# National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Final Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions From Magnetic Tape Manufacturing Operations > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-30502 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Uncategorized Document - **Published:** December 15, 1994 ## Text 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 [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-30502. Public record. Not legal advice.