reductions of as much

as 0.35 ton/yr at a small facility and 190 tons/yr at a large facility.

Under the alternative compliance option, some storage tanks may remain

uncontrolled. However, the emissions from these points are very small

in comparison to the additional potential emission benefit accruing

from the coating operations. At small plants, 0.01 ton/yr remain

uncontrolled; at larger plants, 1.2 tons/yr. As in the HON, there is

variability in operating conditions and pollutant streams. Thus, EPA is

unable to quantify precisely how much additional emissions benefit can

be attributed to the required increase in control efficiency. The EPA

is confident that the emissions from the uncontrolled points are

adequately offset by additional reductions.

The other reason the HON does not allow credit for operating a

device greater than its reference control efficiency is a concern over

enforcement problems. The variable mix of pollutants and operating

conditions seen at HON sources means that the amount by which emission

reductions exceed rated levels is difficult to determine reliably. The

data tracking for each point and device would be extremely complex. Use

of a reference control efficiency for each reference control technology

allows the implementing agency inspectors to check that the equipment

is in place and operating as planned. Then the implementing agency can

check records to examine the calculation of debits and credits on each

of the emission points in order to make a compliance determination.

The alternative compliance approach discussed above for magnetic

tape manufacturing would not pose these same enforcement problems. The

required control efficiency for the coating operations would be the

same for all plants taking advantage of this approach. Continuous

monitoring is required to determine ongoing compliance with the

emission standard. For carbon adsorbers, the most common control device

in the industry, CEM's are required. (Note that CEM's are not required

for nonregenerative carbon adsorbers, as discussed above. Such

adsorbers would not be used on coating operations.) For incinerators

and condensers, the owner or operator would be required to determine

during the initial performance test a temperature that corresponds to

at least 97 percent control (instead of the 95 percent control of

coating operations required by the basic standard). Therefore, the

additional emission reduction would be ensured.

In summary, the EPA believes that it can address the commenters'

main concerns without a general emissions averaging scheme, such as in

the HON. The clarifications and changes in compliance determinations

discussed above and the alternative compliance option for storage tanks

and coating operations are sufficient. Under these circumstances, the

EPA believes that permitting credit for operating a control device

better than its rated control efficiency for the alternative compliance

option for the magnetic tape industry is distinguishable from the HON

and justifiable.

Four parties commented on the proposed definition of the affected

source, which was each emission point. One agreed with the proposed

narrow definition, stating that it makes the rule easily enforceable.

Three commented that a broad definition is more appropriate. Several

reasons related to arguments discussed above on emissions averaging. An

additional reason was the interaction with the General Provisions, 40

CFR part 63 subpart A. For example, for the startup, shutdown, and

malfunction plan required by subpart A, it would be burdensome to have

a separate plan for each emission point, rather than the entire

facility.

The EPA has changed the definition of the affected source to the

entire magnetic tape manufacturing operation. It agrees that one

startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan for the operation would be

reasonable. Furthermore, more flexibility would be offered to the

States in requesting alternative requirements under 40 CFR part 63

subpart E, since that subpart requires the alternative requirements be

equivalent in stringency for each affected source. The comments related

to emissions averaging have been addressed above.

G. Performance Specifications

The enhanced monitoring rule, proposed as 40 CFR part 64 (58 FR

54648, October 22, 1993), included two proposed performance

specifications (PS's) for CEM's in appendix A. They were PS 101 for VOC

CEM's and PS 102 for gas chromatographic CEM's. The proposed NESHAP for

magnetic tape manufacturing operations included a proposed requirement

for CEM's to follow PS 101 and 102. The EPA has decided to promulgate

these two performance specifications in 40 CFR part 60 with revised

title numbers, rather than in part 64, at the same time as promulgating

the magnetic tape NESHAP. The proposed PS 101 and 102 from part 64 are

being promulgated as PS 8 and PS 9 in appendix B of part 60,

respectively. Comment letters that included comments on these

performance specifications are in Docket No. A-91-52, the docket for

the enhanced monitoring rule. This docket is located in the Air and

Radiation Docket and Information Center described in the Addresses

section of this notice. Pages of the comment letters that specifically

address these performance specifications have been placed in Docket No.

A-91-31, which is the docket for the magnetic tape NESHAP. Summaries of

these comments and EPA's responses are located in the BID (EPA-453/R-

94-074b) described in the Addresses section. Comments originally

addressed to the docket for PS 101 and PS 102 are hereafter discussed

in terms of PS 8 and PS 9, for the sake of clarity.

Comments received on PS 8 indicated a general need to revise it to

eliminate confusion between its content and that of the existing

performance specifications in appendix B to 40 CFR part 60. Also,

certain specifications in PS 8 were inconsistent with the previously

accepted approach of judging the merit of a CEM based on a comparison

with a reference test method. Therefore, PS 8 has been revised to

insure consistency with the existing performance specifications in

appendix B. The PS definitions, installation and measurement location

specifications, test procedures, data reduction procedures, and

reporting requirements are all now the same as those in PS 2, and will

be familiar to those persons who have applied the existing performance

specifications.

Most of the comments on PS 9 dealt with issues of clarity in terms

of the wording. These comments have been addressed, and many of the

sections have been rewritten for clarity. More equations have been

added to make the specification easier to use. Some commenters were

confused when certain sections of PS 9 referred to other appendices of

the proposed enhanced monitoring rule. Any references to the other

appendices of the enhanced monitoring rule have been deleted and PS 9

is now all-inclusive; portions of other appendices have been

incorporated into PS 9. These changes should make PS 9 easier to use.

One commenter objected to the high temperature requirement of 150

deg.C for the sampling system. The purpose of the heated sampling

system is to prevent moisture condensation. The temperature requirement

has been changed to a more workable 120 deg.C, which should still

prevent condensation. Several commenters noted that the calibration

requirements for the analyzer should be clarified. The calibration

requirements have been rewritten for clarity, and an allowance for gas

dilution systems has also been added.

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

The docket for this rulemaking is A-91-31. The docket is an

organized and complete file of all the information submitted to or

otherwise considered by the EPA in the development of this rulemaking.

The principal purposes of the docket are: (1) To allow interested

parties a means to identify and locate documents so that they can

effectively participate in the rulemaking process; and (2) to serve as

the record in case of judicial review (except for interagency review

materials) (section 307(d)(7)(A) of the Act). The docket is available

for public inspection at the EPA's Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center, the location of which is given in the ADDRESSES

section of this notice.

B. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 [58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)], the

Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''

and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review

and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines

``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a

rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,

or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the

economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public

health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an

action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,

user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients

thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal

mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in

the Executive Order.''

It has been determined that this rule is not a ``significant

regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is

therefore not subject to OMB review.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

Information collection requirements associated with this rule have

been approved by OMB under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and have been assigned OMB control

number 2060-0326. An Information Collection Request (ICR) document has

been prepared by EPA (ICR No. 1678.02), and a copy may be obtained from

Sandy Farmer, Information Policy Branch, EPA 2136, Washington, DC

20460, or by calling (202) 260-2740.

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is

estimated to average 5 hours per respondent in the first year, 1,620

hours per respondent in the second year and 729 hours per respondent in

the third year. This includes the time required for reviewing

instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and

maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the

collection of information.

Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of

this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this

burden, to Chief, Information Policy Branch, 2136, U. S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460; and to the

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and

Budget, Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for

EPA.''

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

requires that a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis be performed for all

rules that have ``significant impact on a substantial number of small

entities.'' If a preliminary analysis indicates that a proposed

regulation would have a significant economic impact on 20 percent or

more of small entities, then a regulatory flexibility analysis must be

prepared.

Present Regulatory Flexibility Act guidelines define an economic

impact as significant if it meets one of the following criteria:

(1) Compliance increases annual production costs by more than 5

percent, assuming costs are passed on to consumers;

(2) Compliance costs as a percentage of sales for small entities

are at least 10 percent more than compliance costs as a percentage of

sales for large entities;

(3) Capital costs of compliance represent a ``significant'' portion

of capital available to small entities, considering internal cash flow

plus external financial capabilities; or

(4) Regulatory requirements are likely to result in closures of

small entities.

The results of the economic impact analysis (EIA) indicate that the

first and fourth criteria are satisfied for one of the three small

businesses in the regulated portion of the magnetic tape industry.

The EIA calculated facility and product-specific price increases

based on the assumption that each facility would need to recoup fully

its control costs through a price increase. The results indicated that

one facility (a small business) would require a price increase of

approximately 5 percent. In addition, an evaluation of postregulation

facility earnings indicated that the same facility would experience a

decline of approximately 36 percent in earnings if it is required to

comply with the regulation.

The combination of satisfying the significant price increase

criterion as well as satisfying the significant impact on

postregulation earnings criterion indicate that one small entity is

expected to experience a significant economic impact due to

implementation of the regulation.

The small business administration's size standards were used to

identify 3 facilities out of the 14 regulated facilities as being small

businesses. Due to the significant impacts expected to be experienced

by one of the small facilities, a regulatory flexibility analysis was

conducted to assess the feasibility of providing additional flexibility

to small businesses complying with the regulation.

For small businesses in general, one mechanism that was identified

as potentially helpful was the HAP usage cutoff described earlier in

this document. However, any small business whose HAP usage exceeds the

cutoff level will have operations similar to those located at large

businesses, and therefore will have the same potential to emit HAP as

the large businesses. All three small businesses identified as being

subject to the regulation have HAP usage levels above the cutoff level.

Due to the above reasoning, there are no technical reasons for

examining different requirements for small businesses as opposed to

large businesses.

For the small business with significant economic impacts,

monitoring is the least costly activity that would achieve the

requirements of the Clean Air Act. The recommended recordkeeping and

reporting requirements of the rule are also the minimum contained in

the General Provisions for the NESHAP program. The facility could

minimize its recordkeeping and reporting burden by continuing to stay

in compliance with the regulation. More detailed reporting is necessary

for deviations from compliance.

E. Miscellaneous

In accordance with section 117 of the Act, publication of this

promulgated rule was preceded by consultation with appropriate advisory

committees, independent experts, and Federal departments and agencies.

This regulation will be reviewed 8 years from the date of

promulgation. This review will include an assessment of such factors as

evaluation of the residual health risks, any overlap with other

programs, the existence of alternative methods, enforceability,

improvements in emission control technology and health data, and the

recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 9

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 60

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Volatile organic

compounds.

40 CFR Part 63

Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by

reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: November 22, 1994.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the

Code of Federal Regulations is amended as set forth below.

PART 9--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 135-136y; 15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003,

2005, 2006, 2601-2671; 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33

U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1321, 1326, 1330, 1344, 1345

(d) and (e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, 1971-1975; Comp.

p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g, 300g-1, 300g-2,

300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-1, 300j-2, 300j-3, 300j-4,

300j-9, 1857 et seq., 6901-6992k, 7401-7671q, 7542, 9601-9657,

11023, 11048.

2. Section 9.1 is amended by adding a new entry to the table under

the indicated heading in numerical order to read as follows:

Sec. 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

* * * * *

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

OMB control

40 CFR citation No.

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

*****

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

for Source Categories:

*****

63.703-63.707............................................ 2060-0326

*****

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

PART 60--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Sections 101, 111, 114, 116, and 301 of the Clean Air

Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401, 7411, 7414, 7416, 7601).

Appendix B--[Amended]

2. Part 60 is amended by adding performance specifications 8 and 9

to appendix B to read as follows:

Appendix B--Performance Specifications

* * * * *

Performance Specification 8

Performance Specifications for Volatile Organic Compound Continuous

Emission Monitoring Systems in Stationary Sources

1. Applicability and Principle

1.1 Applicability.

1.1.1 This specification is to be used for evaluating a

continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) that measures a mixture

of volatile organic compounds (VOC's) and generates a single

combined response value. The VOC detection principle may be flame

ionization (FI), photoionization (PI), nondispersive infrared

absorption (NDIR), or any other detection principle that is

appropriate for the VOC species present in the emission gases and

that meets this performance specification. The performance

specification includes procedures to evaluate the acceptability of

the CEMS at the time of or soon after its installation and whenever

specified in emission regulations or permits. This specification is

not designed to evaluate the installed CEMS performance over an

extended period of time, nor does it identify specific calibration

techniques and other auxiliary procedures to assess the CEMS

performance. However, it is the responsibility of the source owner

or operator, to calibrate, maintain, and operate the CEMS properly.

Under section 114 of the Act, the Administrator may require the

operator to evaluate the CEMS performance by conducting CEMS

performance evaluations in addition to the initial test. See section

60.13(c).

The definitions, installation and measurement location

specifications, test procedures, data reduction procedures,

reporting requirements, and bibliography are the same as in PS 2,

sections 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10, and also apply to VOC CEMS's

under this specification. The performance and equipment

specifications and the relative accuracy (RA) test procedures for

VOC CEMS do not differ from those for SO2 and NOx CEMS,

except as noted below.

1.1.2 In most emission circumstances, most VOC monitors can

provide only a relative measure of the total mass or volume

concentration of a mixture of organic gases, rather than an accurate

quantification. This problem is removed when an emission standard is

based on a total VOC measurement as obtained with a particular

detection principle. In those situations where a true mass or volume

VOC concentration is needed, the problem can be mitigated by using

the VOC CEMS as a relative indicator of total VOC concentration if

statistical analysis indicates that a sufficient margin of

compliance exists for this approach to be acceptable. Otherwise,

consideration can be given to calibrating the CEMS with a mixture of

the same VOC's in the same proportions as they actually occur in the

measured source. In those circumstances where only one organic

species is present in the source, or where equal incremental amounts

of each of the organic species present generate equal CEMS

responses, the latter choice can be more easily achieved.

1.2 Principle. Calibration drift and relative accuracy tests

are conducted to determine the adherence of the CEMS to

specifications given for those items. The performance specifications

include criteria for installation and measurement location,

equipment and performance, and procedures for testing and data

reduction.

2. Performance and Equipment Specifications

2.1 VOC CEMS Selection. When possible, select a VOC CEMS with

the detection principle of the reference method specified in the

regulation or permit (usually either FI, NDIR, or PI). Otherwise,

use knowledge of the source process chemistry, previous emission

studies, or gas chromatographic analysis of the source gas to select

an appropriate VOC CEMS. Exercise extreme caution in choosing and

installing any CEMS in an area with the potential for explosive

hazards.

2.2 Data Recorder Scale. Same as section 4.1 of PS 2.

2.3 Calibration Drift. The CEMS calibration must not drift by

more than 2.5 percent of the span value.

2.4 CEMS Relative Accuracy. Unless stated otherwise in the

regulation or permit, the RA of the CEMS must be no greater than 20

percent of the mean value of the reference method (RM) test data in

terms of the units of the emission standard, or 10 percent of the

applicable standard, whichever is greater.

3. Relative Accuracy Test Procedure

3.1 Sampling Strategy for RM Tests, Correlation of RM and CEMS

Data, Number of RM Tests, and Calculations. Follow PS 2, sections

7.1, 7.2, 7.3, and 7.5, respectively.

3.2 Reference Method. Use the method specified in the

applicable regulation or permit, or any approved alternative, as the

RM.

Performance Specification 9

Specifications and Test Procedures for Gas Chromatographic Continuous

Emission Monitoring Systems in Stationary Sources

1. Applicability and Principle

1.1 Applicability. These requirements apply to continuous

emission monitoring systems (CEMS) that use gas chromatography (GC)

to measure gaseous organic compound emissions. The requirements

include procedures intended to evaluate the acceptability of the

CEMS at the time of its installation and whenever specified in

regulations or permits. Quality assurance procedures for

calibrating, maintaining, and operating the CEMS properly at all

times are also given in this procedure.

1.2 Principle. Calibration precision, calibration error, and

performance audit tests are conducted to determine conformance of

the CEMS with these specifications. Daily calibration and

maintenance requirements are also specified.

2. Definitions

2.1 Gas Chromatograph (GC). That portion of the system that

separates and detects organic analytes and generates an output

proportional to the gas concentration. The GC must be temperature

controlled.

Note: The term ``temperature controlled'' refers to the ability

to maintain a certain temperature around the column. Temperature-

programmable GC is not required for this performance specification,

as long as all other requirements for precision, linearity, and

accuracy listed in this performance specification are met. It should

be noted that temperature programming a GC will speed up peak

elution, thus allowing increased sampling frequency.

2.1.1 Column. An analytical column capable of separating the

analytes of interest.

2.1.2 Detector. A detection system capable of detecting and

quantifying all analytes of interest.

2.1.3 Integrator. That portion of the system that quantifies

the area under a particular sample peak generated by the GC.

2.1.4 Data Recorder. A strip chart recorder, computer, or

digital recorder capable of recording all readings within the

instrument's calibration range.

2.2 Calibration Precision. The error between triplicate

injections of each calibration standard.

3. Installation and Measurement Location Specifications

Install the CEMS in a location where the measurements are

representative of the source emissions. Consider other factors, such

as ease of access for calibration and maintenance purposes. The

location should not be close to air in-leakages. The sampling

location should be at least two equivalent duct diameters downstream

from the nearest control device, point of pollutant generation, or

other point at which a change in the pollutant concentration or

emission rate occurs. The location should be at least 0.5 diameter

upstream from the exhaust or control device. To calculate equivalent

duct diameter, see section 2.1 of Method 1 (40 CFR part 60, appendix

A). Sampling locations not conforming to the requirements in this

section may be used if necessary upon approval of the Administrator.

4. CEMS Performance and Equipment Specifications

4.1 Presurvey Sample Analysis and GC Selection. Determine the

pollutants to be monitored from the applicable regulation or permit

and determine the approximate concentration of each pollutant (this

information can be based on past compliance test results). Select an

appropriate GC configuration to measure the organic compounds. The

GC components should include a heated sample injection loop (or

other sample introduction systems), separatory column, temperature-

controlled oven, and detector. If the source chooses dual column

and/or dual detector configurations, each column/detector is

considered a separate instrument for the purpose of this performance

specification and thus the procedures in this performance

specification shall be carried out on each system. If this method is

applied in highly explosive areas, caution should be exercised in

selecting the equipment and method of installation.

4.2 Sampling System. The sampling system shall be heat traced

and maintained at a minimum of 120 deg.C with no cold spots. All

system components shall be heated, including the probe, calibration

valve, sample lines, sampling loop (or sample introduction system),

GC oven, and the detector block (when appropriate for the type of

detector being utilized, e.g., flame ionization detector).

4.3 Calibration Gases. Obtain three concentrations of

calibration gases certified by the manufacturer to be accurate to

within 2 percent of the value on the label. A gas dilution system

may be used to prepare the calibration gases from a high

concentration certified standard if the gas dilution system meets

the requirements specified in Test Method 205, 40 CFR part 51,

appendix M. The performance test specified in Test Method 205 shall

be repeated quarterly, and the results of the Method 205 test shall

be included in the report. The calibration gas concentration of each

target analyte shall be as follows (measured concentration is based

on the presurvey concentration determined in section 4.1).

Note: If the low level calibration gas concentration falls at

or below the limit of detection for the instrument for any target

pollutant, a calibration gas with a concentration at 4 to 5 times

the limit of detection for the instrument may be substituted for the

low-level calibration gas listed in section 4.3.1

4.3.1 Low-level. 40-60 percent of measured concentration.

4.3.2 Mid-level. 90-110 percent of measured concentration.

4.3.3 High-level. 140-160 percent of measured concentration, or

select highest expected concentration.

4.4 Performance Audit Gas. A certified EPA audit gas shall be

used, when possible. A Protocol 1 gas mixture containing all the

target compounds within the calibration range may be used when EPA

performance audit materials are not available. The instrument

relative error shall be 10 percent of the certified value

of the audit gas.

4.5 Calibration Error (CE). The CEMS must allow the

determination of CE at all three calibration levels. The average

CEMS calibration response must not differ by more than 10 percent of

calibration gas value at each level after each 24-hour period of the

initial test.

4.6 Calibration Precision and Linearity. For each triplicate

injection at each concentration level for each target analyte, any

one injection shall not deviate more than 5 percent from the average

concentration measured at that level. The linear regression curve

for each organic compound at all three levels shall have an r\2\

0.995 (using Equation 1).

4.7 Measurement Frequency. The sample to be analyzed shall flow

continuously through the sampling system. The sampling system time

constant (T) shall be 5 minutes or the sampling frequency

specified in the applicable regulation, whichever is less. Use

Equation 3 to determine T. The analytical system shall be capable of

measuring the effluent stream at the frequency specified in the

appropriate regulation or permit.

5. Performance Specification Test (PST) Periods

5.1 Pretest Preparation Period. Using the procedures described

in Method 18 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A), perform initial tests to

determine GC conditions that provide good resolution and minimum

analysis time for compounds of interest. Resolution interferences

that may occur can be eliminated by appropriate GC column and

detector choice or by shifting the retention times through changes

in the column flow rate and the use of temperature programming.

5.2 7-Day CE Test Period. At the beginning of each 24-hour

period, set the initial instrument setpoints by conducting a

multipoint calibration for each compound. The multipoint calibration

shall meet the requirements in section 4.7. Throughout the 24-hour

period, sample and analyze the stack gas at the sampling intervals

prescribed in the regulation or permit. At the end of the 24-hour

period, inject the three calibration gases for each compound in

triplicate and determine the average instrument response. Determine

the CE for each pollutant at each level using the equation in

section 6.2. Each CE shall be 10 percent. Repeat this

procedure six more times for a total of 7 consecutive days.

5.3 Performance Audit Test Periods. Conduct the performance

audit once during the initial 7-day CE test and quarterly

thereafter. Sample and analyze the EPA audit gas(es) (or the

Protocol 1 gas mixture if an EPA audit gas is not available) three

times. Calculate the average instrument response. Report the audit

results as part of the reporting requirements in the appropriate

regulation or permit (if using a Protocol 1 gas mixture, report the

certified cylinder concentration of each pollutant).

6. Equations

6.1 Coefficient of Determination. Calculate r2 using

linear regression analysis and the average concentrations obtained

at three calibration points as shown in Equation 1.

TR15DE94.000

Where:

r2=Coefficient of determination.

n=Number of measurement points.

x=CEMS response.

y=Actual value of calibration standard.

6.2 Calibration Error Determination. Determine the percent

calibration error (CE) at each concentration for each pollutant

using the following equation.

TR15DE94.001

where:

Cm=average instrument response, ppm.

Ca=cylinder gas value, ppm.

6.3 Sampling System Time Constant (T).

TR15DE94.002

where:

F=Flow rate of stack gas through sampling system, in liters/min.

V=Sample system volume, in Liters, which is the volume inside the

sample probe and tubing leading from the stack to the sampling loop.

7. Daily Calibration

7.1 Initial Multipoint Calibration. After initial startup of

the GC, after routine maintenance or repair, or at least once per

month, conduct a multipoint calibration of the GC for each target

analyte. The multipoint calibration for each analyte shall meet the

requirements in section 4.7.

7.2 Daily Calibration. Once every 24 hours, analyze the mid-

level calibration standard for each analyte in triplicate. Calculate

the average instrument response for each analyte. The average

instrument response shall not vary more than 10 percent from the

certified concentration value of the cylinder for each analyte. If

the difference between the analyzer response and the cylinder

concentration for any target compound is greater than 10 percent,

immediately take corrective action on the instrument if necessary,

and conduct an initial multipoint calibration as described in

section 7.1.

8. Reporting

Follow the reporting requirements of the applicable regulation

or permit. If the reporting requirements include the results of this

performance specification, summarize in tabular form the results of

the CE tests. Include all data sheets, calculations, CEMS data

records, performance audit results, and calibration gas

concentrations and certifications.

PART 63--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart EE to read as follows:

Subpart EE--National Emission Standards for Magnetic Tape Manufacturing

Operations

63.701 Applicability.

63.702 Definitions.

63.703 Standards.

63.704 Compliance and monitoring requirements.

63.705 Performance test methods and procedures to determine initial

compliance.

63.706 Recordkeeping requirements.

63.707 Reporting requirements.

63.708 Delegation of authority.

Subpart EE--National Emission Standards For Magnetic Tape

Manufacturing Operations

Sec. 63.701 Applicability.

(a) Except as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, the

provisions of this subpart apply to:

(1) Each new and existing magnetic tape manufacturing operation

located at a major source of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions;

and

(2) A magnetic tape manufacturing operation for which the owner or

operator chooses to use the provisions of Sec. 63.703(b) and (h) to

obtain a Federally enforceable limit on its potential to emit HAP.

Explanatory Note: A reason the owner or operator would make the

choice described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section is if the plant

site, without this limit, would be a major source. The owner or

operator could use this limit, which would establish the potential

to emit from magnetic tape manufacturing operations, in conjunction

with the potential to emit from the other HAP emission points at the

stationary source, to be an area source. Note, however, that an

owner or operator is not required to use the provisions in

Sec. 63.703(b) and (h) to determine the potential to emit HAP from

magnetic tape manufacturing operations.

(b) This subpart does not apply to the following:

(1) Research or laboratory facilities; and

(2) Any coating operation that produces a quantity of magnetic tape

that is 1 percent or less of total production (in terms of total square

footage coated) from that coating operation in any 12-month period.

(c) The affected source subject to this standard is the magnetic

tape manufacturing operation, as defined in Sec. 63.702.

(d) An owner or operator of an existing affected source subject to

the provisions of this subpart shall comply according to the following

schedule:

(1) Within 3 years after the effective date of the standard, if the

owner or operator is required to install a new add-on air pollution

control device to meet the requirements of Sec. 63.703(c) or (g); or

(2) Within 2 years after the effective date of the standard, if a

new add-on air pollution control device is not needed to comply with

Sec. 63.703(c) or (g) of these standards.

(e) The compliance date for an owner or operator of a new affected

source subject to the provisions of this subpart is immediately upon

startup of the affected source.

(f) The provisions of this subpart apply during periods of startup

and shutdown, and whenever magnetic tape manufacturing operations are

taking place.

(g) Owners or operators of affected sources subject to the

provisions of this subpart shall also comply with the requirements of

subpart A as identified in Table 1, according to the applicability of

subpart A to such sources.

(h) In any title V permit for an affected source, all research or

laboratory facilities that are exempt from the requirements of this

subpart shall be clearly identified.

Sec. 63.702 Definitions.

(a) All terms used in this subpart that are not defined below have

the meaning given to them in the Clean Air Act and in subpart A of this

part.

Add-on air pollution control device means equipment installed at

the end of a process vent exhaust stack or stacks that reduces the

quantity of a pollutant that is emitted to the air. The device may

destroy or secure the pollutant for subsequent recovery. Examples are

incinerators, condensers, carbon adsorbers, and biofiltration units.

Transfer equipment and ductwork are not considered in and of themselves

add-on air pollution control devices.

Bag slitter means a device for enclosed transfer of particulates. A

bag of raw materials is placed in a hopper, the hopper is closed, and

an internal mechanism slits the bag, releasing the particulates into

either a closed conveyor that feeds the mix preparation equipment or

into the mix preparation equipment itself.

Base substrate means the surface, such as plastic or paper, to

which a coating is applied.

Capture efficiency means the fraction of all organic vapors or

other pollutants generated by a process that are directed to an add-on

air pollution control device.

Capture device means a hood, enclosed room, or other means of

collecting HAP vapors or other pollutants into a duct that exhausts to

an add-on air pollution control device.

Carbon adsorber vessel means one vessel in a series of vessels in a

carbon adsorption system that contains carbon and is used to remove

gaseous pollutants from a gaseous emission source.

Car seal means a seal that is placed on a device that is used

either to open a closed valve or close an opened valve so that the

position of the valve cannot be changed without breaking the seal.

Closed system for flushing fixed lines means a system in which the

line to be flushed is disconnected from its original position and

connected to two closed containers, one that contains cleaning solvent

and one that is empty. Solvent is flushed from the container with

cleaning solvent, through the line, and into the empty containers.

Coater or coating applicator means the apparatus used to apply a

coating to a continuous base substrate.

Coating application means the process by which the coating mix is

applied to the base substrate.

Coating operation means any coater, flashoff area, and drying oven

located between a base substrate unwind station and a base substrate

rewind station that coats a continuous base substrate.

Control device efficiency means the ratio of the emissions

collected or destroyed by an add-on air pollution control device to the

total emissions that are introduced to the control device, expressed as

a percentage.

Day means a 24-consecutive-hour period.

Drying oven means a chamber that uses heat to bake, cure,

polymerize, or dry a surface coating; if the coating contains volatile

solvents, the volatile portion is evaporated in the oven.

Enclosed transfer method means a particulate HAP transfer method

that uses an enclosed system to prevent particulate HAP from entering

the atmosphere as dust. Equipment used for this purpose may include

vacuum injection systems or other mechanical transfer systems, bag

slitters, or supersacks.

Equivalent diameter means four times the area of an opening divided

by its perimeter.

Facility means all contiguous or adjoining property that is under

common ownership or control in which magnetic tape manufacturing is

performed. The definition includes properties that are separated only

by a road or other public right-of-way.

Flashoff area means the portion of a coating operation between the

coater and the drying oven where solvent begins to evaporate from the

coated base substrate.

Flushing of fixed lines means the flushing of solvent through lines

that are typically fixed and are not associated with the cleaning of a

tank, such as the line from the mix room to the coater.

Freeboard ratio means the vertical distance from the surface of the

liquid to the top of the sink or tank (freeboard height) divided by the

smaller of the length or width of the sink or tank evaporative area.

Magnetic coatings means coatings applied to base substrates to make

magnetic tape. Components of magnetic coatings may include: Magnetic

particles, binders, dispersants, conductive pigments, lubricants,

solvents, and other additives.

Magnetic particles means particles in the coating mix that have

magnetic properties. Examples of magnetic particles used in magnetic

tape manufacturing are: y-oxide, doped iron oxides, chromium dioxide,

barium ferrite, and metallic particles that usually consist of

elemental iron, cobalt, and/or nickel.

Magnetic tape means any flexible base substrate that is covered on

one or both sides with a coating containing magnetic particles and that

is used for audio recording, video recording, or any type of

information storage.

Magnetic tape manufacturing operation means all of the emission

points within a magnetic tape manufacturing facility that are

specifically associated with the manufacture of magnetic tape. These

include, but are not limited to:

(1) Solvent storage tanks;

(2) Mix preparation equipment;

(3) Coating operations;

(4) Waste handling devices;

(5) Particulate transfer operations;

(6) Wash sinks for cleaning removable parts;

(7) Cleaning involving the flushing of fixed lines;

(8) Wastewater treatment systems; and

(9) Condenser vents associated with distillation and stripping

columns in the solvent recovery area, but not including the vent on a

condenser that is used as the add-on air pollution control device.

Mill means the pressurized equipment that uses the dispersing

action of beads, combined with the high shearing forces of the

centrifugal mixing action, to disperse the aggregates of magnetic

particles thoroughly without reducing particle size.

Mix preparation equipment means the vessels, except for mills, used

to prepare the magnetic coating.

Natural draft opening means any opening in a room, building, or

total enclosure that remains open during operation of the facility and

that is not connected to a duct in which a fan is installed. The rate

and direction of the natural draft through such an opening is a

consequence of the difference in pressures on either side of the wall

containing the opening.

Nonregenerative carbon adsorber means a carbon adsorber vessel in

which the spent carbon bed does not undergo carbon regeneration in the

adsorption vessel.

Operating parameter value means a minimum or maximum value

established for a control device or process parameter that, if achieved

by itself or in combination with one or more other operating parameter

values, determines that an owner or operator has complied with an

applicable emission limitation or standard.

Overall HAP control efficiency means the total efficiency of the

control system, determined by the product of the capture efficiency and

the control device efficiency.

Particulate means any material, except uncombined water, that

exists as liquid or solid particles such as dust, smoke, mist, or fumes

at standard conditions (760 millimeters of mercury, 0 degrees celsius).

Particulate HAP transfer means the introduction of a particulate

HAP into other dry ingredients or a liquid solution.

Removable parts cleaning means cleaning of parts that have been

moved from their normal position to a wash tank or sink containing

solvent for the purpose of cleaning.

Research or laboratory facility means any stationary source whose

primary purpose is to conduct research and development to develop new

processes and products, where such source is operated under the close

supervision of technically trained personnel and is not engaged in the

manufacture of products for commercial sale in commerce, except in a de

minimis manner.

Separator means a device in the wastewater treatment system in

which immiscible solvent is physically separated from the water with

which it is mixed.

Solvent storage tanks means the stationary tanks that are

associated with magnetic tape operations and that store virgin solvent,

spent solvent, cleaning solvent, solvent at any stage of the solvent

recovery process, or any volatile compound. They do not serve a process

function.

Solvent recovery area means the collection of devices used to

remove HAP emissions from process air, to recover the HAP, and to

purify the HAP. Typically, this area contains a control device such as

a carbon adsorber or condenser, the wastewater treatment system, and

the distillation columns.

Solvent recovery device means, for the purposes of this subpart, an

add-on air pollution control device in which HAP is captured rather

than destroyed. Examples include carbon adsorption systems and

condensers.

Supersack means a container of particulate from the manufacturer or

supplier with attached feed tubes and that is used to transfer

particulate under the following conditions: the feed tubes are attached

directly to the mix preparation equipment, the attachment interface is

sealed, and all openings on the mix transfer equipment are closed to

the atmosphere.

Temporary total enclosure means a total enclosure that is

constructed for the sole purpose of measuring the fugitive emissions

from an affected source. A temporary total enclosure must be

constructed and ventilated (through stacks suitable for testing) so

that it has minimal impact on the performance of the permanent capture

system. A temporary total enclosure will be assumed to achieve total

capture of fugitive emissions if it conforms to the requirements found

in Sec. 63.705(c)(4)(i) and if all natural draft openings are at least

four duct or hood equivalent diameters away from each exhaust duct or

hood. Alternatively, the owner or operator may apply to the

Administrator for approval of a temporary enclosure on a case-by-case

basis.

Total enclosure means a structure that is constructed around a

gaseous emission source so that all gaseous pollutants emitted from the

source are collected and ducted through a control device, such that 100

percent capture efficiency is achieved. There are no fugitive emissions

from a total enclosure. The only openings in a total enclosure are

forced makeup air and exhaust ducts and any natural draft openings such

as those that allow raw materials to enter and exit the enclosure for

processing. All access doors or windows are closed during routine

operation of the enclosed source. Brief, occasional openings of such

doors or windows to accommodate process equipment adjustments are

acceptable, but if such openings are routine or if an access door

remains open during the entire operation, the access door must be

considered a natural draft opening. The average inward face velocity

across the natural draft openings of the enclosure must be calculated

including the area of such access doors. The drying oven itself may be

part of the total enclosure. A permanent enclosure that meets the

requirements found in Sec. 63.705(c)(4)(i) is a total enclosure.

Utilize means the use of HAP that is delivered to mix preparation

equipment for the purpose of formulating coatings, the use of any other

HAP (e.g., dilution solvent) that is added at any point in the

manufacturing process, and the use of any HAP for cleaning activities.

Alternatively, annual HAP utilization can be determined as net usage;

that is, the HAP inventory at the beginning of a 12-month period, plus

the amount of HAP purchased during the 12-month period, minus the

amount of HAP in inventory at the end of a 12-month period.

Vacuum injection system means a system in which a vacuum draws

particulate from a storage container into a closed system that

transfers particulates into the mix preparation equipment.

Volatile organic compound (VOC) means any organic compound that

participates in atmospheric photochemical reactions or that is measured

by EPA Test Methods 18, 24, or 25A in appendix A of part 60 or an

alternative test method as defined in Sec. 63.2.

Volatile organic hazardous air pollutant (VOHAP) concentration

means the concentration of an individually-speciated organic HAP in a

wastewater discharge that is measured by Method 305 of appendix A to 40

CFR part 63.

Waste handling means processing or treatment of waste (liquid or

solid) that is generated as a by-product of either the magnetic tape

production process or cleaning operations.

Waste handling device means equipment that is used to separate

solvent from solid waste (e.g., filter dryers) or liquid waste (e.g.,

pot stills and thin film evaporators). The solvents are recovered by

heating, condensing, and collection.

Wastewater discharge means the water phase that is discharged from

the separator in a wastewater treatment system.

Wastewater treatment system means the assortment of devices in

which the solvent/water mixture, generated when the carbon bed in the

carbon adsorber is desorbed by steam, is treated to remove residual

organics in the water.

(b) The nomenclature used in this subpart is defined when presented

or has the meaning given below:

(1) Ak = the area of each natural draft opening (k) in a total

enclosure, in square meters.

(2) Caj = the concentration of HAP or VOC in each gas stream

(j) exiting the emission control device, in parts per million by

volume.

(3) Cbi = the concentration of HAP or VOC in each gas stream

(i) entering the emission control device, in parts per million by

volume.

(4) Cdi = the concentration of HAP or VOC in each gas stream

(i) entering the emission control device from the affected source, in

parts per million by volume.

(5) Cfk = the concentration of HAP or VOC in each uncontrolled

gas stream (k) emitted directly to the atmosphere from the affected

source, in parts per million by volume.

(6) Cgv = the concentration of HAP or VOC in each uncontrolled

gas stream entering each individual carbon adsorber vessel (v), in

parts per million by volume. For the purposes of calculating the

efficiency of the individual carbon adsorber vessel, Cgv may be

measured in the carbon adsorption system's common inlet duct prior to

the branching of individual inlet ducts to the individual carbon

adsorber vessels.

(7) Chv = the concentration of HAP or VOC in the gas stream

exiting each individual carbon adsorber vessel (v), in parts per

million by volume.

(8) E = the control device efficiency achieved for the duration of

the emission test (expressed as a fraction).

(9) F = the HAP or VOC emission capture efficiency of the HAP or

VOC capture system achieved for the duration of the emission test

(expressed as a fraction).

(10) FV = the average inward face velocity across all natural draft

openings in a total enclosure, in meters per hour.

(11) G = the calculated mass of HAP per volume of coating solids

(in kilograms per liter) contained in a batch of coating.

(12) Hv = the individual carbon adsorber vessel (v) efficiency

achieved for the duration of the emission test (expressed as a

fraction).

(13) Hsys = the efficiency of the carbon adsorption system

calculated when each carbon adsorber vessel has an individual exhaust

stack (expressed as a fraction).

(14) Lsi = the volume fraction of solids in each batch of

coating (i) applied as determined from the formulation records at the

affected source.

(15) Mci = the total mass in kilograms of each batch of

coating (i) applied, or of each coating applied at an affected coating

operation during a 7-day period, as appropriate, as determined from

records at the affected source. This quantity shall be determined at a

time and location in the process after all ingredients (including any

dilution solvent) have been added to the coating, or if ingredients are

added after the mass of the coating has been determined, appropriate

adjustments shall be made to account for them.

(16) Mr = the total mass in kilograms of HAP or VOC recovered

for a 7-day period.

(17) Qaj = the volumetric flow rate of each gas stream (j)

exiting the emission control device in either dry standard cubic meters

per hour when EPA Method 18 in appendix A of part 60 is used to measure

HAP or VOC concentration or in standard cubic meters per hour (wet

basis) when EPA Method 25A is used to measure HAP or VOC concentration.

(18) Qbi = the volumetric flow rate of each gas stream (i)

entering the emission control device, in dry standard cubic meters per

hour when EPA Method 18 is used to measure HAP or VOC concentration or

in standard cubic meters per hour (wet basis) when EPA Method 25A is

used to measure HAP or VOC concentration.

(19) Qdi = the volumetric flow rate of each gas stream (i)

entering the emission control device from the affected source in either

dry standard cubic meters per hour when EPA Method 18 is used to

measure HAP or VOC concentration or in standard cubic meters per hour

(wet basis) when EPA Method 25A is used to measure HAP or VOC

concentration.

(20) Qfk = the volumetric flow rate of each uncontrolled gas

stream (k) emitted directly to the atmosphere from the affected source

in either dry standard cubic meters per hour when EPA Method 18 is used

to measure HAP or VOC concentration or in standard cubic meters per

hour (wet basis) when EPA Method 25A is used to measure HAP or VOC

concentration.

(21) Qgv = the volumetric flow rate of each gas stream

entering each individual carbon adsorber vessel (v) in either dry

standard cubic meters per hour when EPA Method 18 is used to measure

HAP or VOC concentration or in standard cubic meters per hour (wet

basis) when EPA Method 25A is used to measure HAP or VOC concentration.

For purposes of calculating the efficiency of the individual carbon

adsorber vessel, the value of Qgv can be assumed to equal the

value of Qhv measured for that carbon adsorber vessel.

(22) Qhv = the volumetric flow rate of each gas stream exiting

each individual carbon adsorber vessel (v) in either dry standard cubic

meters per hour when EPA Method 18 is used to measure HAP or VOC

concentration or in standard cubic meters per hour (wet basis) when EPA

Method 25A is used to measure HAP or VOC concentration.

(23) Qin i = the volumetric flow rate of each gas stream (i)

entering the total enclosure through a forced makeup air duct in

standard cubic meters per hour (wet basis).

(24) Qout j = the volumetric flow rate of each gas stream (j)

exiting the total enclosure through an exhaust duct or hood in standard

cubic meters per hour (wet basis).

(25) R = the overall HAP or VOC emission reduction achieved for the

duration of the emission test (expressed as a percentage).

(26) RSi = the total mass in kilograms of HAP or VOC retained

in the coated substrate after oven drying for a given magnetic tape

product.

(27) Vci = the total volume in liters of each batch of coating

(i) applied as determined from records at the affected source.

(28) Woi = the weight fraction of HAP or VOC in each batch of

coating (i) applied, or of each coating applied at an affected coating

operation during a 7-day period, as appropriate, as determined by EPA

Method 24 or formulation data. This value shall be determined at a time

and location in the process after all ingredients (including any

dilution solvent) have been added to the coating, or if ingredients are

added after the weight fraction of HAP or VOC in the coating has been

determined, appropriate adjustments shall be made to account for them.

Sec. 63.703 Standards.

(a) Each owner or operator of any affected source that is subject

to the requirements of this subpart shall comply with the requirements

of this subpart on and after the compliance dates specified in

Sec. 63.701.

(b)(1) The owner or operator subject to Sec. 63.701(a)(2) shall

determine limits on the amount of HAP utilized (see definition) in the

magnetic tape manufacturing operation as the values for the potential

to emit HAP from the magnetic tape manufacturing operation.

(2) The limits on the amount of HAP utilized in the magnetic tape

manufacturing operations shall be determined in the following manner.

(i) The potential to emit each HAP from each emission point at the

stationary source, other than those from magnetic tape manufacturing

operations, shall be calculated and converted to the units of Mg/yr (or

tons/yr).

(ii) The limits on the HAP utilized in the magnetic tape

manufacturing operation shall be determined as the values that, when

summed with the values in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, are less

than 9.1 Mg/yr (10 tons/yr) for each individual HAP and 22.7 Mg/yr (25

tons/yr) for the combination of HAP.

(3) The limits on the HAP utilized determined in paragraph (b)(2)

of this section shall be in terms of Mg/yr (or tons/yr), calculated

monthly on a rolling 12-month average. The owner or operator shall not

exceed these limits.

(4) An owner or operator subject to paragraph (b) of this section

shall meet the requirements in paragraph (h) of this section.

(5) A magnetic tape manufacturing operation that is subject to

paragraph (b) of this section and is located at an area source is not

subject to paragraphs (c) through (g) of this section.

(c) Except as provided by Sec. 63.703(b), each owner or operator of

an affected source subject to this subpart shall limit gaseous HAP

emitted from each solvent storage tank, piece of mix preparation

equipment, coating operation, waste handling device, and condenser vent

in solvent recovery as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(5) of

this section:

(1) Except as otherwise allowed in paragraphs (c)(2), (3), (4), and

(5) of this section, each owner or operator shall limit gaseous HAP

emitted from each solvent storage tank, piece of mix preparation

equipment, coating operation, waste handling device, and condenser vent

in solvent recovery by an overall HAP control efficiency of at least 95

percent.

(2) An owner or operator that uses an incinerator to control

emission points listed in paragraph (c)(1) of this section may choose

to meet the overall HAP control efficiency requirement of paragraph

(c)(1) of this section, or may operate the incinerator such that an

outlet HAP concentration of no greater than 20 parts per million by

volume (ppmv) by compound on a dry basis is achieved, as long as the

efficiency of the capture system is 100 percent.

(3) An owner or operator may choose to meet the requirements of

paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this section by venting the room, building,

or enclosure in which the HAP emission point is located to an add-on

air pollution control device, as long as the required overall HAP

control efficiency of this method is sufficient to meet the

requirements of paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this section.

(4) In lieu of controlling HAP emissions from each solvent storage

tank to the level required by paragraph (c)(1) of this section, an

owner or operator of an affected source may:

(i) Control HAP emissions from all coating operations by an overall

HAP control efficiency of at least 97 percent in lieu of controlling 10

HAP solvent storage tanks that do not exceed 20,000 gallons each in

capacity; or

(ii) Control HAP emissions from all coating operations by an over

HAP control efficiency of at least 98 percent in lieu of controlling 15

HAP solvent storage tanks that do not exceed 20,000 gallons each in

capacity; or

(iii) Control HAP emissions from all coating operations by an

overall HAP control efficiency of at least 99 percent in lieu of

controlling 20 HAP solvent storage tanks that do not exceed 20,000

gallons each in capacity.

(iv) Owners or operators choosing to meet the requirements of

paragraphs (c)(4)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this section are also subject

to the reporting requirement of Sec. 63.707(k).

(5) In lieu of controlling HAP emissions from a coating operation

to the level required by paragraph (c)(1) of this section, owners or

operators may use magnetic coatings that contain no greater than 0.18

kilograms of HAP per liter of coating solids for that coating

operation. For the requirements of this paragraph, Secs. 63.6(e)(3),

63.6(f) (1) and (2), 63.8(b) (2) and (3), 63.8(c), 63.8(d), 63.8(e),

63.8(g), 63.9 (e) and (g), 63.10(c), 63.10(d) (2), (3), and (5),

63.10(e) (1) and (2), and 63.11 of subpart A do not apply.

(d) Particulate transfer operations. Except as stipulated by

Sec. 63.703(b), each owner or operator of an affected source subject to

this subpart shall:

(1) Use an enclosed transfer method to perform particulate HAP

transfer; or

(2) Direct emissions from particulate HAP transfer through a hood

or enclosure to a baghouse or fabric filter that exhibits no visible

emissions while controlling HAP emissions from particulate HAP

transfer.

(e) Wash sinks for cleaning removable parts. (1) Except as

stipulated by Sec. 63.703(b), each owner or operator of an affected

source subject to this subpart shall limit gaseous HAP emissions from

each wash sink containing HAP:

(i) So that the overall HAP control efficiency is no less than 88

percent; or

(ii) By maintaining a minimum freeboard ratio of 75 percent in the

wash sink at all times when the sink contains HAP.

(2) Owners or operators may meet the requirements of paragraph

(e)(1)(i) of this section by venting the room, building, or enclosure

in which the sink is located, as long as the overall HAP control

efficiency of this method is demonstrated to be at least 88 percent

using the test methods in Sec. 63.705(e).

(3) Wash sinks subject to the control provisions of subpart T of

this part are not subject to paragraph (e)(1) or (e)(2) of this

section.

(f) Equipment for flushing fixed lines. (1) Except as stipulated by

Sec. 63.703(b), each owner or operator of an affected source subject to

this subpart shall limit gaseous HAP emissions from each affected set

of equipment for flushing fixed lines:

(i) So that the overall HAP control efficiency is at least 95

percent; or

(ii) By using a closed system for flushing fixed lines.

(2) Owners or operators may meet the requirements of paragraph

(f)(1)(i) of this section by venting the room, building, or enclosure

in which the fixed lines are located, as long as the overall HAP

control efficiency of this method is demonstrated to be at least 95

percent using the test methods in Sec. 63.705(f).

(g) Wastewater treatment systems. (1) Except as stipulated by

Sec. 63.703(b), each owner or operator of an affected source subject to

this subpart shall:

(i) Treat the wastewater discharge to remove each HAP from magnetic

tape manufacturing operations that is present in the wastewater

discharge by at least the fraction removed (FR) specified in Table

9 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart G; or

(ii) Treat (other than by dilution) the HAP from magnetic tape

manufacturing operations that are present in the wastewater discharge

such that the exit concentration is less than 50 ppmw of total VOHAP.

(2) The treatment method used to meet the requirements of paragraph

(g)(1) of this section shall not transfer emissions from the water to

the atmosphere in an uncontrolled manner.

(h)(1) Magnetic tape manufacturing operations that are subject to

Sec. 63.703(b) and are not at major sources are not subject to

Secs. 63.6(e), 63.6(f), 63.6(g), 63.6(i)(4), 63.7, 63.8, 63.9 (c)

through (h), 63.10(b)(2), 63.10(c), 63.10(d) (2) through (5), 63.10(e),

and 63.11 of subpart A.

(2) Magnetic tape manufacturing operations subject to

Sec. 63.703(b) shall fulfill the recordkeeping requirements of

Sec. 63.706(e) and the reporting requirements of Sec. 63.707 (b), (c),

and (j).

(3) An owner or operator of a magnetic tape manufacturing operation

subject to Sec. 63.703(b) who chooses to no longer be subject to

Sec. 63.703(b) shall notify the Administrator or delegated State of

such change. If by no longer being subject to Sec. 63.703(b), the

source at which the magnetic tape manufacturing operation is located

would become a major source, the owner or operator shall meet the

following requirements, starting from the date of such notification:

(i) Comply with paragraphs (c) through (g) of this section, and

other provisions of this subpart within the timeframe specified in

Sec. 63.6(c)(5); and

(ii) Comply with the HAP utilization limits in Sec. 63.703(b) until

the requirements of paragraph (h)(3)(i) of this section are met.

(i) For any solvent storage tank, piece of mix preparation

equipment, waste handling device, condenser vent in solvent recovery,

wash sink for cleaning removable parts, and set of equipment for

flushing of fixed lines, the owner or operator may, instead of meeting

the requirements of paragraphs (c)(1), (e)(1)(i), or (f)(1)(i) of this

section, vent the gaseous HAP emissions to an add-on air pollution

control device other than an incinerator that, in conjunction with

capture equipment or ductwork, is designed to achieve an overall HAP

control efficiency of at least 95 percent for the emissions from the

coating operation, and achieve an alternate outlet concentration limit

when coating operations are not occurring, as determined in

Sec. 63.704(b)(11)(ii).

(j) The requirements of this subpart do not preclude the use of

pressure relief valves and vacuum relief valves for safety purposes.

Sec. 63.704 Compliance and monitoring requirements.

(a) For owners or operators of an affected source that are using

add-on air pollution control equipment or a steam stripper to comply

with Sec. 63.703, paragraph (b) of this section identifies the

operating parameter to be monitored to demonstrate continuous

compliance. For all owners or operators subject to Sec. 63.703, except

Sec. 63.703(b) and (h), regardless of the type of control technique

used, paragraph (c) of this section identifies the procedures that must

be followed to demonstrate continuous compliance with Sec. 63.703.

(b) Establishing a limit under Sec. 63.703(i) and operating

parameter values. The owner or operator of an affected source subject

to Sec. 63.703 except Sec. 63.703(b) and (h), shall establish the

operating parameter value to be monitored for compliance as required by

paragraph (c) of this section, in accordance with paragraphs (b)(1)

through (b)(11) of this section. An owner or operator subject to

Sec. 63.703(i) shall establish a limit as required in paragraph

(b)(11)(ii) of this section.

(1) Except as allowed by paragraphs (b)(2), (3), (4), (5), or (9)

of this section, for each add-on air pollution control device used to

control solvent HAP emissions, the owner or operator shall fulfill the

requirements of paragraph (b)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section.

(i) The owner or operator shall establish as a site-specific

operating parameter the outlet total HAP or VOC concentration that

demonstrates compliance with Sec. 63.703(c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(4),

(e)(1)(i), (f)(1)(i), or (i) as appropriate; or

(ii) The owner or operator shall establish as the site-specific

operating parameter the control device efficiency that demonstrates

compliance with Sec. 63.703(c)(1), (c)(4), (e)(1)(i), and (f)(1)(i).

(iii) When a nonregenerative carbon adsorber is used to comply with

Sec. 63.703(c)(1), the site-specific operating parameter value may be

established as part of the design evaluation used to demonstrate

initial compliance (Sec. 63.705(c)(6)). Otherwise, the site-specific

operating parameter value shall be established during the initial

performance test conducted according to the procedures of

Sec. 63.705(c)(1), (2), (3), or (4).

(2) For each condenser used as the add-on air pollution control

device to comply with Sec. 63.703(c), (e)(1)(i), (f)(1)(i) or (i), in

lieu of meeting the requirements of Sec. 63.704(b)(1), during the

initial performance test conducted according to the procedures of

Sec. 63.705(c)(1), (2), or (4), the owner or operator may establish as

a site-specific operating parameter the maximum temperature of the

condenser vapor exhaust stream and shall set the operating parameter

value that demonstrates compliance with Sec. 63.703(c), (e)(1)(i),

(f)(1)(i) or (i) as appropriate;

(3) For each thermal incinerator, in lieu of meeting the

requirements of Sec. 63.704(b)(1), during the initial performance test

conducted according to the procedures of Sec. 63.705(c)(1), (2), or

(4), the owner or operator may establish as a site-specific operating

parameter the minimum combustion temperature and set the operating

parameter value that demonstrates compliance with Sec. 63.703(c),

(e)(1)(i), or (f)(1)(i), as appropriate.

(4) For each catalytic incinerator, in lieu of meeting the

requirements of Sec. 63.704(b)(1), during the initial performance test

conducted according to the procedures of Sec. 63.705(c)(1), (2), or

(4), the owner or operator may establish as site-specific operating

parameters the minimum gas temperature upstream of the catalyst bed and

the minimum gas temperature difference across the catalyst bed, and set

the operating parameter values that demonstrate compliance with

Sec. 63.703(c), (e)(1)(i), or (f)(1)(i), as appropriate.

(5) For each nonregenerative carbon adsorber, in lieu of meeting

the requirements of Sec. 63.704(b)(1), the owner or operator may

establish as the site-specific operating parameter the carbon

replacement time interval, as determined by the maximum design flow

rate and organic concentration in the gas stream vented to the carbon

adsorption system. The carbon replacement time interval shall be

established either as part of the design evaluation to demonstrate

initial compliance (Sec. 63.705(c)(6)), or during the initial

performance test conducted according to the procedures of

Sec. 63.705(c)(1), (2), (3), or (4).

(6) Each owner or operator venting solvent HAP emissions from a

source through a room, enclosure, or hood, to a control device to

comply with Sec. 63.703(c), (e)(1)(i), (f)(1)(i), or (i) shall:

(i) Submit to the Administrator with the compliance status report

required by Sec. 63.9(h) of the General Provisions a plan that:

(A) Identifies the operating parameter to be monitored to ensure

that the capture efficiency measured during the initial compliance test

is maintained;

(B) Discusses why this parameter is appropriate for demonstrating

ongoing compliance; and

(C) Identifies the specific monitoring procedures;

(ii) Set the operating parameter value, or range of values, that

demonstrate compliance with Sec. 63.703(c), (e)(1)(i), (f)(1)(i), or

(i), as appropriate; and

(iii) Conduct monitoring in accordance with the plan submitted to

the Administrator unless comments received from the Administrator

require an alternate monitoring scheme.

(7) For each baghouse or fabric filter used to control particulate

HAP emissions in accordance with Sec. 63.703(d)(2), the owner or

operator shall establish as the site-specific operating parameter the

minimum ventilation air flow rate through the inlet duct to the

baghouse or fabric filter that ensures that particulate HAP are being

captured and delivered to the control device. The minimum ventilation

air flow rate is to be supported by the engineering calculations that

are considered part of the initial performance test, as required by

Sec. 63.705(g)(2).

(8) Owners or operators subject to Sec. 63.704(b)(1), (2), (3),

(4), (5), (6), or (7) shall calculate the site-specific operating

parameter value, or range of values, as the arithmetic average of the

maximum and/or minimum operating parameter values, as appropriate, that

demonstrate compliance with Sec. 63.703(c), (d), (e), (f) or (i) during

the multiple test runs required by Sec. 63.705(b)(2) and (b)(1), or

during the multiple runs of other tests conducted as allowed by

paragraph Sec. 63.704(b)(11).

(9) For each solvent recovery device used to comply with

Sec. 63.703(c), in lieu of meeting the requirements of paragraph (b)(1)

of this section, the results of the material balance calculation

conducted in accordance with Sec. 63.705(c)(1) may serve as the site-

specific operating parameter that demonstrates compliance with

Sec. 63.703(c).

(10) Owners or operators complying with the provisions of

Sec. 63.703(g) shall establish the site-specific operating parameter

according to paragraph (b)(10)(i) or (ii) of this section.

(i) Owners or operators using a steam stripper shall establish the

steam-to-feed ratio as the site-specific operating parameter, except as

allowed in paragraph (b)(10)(ii) of this section, according to the

following criteria:

(A) The minimum operating parameter value shall correspond to at

least the fraction removed specified in Sec. 63.703(g)(1)(i) and be

submitted to the permitting authority for approval with the design

specifications required by Sec. 63.705(h)(1); or

(B) The minimum operating parameter value shall be that value that

corresponds to a total VOHAP outlet concentration in the wastewater of

less than 50 ppmw as determined through tests conducted in accordance

with Sec. 63.705(b)(9) and (h)(2); or

(C) The minimum operating parameter value shall be the value that

corresponds to at least the fraction removed specified in

Sec. 63.705(g)(1)(i), as demonstrated through tests conducted in

accordance with Sec. 63.705(b)(9) and (h)(3).

(ii) Owners or operators complying with Sec. 63.703(g) through the

use of a steam stripper or any other control technique may establish as

a site-specific operating parameter the outlet total VOHAP

concentration according to the following criteria:

(A) The minimum operating parameter value shall correspond to at

least the fraction removed specified in Sec. 63.703(g)(1)(i) and be

submitted to the permitting authority for approval with the design

specifications required by Sec. 63.705(h)(1); or

(B) The minimum operating parameter value shall be a total VOHAP

outlet concentration in the wastewater of less than 50 ppmw, as

required by Sec. 63.703(g)(1)(ii), and as determined through tests

conducted in accordance with Sec. 63.705 (b)(9) and (h)(2); or

(C) The minimum operating parameter value shall be the value that

corresponds to at least the fraction removed specified in

Sec. 63.705(g)(1)(i), as demonstrated through tests conducted in

accordance with Sec. 63.705 (b)(9) and (h)(3).

(11) Compliance provisions for nonrepresentative operating

conditions. (i) The owner or operator of an affected source may conduct

multiple performance tests to establish the operating parameter value,

or range of values, that demonstrates compliance with the standards in

Sec. 63.703 during various operating conditions.

(ii) To establish an alternate outlet concentration limit as

provided in Sec. 63.703(i), the owner or operator, when the coating

operation is not occurring, shall conduct a performance test using the

methods in Sec. 63.705 for determining initial compliance with

Sec. 63.703 (c)(1), (e)(1)(i) or (f)(1)(i), or shall collect data from

continuous emission monitors used to determine continuous compliance as

specified in Sec. 63.704 (b) and (c). During the period in which this

limit is being established, the control device shall be operated in

accordance with good air pollution control practices and in the same

manner as it was operated to achieve the emission limitation for

coating operations. Owners or operators choosing to establish such an

alternative shall also comply with paragraphs (b)(11)(ii) (A) and (B)

of this section.

(A) The owner or operator shall submit the alternate outlet HAP

concentration limit within 180 days after the compliance demonstration

required by Sec. 63.7 of subpart A, to the Administrator, as required

by Sec. 63.707(k)(1).

(B) The Administrator will approve or disapprove the limit proposed

in accordance with paragraph (b)(11)(ii)(A) of this section within 60

days of receipt of the report required by Sec. 63.707(k)(1), and any

other supplemental information requested by the Administrator to

support the alternate limit.

(c) Continuous compliance monitoring. Following the date on which

the initial compliance demonstration is completed, continuous

compliance with the standards shall be demonstrated as outlined in

paragraphs (c), (d), (e), or (f) of this section.

(1)(i) Each owner or operator of an affected source subject to

Sec. 63.703 (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4), (e)(1)(i), (f)(1)(i), or

(i) of this subpart shall monitor the applicable parameters specified

in paragraphs (c)(3), (4), (5), (6), (7), or (9) of this section

depending on the type of control technique used, and shall monitor the

parameters specified in paragraph (c)(10) of this section.

(ii) Each owner or operator of an affected source subject to

Sec. 63.703(c)(5) of this subpart shall demonstrate continuous

compliance as required by paragraph (c)(8) of this section.

(iii) Each owner or operator of an affected source subject to

Sec. 63.703(d)(2) of this subpart shall demonstrate continuous

compliance as required by paragraph (e) of this section.

(iv) Each owner or operator of an affected source subject to

Sec. 63.703(g) of this subpart shall demonstrate continuous compliance

as required by paragraph (d) of this section.

(2) Compliance monitoring shall be subject to the following

provisions.

(i) Except as allowed by paragraph (c)(3)(i)(C) of this section,

all continuous emission monitors shall comply with performance

specification (PS) 8 or 9 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, as appropriate

depending on whether volatile organic compound (VOC) or HAP

concentration is being measured. The requirements in appendix F of 40

CFR part 60 shall also be followed. In conducting the quarterly audits

required by appendix F, owners or operators must challenge the monitors

with compounds representative of the gaseous emission stream being

controlled.

(ii) All temperature monitoring equipment shall be

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.