[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 14, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13664-13683]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5983]



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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63

[AD-FRL-5168-8]
RIN 2060-AD95


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; 
Proposed Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions From the 
Printing and Publishing Industry

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of public hearing.

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

SUMMARY: The proposed standards would reduce emissions of hazardous air 
pollutants (HAP) from existing and new printing operations that are 
major sources of HAP emissions. A major source is defined in section 
112(a) of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (Act) as a source that 
emits, or has the potential to emit, considering controls, 10 tons per 
year (tpy) or more of any individual HAP or 25 tpy or more of any 
combination of HAP. Some of these pollutants are emitted from 
publication rotogravure and product and packaging rotogravure and wide-
web flexographic printing. These operations are covered in the proposed 
rule. In these printing operations, a variety of HAP are used as 
solvents and components in inks and other materials applied by 
printers. The HAP emitted by the facilities covered by this proposed 
rule include toluene, xylene, ethylbenzene, methanol, methyl ethyl 
ketone, methyl isobutyl ketone, ethylene glycol and glycol ethers. All 
of these pollutants can cause reversible or irreversible toxic effects 
following exposure. The potential toxic effects include eye, nose, 
throat and skin irritation; and blood cell, heart, liver and kidney 
damage. The proposed rule is estimated to reduce emissions of HAP by 
6,700 Mg per year. The emissions reductions achieved by these standards 
when combined with the emissions reductions achieved by similar 
standards, will achieve the primary goal of the Clean Air Act, which is 
to ``enhance the quality of the Nation's air resources so as to promote 
the public health and welfare and the productive capacity of its 
population.''
    The proposed rule implements section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1990 (1990 Amendments), which requires the Administrator 
to regulate emissions of HAP listed in section 112(d) of the 1990 
Amendments. The intent of this rule is to protect the public health by 
requiring the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP from new 
and existing major sources, taking into consideration the cost of 
achieving such emission reduction, any nonair quality, health and 
environmental impacts, and energy requirements.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before May 30, 1995.
    Public Hearing. Anyone requesting a public hearing must contact the 
EPA no later than April 13, 1995. If a hearing is held, it will take 
place on April 28, 1995, beginning at 10 a.m.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments should be submitted (in duplicate, if 
possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket (Mail Code 6102), Attention: 
Docket No. A-92-42, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M 
Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. The EPA requests that a separate copy 
also be sent to the contact person listed below.
    The docket is located at the above address in room M-1500, 
Waterside Mall (ground floor), and may be inspected from 8 a.m. to 5:30 
p.m., Monday through Friday; telephone number (202) 260-7548, FAX (202) 
260-4400. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting a public 
hearing by the required date (see DATES), the hearing will be held at 
the EPA Office of Administration Auditorium in Research Triangle Park, 
North Carolina. Persons interested in speaking at a public hearing 
should contact Ms. Kim Teal, Coatings and Consumer Products Group, (MD-
13), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, 
North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 541-5580. Persons 
interested in attending the hearing should contact Ms. Kim Teal to 
verify that it will be held.
    Additional Information. For information on accessing the U.S. EPA 
Technology Transfer Network electronic bulletin board and obtaining 
copies of the Proposed Regulatory Text, Background Information Document 
or Economic Impact Analysis, please refer to the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the 
proposed regulation, contact Mr. David Salman at (919) 541-0859, 
Coatings and Consumer Products Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-
13), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, 
North Carolina 27711.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Technology Transfer Network. The Technology 
Transfer Network (TTN) is one of EPA's electronic bulletin boards. The 
TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of 
air pollution control. The service is free [[Page 13665]] except for 
the cost of a phone call. Dial (919) 541-5472 for up to a 14,000 bps 
modem. If more information on TTN is needed call the HELP line at (919) 
541-5384.
    Proposed Regulatory Text. The proposed regulatory text is not 
included in this Federal Register notice, but is available in Docket 
No. A-92-42, or by written or telephone request from the Air and 
Radiation Docket. This notice and the proposed regulatory language are 
also available for downloading TTN under Clean Air Act, Recently Signed 
Rules.
    Background Information Document. The Background Information 
Document (BID) for the proposed standards 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 the National 
Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road, 
Springfield, Virginia 22161, telephone (703) 487-4650. Please refer to 
``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Printing 
and Publishing Industry--Background Information for Proposed 
Standards'' (EPA-453/R-95-002a). The BID is also available for 
downloading on the TTN.
    Economic Impact Analysis. The Economic Impact Analysis (EIA) for 
the proposed standards may be obtained from the docket, the U. S. EPA 
Library, or the NTIS. Please refer to ``Economic Impact Analysis for 
the Printing and Publishing NESHAP'' (EPA-452/D-95-001). The EIA is 
also available for downloading on the TTN.
    Preamble Outline. The information presented in this preamble is 
organized as follows:

I. Background

A. Regulatory Background and Purpose
B. Common Sense Initiative

II. Summary of the Proposed Rule

A. Applicability
B. Proposed Standards for Affected Sources
C. Compliance Dates
D. Compliance Extensions
E. Compliance Testing and Monitoring
F. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements.

III. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts of the 
Proposed Rule

A. Emission Reductions
B. Secondary Environmental Impacts
C. Energy Impacts
D. Cost Impacts
E. Economic Impacts

IV. Process Descriptions and Control Technologies

A. Process Descriptions
B. Control Techniques

V. Rationale for the Proposed Rule

A. Regulatory Development Process for NESHAP
B. Determining Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) 
``Floors''
C. Selection of Pollutant and Source Category(ies)
D. Selection of Emission Points Covered by the Proposed Rule
E. Selection of the Basis for the Proposed Rule
F. Selection of the Format of the Proposed Rule
G. Selection of Emission Test Methods and Monitoring Requirements
H. Selection of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
I. Selection of Compliance Deadlines
J. Operating Permit Program
K. Pollution Prevention Considerations
L. Solicitation of Comments

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Public Hearing
B. Docket
C. Executive Order 12866
D. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership Under Executive Order 
12875
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act
G. Clean Air Act Section 117
H. Regulatory Review

VII. Statutory Authority

I. Background.

    The proposed rule addresses facilities which apply ink and other 
materials to any substrate, except fabric, using rotogravure or wide-
web flexographic methods. These facilities print products such as 
magazines, newspapers, supplements, packaging and wallpaper on 
substrates such as paper, plastic, metal foil, and vinyl.

A. Regulatory Background and Purpose.

    The Act requires, under section 112, that EPA evaluate and control 
emissions of HAP. The control of HAP is to be achieved through 
promulgation of emission standards under sections 112(d) and (f), and 
of work practice standards under section 112(h) where appropriate, for 
categories of sources that emit HAP. Pursuant to section 112(c) of the 
Act, EPA published in the Federal Register the initial list of source 
categories that emit HAP on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). This list 
includes major and area sources of HAP for which the EPA intends to 
issue regulations between November 1992 and November 2000.
    The Act was created, in part, ``to protect and enhance the quality 
of the Nation's air resources so as to promote the public health and 
welfare and the productive capacity of its population'' (the Act, 
section 101(b)(1)). As such, this proposed regulation would protect the 
public health by reducing emissions of HAP from publication rotogravure 
and product and packaging rotogravure and wide-web flexographic 
printing.
    The HAP listed in section 112(b)(1) emitted by printing facilities 
that would be covered by this proposed rule include toluene, xylene, 
ethylbenzene, methanol, methyl ethyl ketone, methyl isobutyl ketone, 
ethylene glycol and glycol ethers. All of these pollutants can cause 
reversible or irreversible toxic effects following exposure. The 
potential toxic effects include eye, nose, throat and skin irritation; 
and blood cell, heart, liver and kidney damage. These adverse health 
effects are associated with a wide range of ambient concentrations and 
exposure times and are influenced by source-specific characteristics 
such as emission rates and local meteorological conditions. Health 
impacts are also dependent on multiple factors that affect human 
variability such as genetics, age, health status (e.g., the presence of 
pre-existing disease) and lifestyle.
    The proposed standards will reduce HAP emissions from publication 
rotogravure printing facilities by 4,750 Mg/yr (5,220 tpy) from a 
baseline level of 17,500 Mg/yr (19,200 tpy). The proposed standards 
will reduce HAP emissions from product and packaging rotogravure and 
wide web flexographic printing facilities by 1,940 Mg/yr (2,140 tpy) 
from a baseline level of 4,200 Mg/yr (4,620 tpy).
    There are no significant economic impacts associated with the 
proposed standards. There are no firms or facilities at risk of closure 
as a result of the proposed standards and there will not be a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

B. Common Sense Initiative

    On October 17, 1994, the Administrator established the Common Sense 
Initiative (CSI) Council in accordance with the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (U.S.C. App. 2, Section 9(c)) requirements. The CSI 
addresses six industrial sectors. The Printing and Publishing industry 
is one of these sectors.
    The following are the six elements of the CSI program, as stated in 
the ``Advisory Committee Charter.''
    1. Regulation. Review existing regulations for opportunities to get 
better environmental results at less cost. Improve new rules through 
increased coordination.
    2. Pollution Prevention. Actively promote pollution prevention as 
the standard business practice and a central ethic of environmental 
protection.
    3. Recordkeeping and Reporting. Make it easier to provide, use, and 
[[Page 13666]] publicly disseminate relevant pollution and 
environmental information.
    4. Compliance and Enforcement. Find innovative ways to assist 
companies that seek to comply and exceed legal requirements while 
consistently enforcing the law for those that do not achieve 
compliance.
    5. Permitting. Improve permitting so that it works more 
efficiently, encourages innovation, and creates more opportunities for 
public participation.
    6. Environmental Technology. Give industry the incentives and 
flexibility to develop innovative technologies that meet and exceed 
environmental standards while cutting costs.
    The Agency intends to work with the Printing CSI sector team and 
consider its consensus recommendations concerning the proposed 
standards. Even though the data collection and analysis efforts for the 
proposed standards were completed before the CSI program was announced, 
many aspects of the CSI are reflected in the proposed standards.
    The alternatives considered in the development of this regulation, 
including those alternatives selected as standards for new and existing 
printing facilities are based on process and emissions data received 
from over 600 printing facilities. The EPA met with industry and trade 
groups on numerous occasions to discuss these data. In addition, 
facilities and State regulatory authorities had the opportunity to 
comment on draft versions of the proposed regulation and to provide 
additional information. Two trade organizations provided extensive 
comments; these comments were considered, and in some cases, today's 
proposed standards reflect these comments. Of major concern to industry 
were the opportunity to comply through pollution prevention by using 
low HAP content materials.
    The regulation allows sources flexibility to select from various 
options for compliance. Sources may reduce HAP usage and emissions 
through conversions to waterborne, lower HAP solvent-borne or 
ultraviolet/electron beam cure materials. Alternatively, sources may 
install or upgrade existing capture and control devices to meet the 
proposed standard. Finally sources have the option to comply by a 
combination of lower HAP materials and capture and control. Facilities 
may select the most cost-effective option based on facility specific 
considerations.
    The proposed standards give existing facilities 3 years from the 
date of promulgation to comply. This is the maximum amount of time 
allowed under the Clean Air Act. This timeframe will provide the 
greatest opportunity for developing and adopting low HAP content 
materials, and provide sufficient time for facilities that choose to 
install or upgrade capture and control equipment.
    Included in the proposed rule are methods for determining initial 
compliance as well as monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements. All of these components are necessary to ensure that 
sources will comply with the standards both initially and over time. 
However, the EPA has made every effort to simplify the requirements in 
the rule. The Agency has also attempted to maintain consistency with 
existing regulations, or referencing the applicable sections, depending 
on which method would be least confusing for a given situation.
    Representatives from other interested EPA offices and programs, as 
well as representatives from State regulatory agencies are included in 
the regulatory development process as members of the Work Group. The 
Work Group must review and concur with the regulation before proposal 
and promulgation. Therefore, the EPA believes that the implications to 
other EPA offices and programs have been adequately considered during 
the development of these standards.

II. Summary of the Proposed Rule

    Table 1 provides an overview of the proposed rule, including 
applicability; the standards for each affected source; test methods and 
procedures; and monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.

 Table 1.--Summary of Subpart KK of 40 CFR Part 63--National Emission Standards for the Printing and Publishing 
                                                    Industry                                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Affected source and requirement                                    Description                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Printing and Publishing Industry:                                                                               
    Applicability.......................  This rule applies to facilities engaged in rotogravure and wide-web   
                                           flexographic printing that are major sources as defined in 40 CFR    
                                           part 63. (63.821).                                                   
    Estimated Number of Facilities......  Approximately 200 facilities are expected to be affected by the rule. 
                                           Applicable SIC codes include 2295, 2392, 2647, 2649, 2651, 2671,     
                                           2673, 2674, 2711, 2721, 2754, 2759, 3497, and 3996.                  
    Permit Requirements.................  Major sources are required to obtain operating permits in State where 
                                           facility is located according to 40 CFR part 70 and applicable State 
                                           regulations. (63.821(d)).                                            
All Affected Sources:                                                                                           
    Standards...........................  Comply with Secs. 63.4 through 63.6 of the General Provisions of 40   
                                           CFR part 63, subpart A, except for Sec. 63.6(h). (63.823).           
    Compliance Dates....................  Within three years of the effective date for existing sources and upon
                                           startup for new sources. (63.826).                                   
    Test Methods and Procedures.........  See individual affected sources.                                      
    Monitoring Requirements.............  See individual affected sources.                                      
    Recordkeeping Requirements..........  Comply with Sec. 63.10(b) and (c) of the General Provisions. (63.829).
    Reporting Requirements..............  Initial notification, notification of performance tests, notification 
                                           of compliance status, performance test reports, startup, shutdown and
                                           malfunction reports, summary reports, and HAP use reports as         
                                           described in Secs. 63.9-63.10. (63.830).                             
Publication Rotogravure Facilities:                                                                             
    Standards...........................  Control of 92 percent of organic HAP or equivalent. (Organic HAP      
                                           emissions limited to no greater than 8 percent of the mass of        
                                           volatile matter, including water, used on a plantwide basis.)        
                                           (63.824(b)).                                                         
    Performance Test Period and Tests...  1. Test Period. Each and every month. (63.824(b)).                    
                                          2. Performance Test. Initial performance test for all control devices 
                                           to demonstrate compliance with overall control efficiency            
                                           requirement. (63.824(b))                                             
[[Page 13667]]                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                
    Test Methods and Procedures.........  1. Organic HAP content determination. (63.827(b)(1)).                 
                                          2. Volatile matter content determination. (63.827(c)(1)).             
                                          3. Overall control efficiency using liquid-liquid mass balance for    
                                           solvent recovery systems. (63.824(b)(1)(i).                          
                                          4. Overall control efficiency determination using capture efficiency  
                                           test with continuous emission monitors. (63.824(b)(1)(ii) and        
                                           63.824(b)(2)(ii)).                                                   
                                          5. Overall control efficiency determination using capture efficiency  
                                           test and incinerator destruction efficiency test. (63.824(b)(2)(i).  
    Monitoring Requirements.............  1. Hourly recording of flow rate from press to control device.        
                                           (63.828(a)(1).                                                       
                                          2. Quarterly audit of continuous emission monitors. (63.828(a)(2)(i)).
                                          3. Monitoring of capture system operating parameter. (63.828(a)(5)).  
Product and Packaging Rotogravure                                                                               
 Presses and Wide-web Flexographic                                                                              
 Presses, or Groups of Presses                                                                                  
 Controlled by a Common Solvent Recovery                                                                        
 System:                                                                                                        
    Standards...........................  Control of 95 percent of organic HAP, or organic HAP emissions limited
                                           to no greater than 0.20 kg HAP per kg of solids applied, for each    
                                           press, or group of presses controlled by a common solvent recovery   
                                           system, or organic HAP emissions limited to no greater than 0.04 kg  
                                           HAP per kg inks and other materials applied, for each press.         
                                           (63.825(b)).                                                         
    Performance Test Period and Tests...  1. Test Period.                                                       
                                          Uncontrolled Presses. Each and every month.                           
                                          Presses controlled with solvent recovery systems. Each and every      
                                           month.                                                               
                                          Presses controlled with incinerators monitoring operating parameters. 
                                           Every three hour period.                                             
                                          Presses controlled with incinerators using continuous emissions       
                                           monitors. Each and every month. (63.825(b) and (c)).                 
                                          2. Performance Test. Initial performance test for all control devices 
                                           to demonstrate compliance with organic HAP emission rate. (63.825(g) 
                                           and (h)).                                                            
    Test Methods and Procedures.........  1. Organic HAP content determination. (63.827(b)(2)).                 
                                          2. Volatile matter and solids content determination. (63.827(c)(2)).  
                                          3. Overall control efficiency using liquid-liquid mass balance for    
                                           solvent recovery systems. (63.825(g).                                
                                          4. Overall control efficiency determination using capture efficiency  
                                           test with continuous emission monitors. (63.825(g)(2) and            
                                           63.825(h)(2)).                                                       
                                          5. Overall control efficiency determination using capture efficiency  
                                           test and incinerator destruction efficiency test. (63.825(h)).       
    Monitoring Requirements.............  1. Hourly recording of flow rate from press to control device.        
                                           (63.828(a)(1)).                                                      
                                          2. Quarterly audit of continuous emission monitors. (63.828(a)(2)(i)).
                                          3. Quarterly calibration of incinerator monitoring thermocouple(s).   
                                           (63.828(2)(ii)).                                                     
                                          4. Operation of continuous emission monitors. (63.828(a)(3)).         
                                          5. Measurement of incinerator operating parameters. (63.828(a)(4)).   
                                          6. Monitoring of capture system operating parameter. (63.828(a)(5)).  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Applicability

    The proposed rule would apply to each new and existing publication 
rotogravure or product and packaging rotogravure and wide web 
flexographic printing facility that is a major source, as defined under 
section 112(a) of the Act. A major source is one that emits or has the 
potential to emit, considering controls, 9.1 Mg/yr (10 tons/yr) or more 
of any one HAP or 22.7 Mg/yr (25 tons/yr) of any combination of HAP for 
all activities conducted at the facility. Publication rotogravure and 
product and packaging rotogravure and wide web flexographic printing 
operations at any major source that conducts other work would be 
subject to the proposed standards, regardless of the relative 
proportion of printing and non-printing work at the facility. Research 
or laboratory facilities are not subject to the provisions of the 
standards unless they are collocated with production lines.
    The proposed rule uses 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.
    Research activities include those activities that are employed to 
develop a new rotogravure or flexographic ink, coating or other 
material; a new substrate or end product; and may also include 
activities devoted to optimizing the manufacture of the product. Once a 
facility determines that the manufacture of this product is viable, the 
EPA believes that additional activities are likely to be beyond the 
research phase.
    As noted in Sec. 63.821(a)(1), the proposed printing and publishing 
rule would apply to facilities that are major sources as defined in 40 
CFR 63.2. An important consideration in the definition of ``major 
source'' is a given plant site's ``potential to emit.'' The ``potential 
to emit'' is defined in 40 CFR 63.2 as follows: `` `Potential to emit' 
means the maximum capacity of a stationary source to emit a pollutant 
under its physical and operational design. Any physical or operational 
limitation on the capacity of the stationary source to emit a 
pollutant, including air pollution control equipment and restrictions 
on hours of operation or on the type or amount of material combusted, 
stored, or processed, shall be treated as part of its design if the 
limitation or the effect it [[Page 13668]] would have on emissions is 
Federally enforceable.''
    A key aspect of the potential to emit definition is that 
restrictions must be Federally enforceable. Examples of restrictions 
that would be considered Federally enforceable are listed in a 
definition in 40 CFR 63.2.
    The EPA believes that there are printing and publishing facilities 
whose actual emissions of HAP are substantially less than ``major'' 
amounts (i.e., more than 10 tons per year of any single HAP, or more 
than 25 tons per year from the sum of all HAP emitted). Many of these 
facilities, however, would be considered ``major sources'' that are 
subject to the proposed rule because there is no Federally enforceable 
restriction in place that limits their potential to emit HAP. The EPA 
believes that the this rule should provide a mechanism for such 
facilities to accept and document such restrictions.
    The EPA proposes, in Sec. 63.821(a)(2) through (3) of the proposed 
rule, that if owners or operators commit to using no more than 9.1 Mg 
(10 tons) per 12 month period of each HAP and less than 22.7 Mg (25 
tons) per 12 month period of any combination of HAP at the entire 
facility, including materials used for source categories or purposes 
other than printing and publishing, then the facility can be considered 
an area source. Each facility for which the owner or operator commits 
to the criteria stated in Sec. 63.821(a)(2) would be subject only to 
the recordkeeping provisions in Sec. 63.829(d) and the reporting 
provisions in Sec. 63.830(d) of this subpart as long as the commitment 
is met for each 12 month period. If the commitment is not met for any 
12 month period then the facility would be in violation of its 
commitment and would be considered a major source of HAP beginning the 
first month after the end of the first 12 month period in which either 
of the HAP use thresholds was exceeded. As a major source of HAP, each 
such facility would be subject to the provisions of this subpart as 
noted in Sec. 63.821(a)(1) and would no longer be eligible to use the 
provisions of Sec. 63.821(a)(2).
    The EPA believes that there are sources using more than 10 tons of 
an individual HAP or more than 25 tons of total HAP per 12 month period 
that may emit less than ``major'' amounts (e.g., sources using capture 
and control equipment that reduces HAP emissions), and for which the 
owner or operator may be willing to accept case-by-case operating 
restrictions that would ensure that the potential to emit does not 
exceed the major source threshold. The EPA is considering adding 
language to the final rule that would provide a mechanism for such 
sources. The EPA requests comment on: (1) Whether such language should 
be added; (2) the type of reporting and process required to establish 
the case-by-case commitment (in particular, how to establish throughput 
and content limitations and performance criteria for the capture and 
control equipment that would ensure area source status); and (3) the 
types of records that should be maintained to document compliance with 
the restrictions. In addition, the EPA requests comment on whether the 
level of recordkeeping and reporting should vary, depending on the 
level of emissions (as reflected by the throughput and content of the 
materials used, and performance of the capture and control equipment).
    In general, rotogravure and wide web flexographic printing 
facilities are covered by the SIC codes listed in Table 2. However, 
facilities classified under other SIC codes may be subject to the 
proposed standards if the facility meets the definition of a major 
source and conducts rotogravure or wide web flexographic printing.

   Table 2.--Rotogravure and Wide Web Flexographic Printing SIC Codes   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  SIC                                                                   
 Code                              Description                          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2295..  Vinyl Coated or Laminated Fabric.                               
2392..  House Furnishings, including Shower Curtains.                   
2647..  Sanitary Paper Products.                                        
2649..  Wallcoverings.                                                  
2651..  Folding Paperboard Boxes.                                       
2671..  Coated and Laminated Paper and Plastic Film for Packaging.      
2673..  Plastic Bags and Liners, Coated and Laminated.                  
2674..  Uncoated Paper Bags and Sacks and Multiwall Shipping Sacks and  
         Bags.                                                          
2711..  Newspapers.                                                     
2721..  Periodicals.                                                    
2754..  Commercial Printing, Gravure.                                   
2759..  Commercial Printing, NEC.                                       
3497..  Laminated Aluminum Foil, Flexible Packaging.                    
3996..  Hard Surface Floor Coverings.                                   
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on information obtained through an information collection 
request and information provided by the Gravure Association of America 
(GAA), there are an estimated 200 facilities that will be subject to 
the proposed standards. The combined HAP emissions from these 
facilities are estimated to be over 21,800 Mg/yr (24,000 tpy).
Affected Sources
    The proposed rule would limit organic HAP emissions that result 
from publication rotogravure and product and packaging rotogravure and 
wide-web flexographic printing. The standard applies to HAP present in 
inks, ink extenders, solvents, coatings, varnishes, primers, adhesives, 
and other materials applied with rotogravure and flexographic plates. 
Printed items include magazines, advertising inserts, catalogs, 
flexible packaging, corrugated boxes, paper towels, newspapers, wall 
coverings, floor coverings, shower curtains, etc.
    Sources in the publication rotogravure segment of the printing and 
publishing industry include but are not limited to ink and solvent 
storage tanks, ink mixing, printing, press and parts cleaning, proof 
and production presses and solvent recovery. Sources in the product/
package rotogravure and wide-web flexography segments include the 
printing presses.
    Various organic HAP are used in the printing industry. Organic HAP 
used include toluene, xylene, ethylbenzene, methyl ethyl ketone, methyl 
isobutyl ketone, methanol, hexane, dibutylphthalate, toluene 
diisocyanate, ethylene glycol and glycol ethers. These are the HAP 
expected to be emitted by the industry, however, the proposed standards 
apply to emissions of all organic HAP listed in section 112(b).

B. Proposed Standards for Affected Sources

    In addition to the standards for affected sources as discussed 
below, the affected sources would be subject to the General Provisions 
which were promulgated in the Federal Register March 16, 1994 (59 FR 
12408) under 40 CFR part 63, subpart A. The General Provisions 
stipulate that all affected sources subject to the proposed rule are 
also subject to, as appropriate, 40 CFR 63.4, 63.5, and 63.6.
    The proposed rule requires each owner or operator who uses a 
control device or equipment to control HAP emissions to prepare an 
operation and maintenance plan in accordance with Sec. 63.6. In 
addition to the information required in Sec. 63.6, the proposed rule 
requires that the owner or operator of the control device or equipment 
include the following information: (1) The operation and maintenance 
criteria for each air pollution control device or equipment, including 
a standardized checklist to document the operation and maintenance of 
the equipment; (2) a systematic procedure for identifying malfunctions 
and for reporting them [[Page 13669]] immediately to supervisory 
personnel; and (3) procedures to be followed to ensure that equipment 
or process malfunctions due to poor maintenance or other preventable 
conditions do not occur.
    The General Provisions also state that an owner or operator who 
uses an air pollution control device or equipment not listed in the 
proposed rule must submit to the Administrator for approval a 
description of the device, test data verifying the performance of the 
device or equipment for HAP and/or VOC emissions, appropriate operating 
parameters that would be monitored to establish compliance with the 
proposed standards, and a copy of the inspection and maintenance plan 
required under Sec. 63.6. The authority to approve an alternate air 
pollution control device is retained by the Administrator and is not 
delegated.
    Finally, Sec. 63.6(g) allows an owner or operator of an affected 
source to use alternative means of compliance. This allows the 
development and use of new technology not known or not demonstrated at 
the time the rule was promulgated.
    The affected sources for the proposed standards are defined as 
follows: (1) Each publication rotogravure facility (all publication 
rotogravure presses plus all associated operations including but not 
limited to ink and solvent storage tanks, ink mixing, printing, press 
and parts cleaning, proof and production presses and solvent recovery); 
and (2) each product or packaging rotogravure or wide-web flexographic 
press or group of presses controlled by a common solvent recovery 
system. The following paragraphs summarize the proposed standards for 
each affected source.
1. Publication Rotogravure Presses
    The proposed standards for publication rotogravure facilities would 
apply to all new and existing affected sources. The proposed standards 
allow the use of control devices provided each facility achieves an 
overall control efficiency, taking into account capture and control 
device efficiency of 92 percent, when the organic HAP content of 
solvent borne inks and other materials used is equivalent to the 
volatile matter content. When non-HAP VOC or water is present in the 
inks or other materials applied, each control device must achieve a 
control efficiency such that the sum of the organic HAP recovered or 
destroyed, plus the water used, plus the VOC used, minus the organic 
HAP used makes up a minimum of 92 percent of the sum of the VOC used 
plus the water used. (Organic HAP emitted is less than 8 percent of the 
total volatile matter.)
    Compliance with the proposed standard would be demonstrated by a 
monthly mass balance when a solvent recovery system is used. Compliance 
for control devices other than solvent recovery systems would be shown 
on a continuous basis based on a specific operating parameter or 
parameters, such as temperature for incinerators.
2. Package and Product Rotogravure and Wide-web Flexographic Presses
    The proposed standards for package and product rotogravure and 
wide-web flexographic presses would apply to all new and existing 
affected sources. The proposed standards allow the use of low HAP 
materials, control devices, or a combination of low HAP materials and 
control devices. Presses applying any combination of inks, coatings, 
primers, adhesives, solvents, extenders and other materials such that 
the monthly mass weighted organic HAP contents of these materials is 
equal to or less than 0.20 kg per kg of solids applied, or equal to or 
less than 0.04 kg per kg of materials applied would be in compliance. 
The proposed standards allow the use of control devices, provided that 
each control device used for the control of HAP achieves an overall 
control efficiency, taking into account capture and control device 
efficiency of 95 percent. Presses would also be allowed to comply with 
the proposed standards by using control systems provided that the HAP 
emissions are equal to or less than 0.20 kg per kg of solids applied. 
In cases where a solvent recovery system is used to control emissions 
from more than one press, the group of commonly controlled presses can 
be considered a single affected source for the purpose of complying 
with the overall control device efficiency standard or the overall 
organic HAP emission rate standard.
    Compliance with the proposed standard would be demonstrated either 
by a monthly mass balance or through the use of continuous emission 
monitors when a solvent recovery system is used. Compliance for control 
devices other than solvent recovery systems would be shown on a 
continuous basis based on a specific operating parameter or parameters, 
such as temperature for incinerators. Compliance with the proposed 
organic HAP content level standards would be shown on a monthly basis 
for compliant materials. Sources demonstrating compliance by a 
combination of means would demonstrate control device efficiency as 
described above and demonstrate mass average organic HAP content on a 
monthly basis.

C. Compliance Dates

    The proposed rule would require all existing sources to comply no 
later than three years after the effective date of the standards. In 
addition, the proposed rule adopts the compliance dates specified in 
Sec. 63.6(b) and Sec. 63.6(c). New sources must comply with the 
standard upon startup or the effective date of this regulation, 
whichever is later.

D. Compliance Extensions

    Because of the length of time necessary to properly specify, order 
and install additional capture and control equipment some existing 
facilities may need to request a compliance extension. Similarly, some 
existing facilities choosing to adapt to lower HAP ink (and other press 
material) formulations may have to select and test substitutes for a 
large number of specific applications. These existing facilities may 
need to request a compliance extension.
    Section 63.6(i) of 40 CFR part 63 provides the requirements for 
requesting an extension of compliance with a relevant standard 
established under part 63. Specifically, Sec. 63.6(i)(4) allows the 
issuance of a permit granting an extension of up to one year to comply 
with the standard, if such additional period is necessary for the 
installation of controls. Section 63.6(i)(4)(i)(B) requires requests 
for compliance extensions to be submitted no later than 12 months 
before the affected source's compliance date.

E. Compliance Testing and Monitoring

    In addition to the specific testing and monitoring requirements 
specified below for each affected source, the proposed rule adopts the 
testing requirements specified in Sec. 63.7.
1. Test Methods and Procedures
    a. Publication Rotogravure. For facilities using solvent recovery 
systems, the overall control efficiency would be determined using a 
mass balance over the period of each calendar month. Owners or 
operators would be required to measure the amount of all materials used 
during the month and to determine the organic HAP and volatile matter 
content of these materials. Owners or operators would also be required 
to measure the amount of volatile matter recovered by the solvent 
recovery system during the month and to calculate the overall HAP 
control efficiency. The organic HAP content would be determined by 
proposed EPA Method 311, or from manufacturers data when these data are 
equivalent to those obtained from proposed EPA Method 311. When it is 
not possible to [[Page 13670]] determine the organic HAP content using 
proposed EPA Method 311, the owner or operator shall submit to the 
Administrator an alternative technique for determining the organic HAP 
content. The volatile matter content of the materials used shall be 
determined by manufacturers formulation data or by Method 24A of 40 CFR 
part 60, appendix A.
    For facilities using incinerators, owners or operators must 
determine the incinerator destruction efficiency and the capture 
efficiency. Incinerator destruction efficiency would be determined 
using EPA Method 1 or 1A, EPA Method 2, 2A, 2C or 2D, EPA Methods 3 and 
4, and EPA Method 25 or 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. Capture 
efficiency would be confirmed using Procedure T to verify the presence 
of a permanent total enclosure or determined using the capture 
efficiency protocol specified in 40 CFR 52.741 (a)(4)(iii).
    b. Package and Product Rotogravure and Wide-web Flexography. Owners 
or operators may comply by means of use of materials meeting the 
organic HAP threshold requirements or through use of control equipment, 
or through a combination of low organic HAP materials and control 
equipment. The proposed standards for organic HAP emissions would 
require compliance with an organic HAP content threshold based on 
solids content (kg of organic HAP per kg of solids applied), an organic 
HAP threshold based on material (kg of organic HAP per kg of materials 
applied), an overall organic HAP control efficiency (percent), or an 
organic HAP emission rate (kg of organic HAP emitted per kg of solids 
applied).
    The organic HAP content of inks, coatings, primers, adhesives, 
solvents and other materials applied on the press would be determined 
by proposed EPA Method 311, or from manufacturers data when these data 
are equivalent to those obtained from proposed EPA Method 311. When it 
is not possible to determine the organic HAP content using proposed EPA 
Method 311, the owner or operator shall submit to the Administrator an 
alternative technique for determining the organic HAP content.
    The facility may rely on manufacturer's data to determine the 
organic HAP content when these data are equivalent to those obtained 
from proposed EPA Method 311. The mass of each ink, coating, primer, 
adhesive, solvent and other material applied would be determined using 
company records. If diluent solvents or other ingredients are added to 
a material prior to application, then the total organic HAP fractions 
and mass must be adjusted appropriately to account for such additions. 
These values would be required for each monthly period; however, only 
changes in formulation would require re-determination of total organic 
HAP weight fraction. The proposed standards would then require the 
owner or operator to calculate the average mass of organic HAP in 
materials applied per mass of solids applied.
    If an owner or operator is seeking to comply by using materials 
with a weighted average HAP content below the organic HAP content 
threshold requirement or the low solids organic HAP threshold 
requirement, the owner or operator would need to determine the organic 
HAP content and solids content. If no changes in formulation as applied 
occurred, then a re-calculation of the organic HAP level would not be 
required.
    If a control device is used, the proposed standards require the 
owner or operator to demonstrate compliance with the overall control 
efficiency requirement of at least 95 percent. Alternately, the owner 
or operator may determine the overall control efficiency of the 
equipment and the HAP content and solids content of the materials 
applied. To comply by this combination of means, the owner or operator 
would have to demonstrate a HAP emissions limitation of 0.20 kg HAP per 
kg of solids applied.
    For a solvent recovery system, overall control efficiency would be 
determined using a liquid-liquid mass balance, or by conducting an 
initial performance test of capture efficiency and using continuous 
emissions monitors. The liquid-liquid mass balance determination would 
be made every month. Owners or operators would be required to measure 
the amount of all materials applied during the month and to determine 
the volatile matter content of these materials. Owners or operators 
measuring overall control efficiency using a liquid-liquid mass balance 
would also be required to measure the amount of volatile matter 
recovered by the solvent recovery system during the month and to 
calculate the overall HAP control efficiency.
    Owners or operators using solvent recovery systems may also 
demonstrate compliance by conducting an initial performance test of 
capture efficiency and operating continuous emissions monitors to 
determine the total volatile matter content at both the inlet to and 
the outlet from the carbon adsorber such that the percent efficiency of 
the carbon adsorber can be calculated for each calendar month. The 
owner or operator must verify the presence of a permanent total 
enclosure using Procedure T, or determine the capture efficiency using 
the protocol specified in 40 CFR 52.741(a)(4)(iii). The overall organic 
HAP control efficiency must be calculated as the product of the capture 
efficiency and the carbon adsorber efficiency.
    For control devices other than carbon adsorbers, the overall 
control efficiency would be based on capture efficiency and destruction 
efficiency. Capture efficiency would be determined based on the 
procedure specified in 40 CFR 52.741(a)(4)(iii), unless the operation 
is performed within a permanent total enclosure. An enclosure that 
meets the requirements of a permanent total enclosure as specified by 
Procedure T of 40 CFR 52.741 would have a capture efficiency of 100 
percent.
    The destruction efficiency of a control device other than a carbon 
adsorber would be determined using EPA Method 1 or 1A, EPA Method 2, 
2A, 2C or 2D, EPA Methods 3 and 4, and EPA Method 25 or 25A of 40 CFR 
part 60, appendix A. The owner or operator would record such process 
conditions as may be necessary to determine the conditions of the 
performance test.
    To determine the value of an incinerator operating parameter that 
will demonstrate continuing compliance, the time weighted average of 
the values recorded during the performance test shall be computed. For 
a thermal incinerator, the owner or operator shall establish as the 
operating parameter the minimum combustion temperature. For a catalytic 
incinerator, the owner or operator shall establish as the operating 
parameters the minimum gas temperatures both upstream and downstream of 
the catalyst bed. These minimum temperatures are the operating 
parameters used to demonstrate continuing compliance.
    The affected source is in compliance if the overall HAP control 
efficiency is at least 95 percent. Alternately, the source can comply 
on the basis of HAP emission limitation. The facility would be required 
to determine the organic HAP content and solids content of inks, 
coatings, primers, adhesives, solvents and other materials applied on 
the press. The mass of each ink, coating, primer, adhesive, solvent and 
other material applied would be determined using company records. If 
diluent solvents or other ingredients are added to a material prior to 
application, then the total organic HAP content, solids content and 
mass must be adjusted appropriately to account for such additions. 
[[Page 13671]] 
    The organic HAP content would be determined from proposed EPA 
Method 311 or, when this is not possible the owner or operator shall 
submit to the Administrator, an alternative technique for determining 
the organic HAP content. Manufacturer's formulation data may be used 
provided that the data are equivalent to those obtained using proposed 
EPA Method 311. The volatile matter and solids content of the materials 
used shall be determined by manufacturers formulation data or by Method 
24 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
    These values would be required for each monthly period. The 
proposed standards would then require the owner or operator to 
calculate the average mass of organic HAP in materials applied per mass 
of solids applied. The overall control efficiency as determined above 
would be used to determine the HAP emission limitation. To comply by 
this combination of means, the owner or operator would have to 
demonstrate a HAP emissions limitation of 0.20 kg HAP per kg of solids 
applied.
2. Monitoring Requirements
    Monitoring is required by the proposed standards to determine 
whether a source is in compliance. For owners or operators using 
thermal or catalytic incinerators, this can be accomplished by 
measuring site-specific operating parameters, the values of which are 
established by the owner or operator during the initial compliance 
test. The operating parameter value is defined as the minimum or 
maximum value established for a control device or process parameter 
that, if achieved by itself or in combination with other operating 
parameter values, determines that an owner or operator is complying 
with the applicable emission limitation or standards. This type of 
monitoring would be required for those emission points for which the 
standards are expressed as a percent control, or for affected sources 
using control devices to achieve an organic HAP emission limit. In 
addition, the owner or operator is expected to install and operate the 
monitoring equipment properly.
    The proposed rule would require temperature to be monitored, using 
a continuous recorder, for incinerators. For catalytic incinerators, 
temperature monitors would be placed immediately before and after the 
catalyst bed. For other incinerators, the temperature monitor would be 
placed in the firebox or in the ductwork immediately downstream of the 
firebox and before any substantial heat exchange occurs. All monitoring 
equipment would be installed, calibrated, maintained, and operated 
according to manufacturer's specifications.
    The proposed standards would require each owner or operator to 
establish a range of values for each of these monitored parameters 
during the initial performance test. As long as the control device is 
operated within the established ranges, the proposed emission standards 
are considered to be met. Consequently, exceedances of these parameters 
would be considered a violation of the standards since operating the 
control device outside of the established ranges may reduce the 
efficiency of the control device.
    Owners or operators of publication rotogravure sources operating 
solvent recovery systems would be required to conduct monthly mass 
balances as described in the section II.E.1 of the preamble. Owners or 
operators of other sources operating solvent recovery systems would be 
required either to conduct monthly mass balances as described in the 
previous section or to operate continuous emission monitors. The 
continuous emission monitors would be used to determine the total 
volatile matter concentration at both the inlet to and the outlet from 
the carbon adsorber, such that the percent efficiency of the carbon 
adsorber can be calculated for each calendar month.
    Owners or operators of package or product rotogravure or 
flexographic printing facilities complying by means of use of materials 
meeting the applicable HAP content threshold standards would 
demonstrate compliance through recordkeeping as described in section 
II.E.1 of the preamble.
    Under 40 CFR 63.6(g), an owner or operator of an affected source 
may request the use of alternative methods of emission reduction for 
complying with design, equipment, work practice, or operational 
emission standards, or combination thereof, established under this 
part. Under the proposed rule, an owner or operator of an affected 
source may also use control devices other than those specifically 
identified in the proposed rule as a means for achieving compliance 
with any portion of the rule. If devices other than those identified 
are used, the proposed standards would require the owner or operator to 
submit the parameters to be monitored to the Administrator for 
approval. The authority to approve the use of alternate control devices 
and the parameters to be monitored is retained by the Administrator and 
is not delegated.
    Section 114(a)(3) of the 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 limitations 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.

F. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

    The proposed rule proposes to adopt the requirements contained in 
40 CFR 63.9 and 40 CFR 63.10. The proposed rule, however, contains 
additional or clarifying elements and changes certain time periods 
allowed for submitting or responding to certain reports and requests 
required in Sec. 63.10. These elements and changes are summarized below 
for each of the operations for which standards are being proposed.
1. Recordkeeping Requirements
    a. Publication Rotogravure. Records must be maintained of the 
organic HAP and volatile matter content, as received, and the monthly 
usage of all inks, solvents, varnishes, adhesives and other materials 
applied on publication rotogravure presses. Where incinerators are 
used, records must be maintained of the overall control efficiency and 
all test results, data, and calculations used in determining the 
overall control efficiency.
    Where solvent recovery systems are used, records must be maintained 
of the overall control efficiency, all test results, data, and 
calculations used in determining the overall control efficiency, and 
the monthly material balances used to demonstrate compliance.
    b. Packaging and Product Rotogravure and Wide-web Flexography. 
Records must be maintained of the organic HAP, volatile matter and 
solids content, as received, and the monthly usage of all inks, 
solvents, varnishes, primers, adhesives and other materials applied on 
packaging and product rotogravure presses and wide-web flexographic 
presses. Each owner or operator would be required to keep records of 
the equipment monitoring parameter measurements specified in the 
proposed rule. For an incinerator other than a catalytic incinerator, 
continuous records must be maintained of the firebox temperature (or 
temperature in the ductwork immediately downstream of the firebox). For 
a catalytic incinerator, continuous records must be maintained 
[[Page 13672]] of the gas stream temperature immediately before and 
after the catalyst bed. For both types of incinerators, records must be 
maintained of the overall control efficiency and all test results, 
data, and calculations used in determining the overall control 
efficiency.
    For carbon adsorbers, records must be maintained of the overall 
control efficiency, all test results, data, and calculations used in 
determining the overall control efficiency.
2. Reporting Requirements
    The proposed rule would require four basic types of reports: (1) 
Initial notification, (2) notification of compliance status, (3) 
periodic reports, and (4) other reports. In addition, the proposed rule 
would require that the results of any performance test required under 
Sec. 63.7 be reported no later than 60 days after the completion of the 
test. A permit application as required under 40 CFR part 70 may be used 
in lieu of the initial notification provided the same information is 
contained in the permit application as required for the initial 
notification.
    As stated above, the proposed standards adopt the reporting 
requirements contained in Sec. 63.9(a) through Sec. 63.9(e) and 
Sec. 63.9(h) through Sec. 63.9(j) and 63.10 (a), (b), (d), and (f). 
However, the time period allowed for the Administrator to notify the 
owner or operator in writing of approval or disapproval of the request 
for an adjustment to a particular time period or postmark deadline 
submitted under Sec. 63.9(i) has been changed to within 30 calendar 
days of receiving sufficient information to evaluate the request, 
rather than 15 calendar days as provided for in Sec. 63.9(i)(3).
    Sections 63.9 and 63.10 identify the type of generic information to 
be included in the initial notification, notification of compliance 
status, and other reports and, therefore, this information is not 
repeated in this preamble. The following paragraphs summarize the 
additional information specific to the printing and publishing rule 
that should be included in the notification of compliance status and 
the type of information to be included in the periodic reports.
    a. Publication Rotogravure. The notification of compliance status 
should identify the control devices that were used to demonstrate that 
the facility was in compliance. Specific reporting requirements are 
dependent on how an owner or operator chooses to comply with the 
regulation. If solvent recovery systems are used and liquid-liquid 
material balances are conducted, semiannual reports would be required 
that contain information on all months when the material balances were 
not in compliance with the standards.
    If incinerators are used, semiannual reports would be required that 
contain information on all days when any 3-hour average temperature was 
below the average temperature established during the most recent 
performance test during which compliance was demonstrated. The first 
three hour period will commence when the affected source begins 
operation or restarts following a shutdown period. Subsequent three 
hour periods commence every three hours of operation. When an affected 
source shuts down during a three hour period, the average temperature 
for the period between the commencement of the three hour period and 
shut down would be used for the purpose of compliance demonstration.
    If incinerators are used, or if solvent recovery systems are used 
but liquid-liquid material balances are not conducted, semi-annual 
reports would be required that contain information on all days when for 
any three hour period, the average value of the site-specific operating 
parameter used to monitor capture system performance was greater than 
or less than (as appropriate) the operating parameter value established 
for the capture system.
    If a semiannual report is required for the period covered by the 
first semiannual report of the reporting year, a semiannual report 
would be submitted for the following semiannual period even if no 
exceedances occurred in that period. If no exceedances occur during the 
entire reporting year, each owner and operator would submit annual 
statements indicating that each affected facility has been in 
compliance.
    b. Packaging and Product Rotogravure and Wide-web Flexography. The 
notification of compliance status should identify whether low-HAP 
materials or control devices were used to demonstrate that the facility 
was in compliance, and, for control devices and capture systems, what 
operating parameters were identified for continuous monitoring in order 
to ensure compliance with the proposed standards. Specific reporting 
requirements are dependent upon how an owner or operator chooses to 
comply with the regulation.
    Owners and operators complying using low-HAP materials would be 
required to report each exceedance of the organic HAP content level or 
the low solids organic HAP content level. These reports would be 
submitted on a semiannual basis.
    If incinerators are used, semiannual reports would be required that 
contain information on all days when any 3-hour average temperature was 
below the average temperature established during the most recent 
performance test during which compliance was demonstrated. The first 
three hour period will commence when the affected source begins 
operation or restarts following a shutdown period. Subsequent three 
hour periods commence every three hours of operation. When an affected 
source shuts down during a three hour period, the average temperature 
for the period between the commencement of the three hour period and 
shut down would be used for the purpose of compliance demonstration.
    If solvent recovery systems are used, and the owner or operator 
chooses to demonstrate compliance by means of a liquid-liquid mass 
balance, semiannual reports would be required that contain information 
on all months when the material balances were not in compliance with 
the standards.
    Owners or operators of affected sources complying with the HAP 
emission limitation using a combination on control devices and low HAP 
materials would be required to submit semiannual reports containing 
information on control device exceedances as described above, in 
addition to reports of exceedances of monthly calculated HAP emission 
limitations.
    If incinerators are used, or if solvent recovery systems are used 
but liquid-liquid material balances are not conducted, semi-annual 
reports would be required that contain information on all days when for 
any three hour period, the average value of the site-specific operating 
parameter used to monitor capture system performance was greater than 
or less than (as appropriate) the operating parameter value established 
for the capture system.
    If a semiannual report is required for the period covered by the 
first semiannual report of the reporting year, a semiannual report 
would be submitted for the following semiannual period even if no 
exceedances occurred in that period. If no exceedances occur during the 
entire reporting year, each owner and operator would submit annual 
statements indicating that each affected facility has been in 
compliance. [[Page 13673]] 

III. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts of the 
Proposed Standards

A. Emission Reductions

1. Existing Facilities
    For the existing publication rotogravure printing industry (27 
facilities), the nationwide baseline HAP emissions are estimated to be 
17,500 Mg/yr (19,200 tpy). Implementation of the proposed regulation 
would reduce these emissions by 4,750 Mg/yr (5,220 tpy), or 27 percent. 
For the existing product and packaging rotogravure and wide web 
flexographic printing industry (approximately 1,200 facilities), the 
nationwide baseline HAP emissions are estimated to be 4,200 Mg/yr 
(4,620 tpy). Implementation of the proposed regulation would reduce 
these emissions by 1,940 Mg/yr (2,140 tpy), or 46 percent.
2. New Facilities
    It is expected that any new facilities would be designed to meet 
the proposed standards because of other federal, state and local 
environmental and occupational safety regulations. No net emission 
reduction from new facilities is expected as a result of the proposed 
regulation.

B. Secondary Environmental Impacts

    Secondary environmental impacts are considered to be any air, 
water, or solid waste impacts, positive or negative, associated with 
the implementation of the proposed standards. These impacts are 
exclusive of the direct organic HAP air emission reductions discussed 
in the previous section.
    Most of the organic HAP are VOC. Capture and control of HAP which 
is presently emitted will result in a decrease in VOC emissions. It is 
expected that some product and packaging rotogravure and wide-web 
flexographic facilities will comply with the proposed standard by 
substituting non-HAP materials for HAP presently in use. In some cases, 
the non-HAP materials will be VOC, however, in other cases, non-VOC (e. 
g. water) materials will be used.
    The use of newly installed or upgraded control devices will result 
in greater electricity consumption. Increases in emissions of sulfur 
dioxide, nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide from electric utilities 
could result. In the product and packaging rotogravure and wide-web 
flexographic printing segments, some plants will comply by installing 
or upgrading incinerators. Supplemental fuel, typically natural gas, 
will be used, particularly for thermal incinerators. Combustion of this 
fuel will result in additional carbon dioxide emissions and may result 
in additional emissions of nitrogen oxides.
    Facilities converting to waterborne materials as a means or partial 
means of compliance may have reduced RCRA hazardous waste disposal if 
the status of the waste ink changes from hazardous to nonhazardous. An 
increase in wastewater discharge may occur if waste ink and waterborne 
washup materials are discharged to publicly owned treatment works 
(POTW). There is no assurance that facilities converting to low-HAP 
formulations will adopt waterborne, rather than non-HAP VOC based 
materials. While EPA expects wastewater and solid waste impacts in 
general to be insignificant, it is aware of a frequent practice in the 
printing and publishing industry of using shop towels for cleaning. 
This generates a waste load which may be sent to industrial laundries 
(and ultimately to POTW) in the case of cloth towels, or to landfills 
in the case of disposable towels. EPA invites submission of comments 
and data on how effluent from industrial laundries may be affected by 
this regulation.
    New and upgraded catalytic incinerators will require catalyst. 
Catalyst life is estimated to be in excess of ten years. Spent catalyst 
will represent a small amount of solid waste and in some cases the 
spent catalyst will be regenerated by the manufacturer for reuse. 
Activated carbon used in solvent recovery systems is returned to the 
manufacturer at the end of its useful life and converted to other 
salable products. No solid waste impact is expected from this source.

C. Energy Impacts

    The operation of new and upgraded control devices will require 
additional energy. Capture and control of increased volumes of solvent 
laden air will require additional fan horsepower. Operation of 
incinerators, particularly thermal incinerators will require 
supplemental fuel (typically natural gas). Operation of solvent 
recovery systems will require steam regeneration of the activated 
carbon; boilers are typically fired with natural gas or fuel oil.
    The total additional electrical energy required to meet the 
proposed standard is estimated to be 55 million kilowatt-hours (kWh) 
per year. This includes 32 million kWh for publication rotogravure, 20 
million kWh for product and packaging rotogravure and 3.0 million kWh 
for wide web flexography. Fuel requirements total 1.0 trillion Btu per 
year. This includes 580 billion Btu for publication rotogravure, 370 
billion Btu for product and packaging rotogravure and 58 billion Btu 
for wide web flexography.

D. Cost Impacts

    The total capital and annualized costs (1993 dollars) attributable 
to compliance with the proposed standards have been estimated for 
existing sources. It is expected that new facilities would meet the 
proposed regulations as a result of other federal, state and local 
environmental and occupational safety regulations.
1. Capital Costs
    Capital costs would be incurred in upgrading existing capture and 
control systems at those facilities presently operating control devices 
that do not meet the proposed standards. Facilities which do not 
presently operate control devices would be expected to capitalize a 
period of downtime necessary to convert to low-HAP materials. Total 
capital costs are estimated at $133 million. These costs include $92 
million at publication rotogravure facilities for improved capture and 
upgrades to solvent recovery systems to handle increased volumes of 
pressroom air.
    Capital costs at product and packaging rotogravure facilities are 
estimated at $34 million. These costs include improved capture and 
upgrades to control devices for facilities presently operating control 
devices. For facilities not presently operating control devices the 
costs are based on capitalized downtime.
    Capital costs at wide-web flexographic facilities are estimated at 
$7.2 million. These costs include improved capture and upgrades to 
control devices for facilities presently operating control devices.
2. Annual Costs
    Annual costs of the proposed standards have been estimated at $42 
million per year. These costs include capital recovery over a ten year 
period, operating costs for the newly installed and upgraded capture 
and control systems, and costs for recordkeeping, reporting and 
monitoring. These are net costs after taking into account the costs 
presently being incurred for the baseline control level. The annual 
costs include $21 million per year for publication rotogravure, $17 
million per year for product and packaging rotogravure and $3.6 million 
per year for wide-web flexography.

E. Economic Impacts

    The preliminary economic impact analysis for the selected 
regulatory alternative shows that the estimated [[Page 13674]] price 
increases for printing products produced by the affected industries is 
an average of 1.34 percent for those using publication and product/
packaging rotogravure presses, and less than 0.01 percent on average 
for those using wide-web flexographic presses. The estimated decreases 
in the quantity of printing production is an average of 3.85 percent 
and 0.53 percent, respectively. No firms or facilities are at risk of 
closures as a result of the standard.
    For more information, consult the background information document.

IV. Process Descriptions and Control Technologies

A. Process Descriptions

1. Rotogravure Printing
    Nearly all gravure printing is done by rotogravure. Gravure 
printing is a printing process in which an image (type and art) is 
etched or engraved below the surface of a plate or cylinder. On a 
gravure plate or cylinder, the printing image consists of millions of 
minute cells. Rotogravure requires very fluid inks which will flow from 
the cells to the substrate at high press speeds. In addition to inks, 
other materials including adhesives, primers, coatings and varnishes 
may be applied with rotogravure cylinders. These materials dry by 
evaporation as the substrate passes through hot air dryers.
    Different colored inks, or other materials are applied in 
succession as the web passes from station to station. A separate 
cylinder, ink supply and dryer are required for each station. After the 
ink is applied at each station, the web is dried before being printed 
by the next station. Solvent borne or waterborne ink systems can be 
used but these ink systems are not interchangeable. Both the printing 
cylinders and the drying systems are specific to the ink system in use. 
The evaporated components of the ink and other materials may contain 
HAP to varying extents. Rotogravure can be divided into the publication 
and product/packaging segments. Because of the expense and complexity 
of rotogravure cylinder engraving, it is particularly suited to long 
run printing jobs.
    a. Publication Rotogravure. Publication rotogravure printing 
focuses on magazine, catalog and advertising insert printing. All U. S. 
publication rotogravure plants presently use toluene/xylene based ink 
systems, and operate solvent recovery systems based on carbon 
adsorption with steam regeneration. Recovered solvent is sold back to 
the ink manufacturers. Press capture systems vary depending on the age 
of the press. Typically, four stations are required to print each side 
of the web. Publication rotogravure presses in operation in the U. S. 
have up to 16 stations. It is generally believed in the industry that 
publication rotogravure equipment is capable of higher quality printing 
than competing processes.
    The primary solvent in publication rotogravure ink is toluene, a 
HAP. At some plants xylenes and ethyl benzene, also HAP, and non-HAP 
aliphatic solvents are present in the solvent blend and are used, 
emitted, recovered and handled in the same manner as toluene. The 
plants purchase ink containing solvent and add additional solvent to 
obtain the desired viscosity.
    HAP emissions result from incomplete recovery of captured HAP, and 
from incomplete capture. Activated carbon solvent recovery systems are 
suitable for control of toluene and similar aromatic solvents. High 
control efficiencies can be achieved, however some solvent is 
unavoidably emitted as a result of thermodynamic limitations (the 
toluene-carbon/toluene-air equilibrium) and flow irregularities (e.g. 
channelling through the carbon bed). Some HAP is not captured in the 
dryer exhaust. This includes HAP which evaporates from the ink 
fountains into the pressroom, HAP which is evaporated from the web in 
the dryers but is then swept out of the dryer as the web travels 
towards the succeeding press station, HAP which remains in the web 
after the last dryer which evaporates during additional processing 
(slitting, folding, stitching, etc.) and HAP which leaves the plant 
trapped in the magazine, catalog or advertising insert.
    b. Packaging and Product Rotogravure. The rotogravure printing 
operation is, in many cases, a relatively small part of the total 
package or product production process. This section briefly describes 
the various types of packages and products that include rotogravure 
printing in their manufacture, and notes what production steps are 
required in addition to the rotogravure printing step.
    Folding Cartons. Folding carton packages are used for a wide 
variety of products including wet and dry foods, beverages, bakery 
items, and candy. They are also used for nonfood products such as 
detergents, hardware, paper goods, cosmetics, medical products, tobacco 
products, and sporting goods.
    The folding carton is made from one of several grades of 
paperboard. It may be printed, laminated or coated, or may be shipped 
unprinted to be used with another label or wrapper. Besides printing, 
operations in the manufacture of folding cartons include creasing, 
trimming, die-cutting, coating, and gluing. The cartons are shipped 
flat, to be assembled and filled by the customer.
    Flexible Packaging. Flexible packaging materials start out as rolls 
of paper or foil, or beads of plastic resin, and are ``converted'' into 
a package or roll of packaging material. Flexible package manufacturers 
are sometimes referred to as ``converters''. Converters produce a wide 
range of non-rigid packages made of paper, plastic film, foil 
laminates, and combinations of these substrates.
    One portion of the flexible packaging industry provides fully 
printed packaging materials (designated ``preformed specialty bags'') 
to contract packagers. Another portion provides combination or 
laminated materials (converted wrap) for printing and/or final packing 
by captive packaging operations.
    Labels and Wrappers. Labels and wrappers include roll and sheet 
labels applied to cans, unprinted cartons, composite cans, bottles and 
other containers, tags, and self-adhesive label products. Paper is the 
common substrate, but laminates and foil are also used. The industry 
makes a distinction between labels and wrappers, which are package 
components, from a product that becomes the entire package and should 
be called a flexible package.
    Gift Wraps. About 90 percent of all gift wraps are printed. They 
are produced by greeting card companies and by label and flexible 
packaging firms. Rotogravure printing is particularly suitable for 
producing the continuous patterns used on gift wrap.
    Wallcoverings. The wallcovering industry is a traditional user of 
rotogravure. The principal types of wallcoverings are prepasted paper, 
prepasted paper-backed vinyl, fabric-backed vinyl, and specialty items 
(e.g., metallics, grass cloth, rice paper). The steps in manufacturing 
wallcoverings include printing the paper and laminating it to the 
backing sheet.
    Vinyl Printing. These products consist of auto upholstery, 
furniture upholstery, tablecloths, decorative trim, and shower 
curtains. Rotogravure dominates this product area because of the 
complex repeat patterns (e.g., woodgrain), and the requirement, in many 
cases, for overcoating that is readily applied using a rotogravure 
cylinder. Printing is performed on unsupported vinyl, supported vinyl 
(backed with fabric or paper), and paper substrate that is then coated 
with vinyl. [[Page 13675]] 
    Decorative Laminates. These products consist of solid, thermoset 
laminates used in furniture and construction, and other laminates, 
principally wood grain veneers, widely used in furniture.
    Floor Coverings. Rotogravure presses are used to decorate and apply 
texture and finish to sheet vinyl floor coverings. Rotary screen 
printing is sometimes used in combination with gravure. Rotogravure is 
also used to print transfer papers used to decorate vinyl tile.
    Tissue Products. Some type of printing process is used to apply 
color patterns to paper towels, bathroom tissue, and napkins. The older 
paper mills producing tissue products were typically equipped with 
rotogravure presses.
    Product and packaging rotogravure differs from publication 
rotogravure with respect to the materials used, the applicable control 
devices, and the decreased importance of the actual printing process in 
an overall manufacturing process. Packaging and product rotogravure 
printing uses a wide variety of different ink systems, including the 
aromatic HAP based ink systems common to publication rotogravure, 
solvent based non-HAP ink systems, and waterborne ink systems. Numerous 
specially mixed colors are applied at various times in this industry 
segment, in contrast to the publication segment which primarily applies 
four basic colors. In addition, a wider range of materials are applied 
with rotogravure cylinders in this segment of the industry. A variety 
of coatings, adhesives and primers are applied at print stations on 
rotogravure presses. Because of the variety of materials applied, the 
approach to HAP and VOC control in packaging and product rotogravure 
facilities varies. In addition to the activated carbon based solvent 
recovery systems used by the publication segment, packaging and product 
gravure facilities also use a variety of thermal and catalytic 
oxidizers. Many facilities operate without significant HAP use and do 
not have control devices.
    In product and packaging rotogravure facilities, HAP is contained 
in both the printing inks and in other materials (adhesives, coatings) 
that are applied as part of a continuous manufacturing process. The 
predominant type of ink is based on nitrocellulose resin, with some 
polyamide inks. Solvent systems include aromatic, aliphatic and 
oxygenated hydrocarbon solvent inks, and water-based inks.
2. Wide-Web Flexography
    Flexographic printing is considered to be the application of words, 
designs and pictures to a substrate by means of a printing technique in 
which the pattern to be applied is raised above the printing plate and 
the image carrier is made of rubber or other elastomeric materials. For 
the purposes of the proposed regulation, flexographic presses capable 
of printing substrates of 18 inches in width or greater are wide-web 
flexographic presses. Because of the ease of plate making and press set 
up, flexographic printing is more suited to short production runs than 
gravure.
    Flexographic inks must be very fluid to print properly. 
Flexographic inks include both waterborne and solvent based systems. 
Solvents used must be compatible with the rubber or polymeric plates; 
thus, aromatic solvents are not used. Some of the components of solvent 
based flexographic ink include ethyl, n-propyl and i-propyl alcohols; 
glycol ethers, aliphatic hydrocarbons, and esters.
    Wide web flexographic presses are used to print flexible and rigid 
packaging; newspapers, magazines, and directories; paper towels, 
tissues etc; and printed vinyl shower curtains and wallpaper. 
Substrates include polyolefins, polystyrene, polyesters, glassine, 
tissue, sulfite, kraft and other paper stocks, aluminum foil, 
paperboard and corrugated cardboard.
    Flexographic presses can be divided into three main types depending 
on the relative relationship of the print stations. Stack presses have 
individual print stations oriented vertically with the unwind and 
rewind sections on the same side of the print stations. Stack presses 
are easily accessible for rapid changeovers between press runs. Common 
impression presses have the print stations around the circumference of 
a single large impression cylinder. The web is constantly supported 
between print stations, which is an advantage for printing on 
stretchable materials. In-line presses have the print stations in a 
horizontal row (the geometry is similar to rotogravure presses). Most 
flexographic printing (including all flexographic newspaper and 
corrugated carton printing) is done with waterborne inks. Waterborne 
inks which contain no HAP are available for some applications. Some 
waterborne inks contain relatively low proportions of HAP, principally 
ethylene glycol and glycol ethers. Most solvent based flexographic inks 
contain little or no HAP. Capture and control devices used with solvent 
based inks are usually designed, permitted and operated for VOC 
control.

B. Control Techniques

    There are two approaches to limitation of HAP in the printing and 
publishing industry. The first approach is to improve capture and 
control systems or to add control devices where none are in use. 
Capture and control can be addressed separately, although in many 
cases, improved capture is achieved through an increase in the amount 
of air handled. This can necessitate upgrades to existing control 
devices. The second approach, focusing on pollution prevention, is to 
substitute low HAP or HAP-free materials for materials (inks, coatings, 
varnishes, adhesives, primers, etc.) presently in use.
1. Capture Systems
    Capture systems are designed to collect solvent laden air and 
direct it to a control device. In rotogravure and flexographic 
printing, solvent is removed from the printed substrate by evaporation 
in a dryer. The exhaust from the dryer can be ducted to a control 
device. Additional systems are often used to collect solvents which 
evaporate from other parts of the printing press, as well as those 
which escape from the dryer. In addition, pressroom ventilation air can 
be exhausted to a control device.
    Differences in capture efficiency contribute much more to the 
variation in overall efficiencies than the choice of control device. 
Reported capture efficiencies ranged from estimates of less than 50 
percent to the 100 percent capture which is assumed for systems meeting 
the requirements of permanent total enclosures. Capture systems can be 
improved through collection of additional solvent laden air from the 
press area and through construction of additional hooding and press 
enclosures. A capture efficiency of 100 percent can be assumed for 
presses that meet the requirements of a permanent total enclosure.
    a. Publication Rotogravure. Within the publication rotogravure 
industry, all presses have dryer exhaust gases routed to the solvent 
recovery system. Additional capture systems include dryer hood systems, 
partial upper deck enclosures, full upper deck enclosures, enclosed 
presses, permanent total enclosures, room enclosures, rooms operated 
under negative pressure and floor sweeps. Typically, solvent laden air 
captured from several presses is combined and treated with a common 
solvent recovery system. The individual presses may have different 
capture devices, and different capture efficiencies. [[Page 13676]] 
    b. Product and Package Gravure. In the product and package gravure 
industry, many facilities use low VOC (and low-HAP) inks and coatings. 
Dryer exhausts from these facilities may be captured and vented to the 
atmosphere without the use of a control device. Where solvent based 
inks are in use, more elaborate capture and control systems may be 
present. Capture systems in use at product and packaging gravure 
facilities include combinations of dryer exhausts, floor sweeps, 
collection ducting, hoods, press enclosures, permanent total 
enclosures, room enclosures, negative pressure pressrooms, partial 
enclosures and ink pan covers. With the exception of permanent total 
enclosures, none of these technologies has a precise definition with 
regard to capture efficiency. In many cases terms are used 
interchangeably. Where control devices are in use, solvent laden air 
from several presses may be combined and ducted to a common control 
device.
    c. Wide-web Flexographic Printing. Capture systems in use at 
flexographic printing facilities include combinations of dryer 
exhausts, floor sweeps, hoods, and permanent total enclosures. Many 
facilities, including most sheetfed corrugated box facilities have no 
capture systems and rely on pressroom exhaust to the atmosphere to 
dilute the small amount of HAP present in the ink.
2. Control Devices.
    a. Carbon adsorbers. Adsorption systems are used to remove organic 
compounds from gas streams when strict limits on the outlet 
concentration must be met, or when recovery of the compound is desired. 
Adsorption is effective on inlet concentrations ranging from a few 
parts per billion to several thousand parts per million, and flow rates 
of several hundred to several hundred thousand cubic feet per minute. 
Carbon adsorbers typically have a removal efficiency of 95 to 99 
percent.
    Once the carbon reaches saturation, it can be regenerated with 
steam within the adsorber vessel. This allows for the recovery of the 
organic compounds for reuse.
    b. Incinerators. Two basic types of incinerators, thermal and 
catalytic, are used by package and product rotogravure and flexographic 
printers to remove organic contaminants. Each type is discussed below.
    (1) Thermal incinerators. Thermal incinerators can be generally 
used on air streams with a wide concentration range of organics. These 
control devices have minimal dependence on the characteristics of the 
organic contaminants, so they can be used to control a wide variety of 
emission streams. Thermal incinerators can achieve removal efficiencies 
of 98 percent and higher.
    The basic operation of thermal incinerators involves raising the 
inlet air stream to the incineration temperature of the contaminants 
and maintaining the temperature for a specific residence time. The 
waste heat content of the incinerator exhaust stream is used to preheat 
the inlet air stream. An auxiliary fuel is then typically required to 
raise the air stream temperature to the incineration temperature.
    (2) Catalytic incinerators. Catalytic incinerators are similar to 
thermal incinerators except that they use a catalyst (a substance that 
accelerates the rate of oxidation without undergoing a chemical change 
itself) to assist in the oxidation of organic compounds to carbon 
dioxide and water. The removal efficiency of catalytic incinerators can 
be as high as 98 percent. Catalytic incinerators typically operate at 
lower temperatures than thermal incinerators to achieve equivalent 
efficiencies. For this reason, auxiliary fuel requirements and 
operating costs are lower for catalytic incinerators than thermal 
incinerators when used to control relatively dilute air streams.

V. Rationale for the Proposed Rule

A. Regulatory Development Process for NESHAP

    During development of a NESHAP, the EPA collects information about 
the industry, including information on emission source characteristics, 
control technologies, data from HAP emission tests at well-controlled 
facilities, and information on the cost, energy, and other 
environmental impacts of emission control techniques. The EPA uses this 
information in the development of possible regulatory approaches.
    If the source category contains major sources, then a MACT standard 
is required. Section 112(d)(3) of the Act defines the minimum 
stringency requirements of the MACT standard for new and existing 
sources. This level of control is referred to as the MACT ``floor,'' 
which needs to be determined as a starting point for developing the 
regulatory alternatives.
    Once the floor has been determined for new and existing sources for 
a category or subcategory, the Administrator must set MACT standards 
that are no less stringent than the floor level. Such standards must 
then be met by all sources within the category or subcategory. However, 
in establishing standards, the Administrator may distinguish among 
classes, types, and sizes of sources within a category or subcategory 
(section 112(d)(1) of the Act). Thus, for example, the Administrator 
could establish two classes of sources within a category or subcategory 
based on size and establish a different emission standard for each 
class as long as each standard is at least as stringent as the floor. 
The Act also contains provisions for regulating area sources. However, 
except for certain recordkeeping requirements contained in the General 
Provisions, these are not relevant to the proposed standards for 
printing and publishing sources, which apply only to major sources.
    The next step in establishing a MACT standard is the development 
and analysis of regulatory alternatives. First, information about the 
industry is analyzed to develop model plant populations for projecting 
national impacts, including HAP emission reduction levels, costs, and 
energy and secondary environmental impacts. Several regulatory 
alternatives (which may be different levels of emission control, 
different applicability criteria, or both, and one of which is the MACT 
floor) are then evaluated to determine the most appropriate regulatory 
alternative to reflect the MACT level.
    In addition, although NESHAP are normally structured in terms of 
numerical emission limits, alternative approaches are sometimes 
necessary. Section 112(h) of the Act provides that if it is not 
feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard, then a design, 
equipment, work practice, or operational standard may be established. 
For example, in some cases source testing may be impossible or at least 
not practicable due to technological and economic limitations.
    In the EPA's decision-making process, the regulatory alternatives 
considered for new versus existing sources may be different and each 
alternative must be technically achievable. In selecting a regulatory 
alternative to represent MACT, the EPA considers the achievable 
reduction in HAP emissions (and possibly other pollutants that are co-
controlled), the cost of control, and economic, energy, and other 
nonair quality health and environmental impacts. The overall objective 
is the achievement of the maximum degree of emission reduction without 
unreasonable economic or other impacts.
    The selected regulatory alternative is then translated into a 
proposed regulation. The regulation implementing the MACT decision 
typically includes sections addressing applicability, standards, test 
methods and compliance [[Page 13677]] demonstration, monitoring, 
reporting, and recordkeeping. The preamble to the proposed regulation, 
published in the Federal Register, provides an explanation of the 
rationale for the decision. The public is invited to comment on the 
proposed regulation during the public comment period. Following an 
evaluation of these comments, the EPA reaches a decision and 
promulgates the final standards.

B. Determining Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) ``Floors''

    Once the EPA has identified the specific major source categories or 
subcategories that it intends to regulate under section 112, MACT 
standards are set at a level at least as stringent as the ``floor.'' 
Congress has provided directives to guide the EPA in the process of 
determining the regulatory floor.
    Congress specified that the EPA must establish standards which 
require ``the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of the hazardous 
air pollutants * * * that the Administrator * * * determines is 
achievable * * *'' (section 112(d)(2) of the Act). In addition, 
Congress limited the Agency's discretion by defining the minimum 
baseline (floor) at which standards may be set, as follows:
    (1) For new sources, the standards for a source category or 
subcategory ``shall not be less stringent than the emission control 
that is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source, as 
determined by the Administrator,''; and
    (2) For existing sources, the standards ``may be less stringent 
than standards for new sources * * * but shall not be less stringent, 
and may be more stringent than: (A) the average emission limitation 
achieved by the best performing 12 percent of the existing sources (for 
which the Administrator has emissions information) * * * or (B) the 
average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 5 sources * 
* * for categories or subcategories * * * with fewer than 30 sources'' 
(section 112(d)(3) of the Act).

C. Selection of Pollutants and Source Category(ies)

    Section 112(b) of the Act lists the HAP to be regulated with 
standards established under section 112. Section 112(d), as amended, 
requires the EPA to promulgate emission standards for each category or 
subcategory of major sources and area sources of the HAP listed in 
section 112(b). For the purpose of developing these standards, the EPA 
may distinguish among classes, types, and sizes of sources within a 
category or subcategory. The NESHAP are to be developed to control HAP 
emissions from both new and existing sources pursuant to section 112(c) 
of the Act.
    The initial source category list (57 FR 31576, July 16, 1992), 
required by section 112(c) of the Act, identifies source categories for 
which NESHAP are to be established. This list includes all major source 
categories of HAP known to the EPA at this time, and all area source 
categories for which a finding of adverse effects warranting regulation 
has been made.
    The source category list identifies ``Printing/Publishing (Surface 
Coating)'' as a source category because it contains major sources which 
have the potential to emit at least 10 tons of any one HAP or at least 
25 tons of any combination of HAP annually.
    The printing and publishing industry encompasses printing by a 
variety of graphic arts techniques applied to a variety of substrates. 
Printing operations are included as one or more steps in the overall 
manufacturing process for a wide variety of end products. Packaging and 
product printing often makes up only a small part of the value of the 
end product. For purposes of this rule, the EPA has defined the source 
category as consisting of all facilities engaged in publication 
rotogravure and product and packaging rotogravure and wide-web 
flexographic printing.

D. Selection of Emission Points Covered by the Proposed Rule

    The proposed rule would limit organic HAP emissions that result 
from publication rotogravure and product and packaging rotogravure and 
wide-web flexographic printing. The standard applies to HAP present in 
inks, ink extenders, solvents, coatings, varnishes, primers, adhesives, 
and other materials applied on publication rotogravure and product and 
packaging and wide-web flexographic presses. Emission points in the 
publication rotogravure segment of the printing and publishing industry 
include but are not limited to ink and solvent storage tanks, ink 
mixing, printing, press and parts cleaning, proof and production 
presses and solvent recovery. Within the product/package rotogravure 
and wide-web flexography industry the standard applies to inks and all 
other materials applied with rotogravure or wide-web flexographic 
printing presses.
    A discussion of the rationale for including or excluding basic 
processes from this proposed rule is given below.
1. Operations for Which Standards Are Being Proposed
    EPA is proposing organic HAP emission standards for rotogravure and 
wide-web flexographic printing operations. Within the publication 
rotogravure segment of the industry, all organic HAP emitting 
operations are covered by the standard. Current industry practices 
instituted for compliance with applicable regulations pertaining to VOC 
emissions include accounting for solvent use on a facility-wide or 
control system wide basis determined by a periodic liquid-liquid mass 
balance. Organic HAP emissions at points other than production printing 
presses are relatively minor compared to press emissions. These 
operations, including ink storage and mixing, parts cleaning and proof 
presses can be controlled or uncontrolled provided that the overall 
facility or control system meets the proposed standard. Based on 
information provided by all U.S. publication rotogravure facilities, 
there are readily available techniques to achieve substantial organic 
HAP emissions reduction from the presses. Adequate information is 
available to establish MACT for these facilities.
    Within the product and packaging rotogravure and wide-web 
flexographic printing segment of the industry, emission of organic HAP 
from rotogravure and flexographic presses is covered.
    Based on the information obtained from the industry in response to 
information collection requests, in addition to information provided 
voluntarily and during meetings with industry trade organizations, 
there are several readily available techniques (including carbon 
adsorption and thermal and catalytic incineration) to achieve 
substantial emission reductions in these operations. While inks and 
other materials containing organic HAP are being used at many 
facilities, alternative formulations containing no organic HAP, or very 
low concentrations of organic HAP are available for many specific 
applications. Adequate information exists for establishing MACT for 
capture and control devices and for alternate low-HAP formulations.
2. Excluded Operations
    a. Inorganic HAP Emissions. Inorganic HAP are present in pigments 
and film forming components of some inks. These components make up less 
than 1 percent of the total HAP content of the materials. These 
components remain on the substrate for the life of the publication, 
product or package and are not expected to be emitted to the air.
    b. Non-press Operations at Product and Packaging Rotogravure and 
Wide-web Flexographic Printing Facilities. Operations related to press 
and parts cleaning, proof presses, ink mixing and 
[[Page 13678]] storage, film lamination and flexographic platemaking 
have the potential to emit organic HAP. Organic HAP emissions from 
these operations make up only a small fraction of HAP emissions from 
the presses. Very few data are available regarding the extent of 
emissions from these sources and applicable control techniques. 
Adequate information is not available to establish MACT for these 
potential emission points.
    EPA is not proposing regulations at this time pertaining to off-
line rotogravure coating because these emission points will be covered 
in a future standard for ``Paper and Other Web Coating''.
    c. Narrow-web Flexography. Thousands of narrow web flexographic 
printing facilities exist which primarily print tags and labels. No 
major sources of this type have been identified based on a search of 
the Toxic Release Inventory System, and it is unlikely that there are 
any such facilities. Very few data are available regarding the extent 
of emissions from these sources and applicable control techniques. 
Narrow web flexographic printing facilities are typically very small 
and predominantly use low HAP, low VOC inks. Adequate information is 
not available to establish MACT for these potential emission points.

E. Selection of the Basis for the Proposed Rule

    Section 112 of the Act defines a major source as any stationary 
source or group of stationary sources located within a contiguous area 
and under common control that emits or has the potential to emit 
considering controls, 9.1 Mg/yr (10 tpy) or more of any one HAP or 22.7 
Mg/yr (25 tpy) or more of any combination of HAP. The Act states that 
new major sources must achieve the maximum achievable control 
technology (MACT), which is the level of emission control already 
achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source. The Act 
further states that emission standards promulgated for existing sources 
may be less stringent than standards for new sources; however, 
standards for existing sources must not be less stringent than the 
average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent 
of the existing sources.
    For all operations being covered by the proposed rule, the EPA has 
determined that, taking into account nonair quality health and 
environmental impacts, and energy impacts, MACT is equal to the MACT 
floors for both existing and new sources. In addition, MACT for new 
sources was found to be equal to MACT for existing sources. The EPA has 
determined that no further emission reductions can be achieved for new 
sources through the use of demonstrated technology than the level of 
reduction represented by MACT for existing sources.
    To evaluate the regulatory alternatives, model plants were 
developed based on market segment (publication rotogravure, package and 
product rotogravure and wide-web flexography), and size. These 
characteristics were examined to determine whether any technological 
justification existed to differentiate the proposed standards by market 
segment or size. Based on this examination, the EPA has decided that 
different market segments operate in different ways and that there is 
justification to differentiate between the two market segments 
identified on the basis of these characteristics. No compelling reasons 
were identified as to why a facility of one size could not incorporate 
the technology used by a facility of another size.
1. Publication Rotogravure.
    Data were obtained from all of the 27 U. S. publication rotogravure 
facilities. All of the control systems employ activated carbon based 
solvent recovery systems. All facilities calculate overall efficiencies 
on the basis of liquid-liquid mass balances. All facilities use toluene 
based ink systems, although some facilities have replaced a portion of 
the toluene with non-HAP organic solvents. Waterborne ink systems are 
not technically feasible at this time for the high quality, high speed 
printing which these facilities produce.
    The average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 5 
facilities was 92 percent. This limitation is based on the level of 
control achieved in each of twelve monthly material balances at the 5 
plants with the best annual solvent recovery rates. The solvent 
recovery data were analyzed on a plantwide basis. Some facilities 
operated more than one solvent recovery system and it was not possible 
to reliably isolate the individual systems. Annual average emission 
limitations were higher, and facilities meeting the standard each and 
every month will achieve annual emissions limitations of 92 percent or 
greater.
    To achieve 92 percent solvent recovery each month, a facility may 
need a permanent total enclosure and an efficient solvent recovery 
system. No more efficient alternative technologies are available. 
Higher solvent recovery rates may not be achievable on a consistent 
basis due to month-to-month variations in solvent accounting and due to 
solvent retention in the printed substrate. Therefore the floor for new 
sources was determined to be the same as the floor for existing sources 
and no more stringent regulatory alternatives were found to exist.
2. Package and Product Rotogravure and Wide-web Flexography
    Data were obtained from approximately 103 product and package 
rotogravure printing facilities, and approximately 500 wide-web 
flexographic facilities. Industry representatives believe that there 
are approximately 400 product and package rotogravure facilities 
operating in the U.S. There are approximately 800 wide-web flexographic 
printing facilities in the United States. Different types of 
incinerators and solvent recovery systems were operated by 146 of the 
reporting facilities. The balance of the facilities had no control 
device. In all cases where control devices were in operation, they were 
designed and operated to control VOC emissions. It is assumed that the 
performance of these control devices with respect to VOC and organic 
HAP is equivalent.
    The same types of control devices and capture systems were 
generally applicable even though the materials applied, products, 
substrates, and web widths of the controlled presses varied 
considerably. The overall control efficiency data for the facilities 
with the greatest emissions limitations were generally provided based 
on tests conducted to comply with permit conditions. Where permanent 
total enclosures were in place, capture efficiencies of 100 percent 
were assumed and tests across control devices were conducted. The 
emissions limitation achieved by the average of the best controlled 12 
percent of the facilities was 95 percent.
    To achieve 95 percent control of organic HAP a facility may need to 
operate a permanent total enclosure and an efficient control device. At 
present there are no technologies which can consistently achieve a 
greater overall control efficiency than this. For this reason, the 
floor for new sources was determined to be equal to the floor for 
existing sources and no more stringent regulatory alternatives were 
found to exist.

F. Selection of the Format of the Proposed Rule

    Emission standards for control of HAP have been prescribed in 
accordance with section 112(d) of the Act. Where control devices are in 
place, emissions standards are proposed on the basis of 
[[Page 13679]] overall efficiency, taking into account both capture and 
control device efficiencies.
    To encourage the use of non-HAP materials in the publication 
rotogravure industry as an alternative to toluene (and ethylbenzene and 
xylene) based materials, an alternate means of compliance allows credit 
for 100 percent recovery of that portion of the solvent which is 
replaced with non-HAP compounds. Thus, a facility achieving 90 percent 
overall efficiency, using a solvent system which is 70 percent toluene 
and 30 percent non-HAP solvent would comply on the basis of an 
equivalent emissions limitation of 93 percent.
    Based on the potential HAP content of the materials applied by the 
best controlled 12 percent of the product and package rotogravure and 
wide-web flexographic printing facilities, alternate standards were 
proposed yielding equivalent emissions limitations. Sources applying 
materials containing 0.20 kg organic HAP or less per kg of solids 
applied on package and product rotogravure and wide-web flexographic 
presses will not be required to operate a control device to comply with 
the standard. Facilities operating systems with overall efficiencies 
less than 95 percent would be able to comply by limiting the HAP 
content of the inks, coatings, primers, adhesives, solvents, and other 
materials applied such that the HAP emissions from the affected source 
are 0.20 kg per kg of solids applied or less.
    Certain press lines are used to apply low solids materials which 
contain relatively low proportion of organic HAP relative to the mass 
of material applied. Sources applying materials containing 0.04 kg 
organic HAP per kg of material applied will not be required to operate 
a control device to comply with the standard.

G. Selection of Emission Test Methods and Monitoring Requirements

1. Emission Test Methods
    In addition to the specific test methods described below for 
affected sources, the proposed rule adopts the provisions specified in 
40 CFR 63.7.
    a. Publication Rotogravure. Where a carbon adsorber is used, the 
EPA is proposing to use a mass balance procedure for determining the 
overall control efficiency. The proposed rule contains procedures as 
specified in 40 CFR 60.433 for using a mass balance approach that would 
calculate the amount of organic HAP and VOC applied and the amount 
recovered. This information would then be used to calculate the overall 
control efficiency of the carbon adsorber.
    In determining compliance with the alternate standard for sources 
that have substituted non-HAP VOC for a portion of the HAP in their 
ink, the EPA is proposing that Method 24A be used for determining the 
volatile matter content. This is a long-standing method for such 
determinations. This determination may be conducted by the manufacturer 
and provided to the owner or operator. The EPA is proposing that the 
organic HAP content level be determined by proposed EPA Method 311. 
This method was proposed (see Solicitation of Comments) as part of the 
NESHAP for Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations on December 6, 1994 
(59 FR 62652). The EPA requests comment on the suitability of Method 
311 for determination of HAP used in the printing industry.
    b. Package and Product Rotogravure and Wide-web Flexography. If 
control devices (e.g., incinerators, carbon adsorbers) are used the 
proposed standards require them to achieve an overall control 
efficiency of at least 95 percent, or a HAP emission limitation of no 
more than 0.20 kg HAP per kg solids applied. It is necessary, 
therefore, to identify the capture efficiency of the capture system, 
the destruction or recovery efficiency of the control device, and, 
where feasible, operational parameters that would be monitored to 
ensure continuous compliance. The proposed standards also include 
provisions for determining the capture and removal efficiencies. The 
test methods and procedures being proposed for determining the capture 
and removal efficiencies are those that are typical for control 
devices.
    The EPA is proposing that capture efficiency be determined by one 
of two methods depending on whether or not the capture system is a 
permanent total enclosure or not. A permanent total enclosure would be 
verified according to the provisions specified in 40 CFR 52.741, 
appendix B, Procedure T (and, thus would have a capture efficiency of 
100 percent). The capture efficiency of all other systems would be 
determined according to the procedures specified in 40 CFR 
52.741(a)(4)(iii).
    The EPA is proposing that the removal efficiency of a control 
device be determined based on three runs, each run lasting one hour. 
Method 1 or 1A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, as appropriate, would be 
used for selection of the sampling sites, and the gas volumetric flow 
rate would be determined using Methods 2, 2A, 2C, or 2D of 40 CFR part 
60, appendix A, as appropriate. Method 25 or 25A of 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A, would then be used to measure either the organic 
concentration or the total organic HAP concentration before and after 
the control device. Alternatively, any other test method or data that 
has been validated according to the applicable procedures in Method 301 
of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, may be used.
    Owners or operators complying with the standard on the basis of 
average HAP content of materials applied on the press would be required 
to determine the HAP content of each material applied. The EPA is 
proposing that the organic HAP content level be determined by proposed 
EPA Method 311. This method was proposed (see Solicitation of Comments) 
as part of the NESHAP for Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations on 
December 6, 1994 (59 FR 62652).
2. Monitoring Requirements
    In accordance with paragraph (a)(3) of section 114 of the Act, 
monitoring of stationary sources is required to determine the 
compliance status of the sources, and whether compliance is continuous 
or intermittent. Enhanced monitoring shall be capable of detecting 
deviations from each applicable emission limitations 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.
    For affected sources complying with the proposed standards through 
the use of control devices, initial compliance is determined through 
the initial compliance test, and ongoing compliance through continuous 
monitoring. The EPA has proposed the parameters to be monitored for 
certain types of control devices now used in the industry. The values 
of these parameters that correspond to compliance with the proposed 
standards are set by the owner or operator during the initial 
compliance test. If future monitoring indicates that control equipment 
is operating outside of the range of values established during the 
initial performance test, then the owner or operator is out of 
compliance with the proposed standards, except as specified for 
malfunctions in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3).
    Owners or operators using incinerators, and owners or operators 
using solvent recovery systems and demonstrating compliance with 
continuous emissions monitoring must identify the operating parameter 
to be monitored to ensure that the capture efficiency measured during 
the initial [[Page 13680]] compliance test is maintained, and conduct 
monitoring of this parameter in accordance with the plan submitted with 
the compliance status report. If future monitoring indicates that 
capture system is operating outside of the range of values established 
during the initial performance test, then the owner or operator is out 
of compliance with the proposed standards, except as specified for 
malfunctions in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3).
    a. Publication Rotogravure Sources Using Solvent Recovery Systems. 
Publication rotogravure facilities operating solvent recovery systems 
would be required to demonstrate continuing compliance by conducting a 
liquid-liquid mass balance each and every month.
    b. Other Sources Complying by Means of a Control Device. Product 
and packaging rotogravure and wide-web flexographic sources complying 
by means of a solvent recovery system would be required to demonstrate 
continuing compliance either through the use of continuous emission 
monitors or by conducting a liquid-liquid mass balance each and every 
month.
    Sources complying through the use of a thermal incinerator would be 
required to install, calibrate, operate and maintain a temperature 
monitoring device equipped with a continuous recorder to monitor the 
temperature in the combustion chamber downstream of the combustion 
zone. Sources complying through the use of a catalytic incinerator 
would be required to install, calibrate, operate and maintain a 
temperature monitoring device equipped with a continuous recorder to 
monitor the temperatures at the inlet to the catalyst bed and the 
outlet from the catalyst bed.
    The rationale for selecting the control device parameters for 
thermal and catalytic incinerators in this proposed rule is long 
standing, and for more information see the proposal notice for the 
SOCMI reactor processes NSPS (55 FR 26966 through 26969, June 29, 
1990). The EPA is, therefore, simply proposing to adopt the same 
monitoring parameters as have been required for previous standards.

H. Selection of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

1. Recordkeeping
    In addition to the specific recordkeeping requirements described 
below for each affected source, the proposed rule adopts the provisions 
specified in Sec. 63.10 (a), (b), (c)(1), (c)(5-8), (c)(10-15), (d)(1-
2), (d)(4-5), and (f). These were the only paragraphs from Sec. 63.10 
that were considered to be applicable to the proposed rule.
    Each owner or operator would be required to maintain records of 
each applicability determination as described above in section II. A., 
each continuous monitoring system operated as described above in 
section V. G., and each liquid-liquid mass balance as described above 
in section V.
G. These Records Would Be Maintained in Accordance With the 
Requirements of Sec. 63.10(b)
    As called for by the General Provisions, each owner or operator of 
an affected source would be required to develop a start-up, shut-down, 
and malfunction plan, and keep it on record to be made available for 
inspection, upon request, by the Administrator for the life of the 
affected source or until the affected source is no longer subject to 
the provisions of the proposed rule.
    If an owner or operator of a product or packaging rotogravure or 
wide-web flexographic source elects to comply on the basis of use of 
low HAP materials, or on the basis on HAP emission limitation, the EPA 
is proposing that records of the monthly mass-weighted average organic 
HAP content for all inks, coatings, primers, adhesives, solvents and 
other materials applied on the press be kept as well as all of the data 
and calculations used to calculate these values. This would include the 
mass and organic HAP content as applied of each material. This level of 
information is required for an inspector to determine whether the 
facility was in compliance and whether the proper data and calculations 
were being used.
    If a thermal or catalytic incinerator is used, each owner or 
operator would be required to keep a record of the control device 
operating parameters being monitored. Since for some control devices 
compliance with the proposed standards is dependent on the control 
device being operated properly, these records are necessary to 
determine compliance. Specifically, a source would be out of compliance 
if the recorded parameters were out of range. Thus, the EPA is 
requiring these records for compliance determinations.
2. Reporting Requirements
     In addition to the specific reporting requirements described below 
for each affected source, the proposed rule adopts the provisions 
specified in Sec. 63.9(a) through Sec. 63.9(e) and Sec. 63.9(g) through 
Sec. 63.9(j) and Sec. 63.10 (a), (b), (d), and (f).
    The proposed rule would require an owner or operator to submit the 
following five types of reports:
    (1) Initial notification,
    (2) notification of performance tests and continuous emission 
monitor evaluation periods,
    (3) notification of compliance status,
    (4) periodic reports, and
    (5) other reports.
    The purpose and contents of each of these reports are described in 
this section. The wording of the proposed rule requires all reports to 
be submitted to the ``Administrator.'' The term Administrator refers 
either to the Administrator of the EPA, an EPA regional office, a state 
agency, or another authority that has been delegated the authority to 
implement this rule. In most cases, reports will be sent to state 
agencies. Addresses are provided in the General Provisions of 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart A.
    Records of reported information and other information necessary to 
document compliance with the regulation are required to be kept for 5 
years. As required under the General Provisions, the two most recent 
years must be kept on-site; the other three years may be kept off-site. 
Records pertaining to the design and operation of the control and 
monitoring equipment must be kept for the life of the equipment.
    a. Initial Notification. The proposed standards would require 
owners or operators who are subject to this subpart to submit an 
initial notification. As outlined in the General Provisions under 
Sec. 63.9, this report serves two basic purposes: (1) Notifies the EPA 
that an existing facility is subject to the proposed standards and (2) 
notifies the EPA of the construction of a new facility. A respondent 
must also report any facility modifications as defined in Sec. 63.5. 
This report will include the mass of HAP used at the facility during 
the previous twelve months, as well as the mass of HAP expected to be 
used at the facility during the next twelve months.
    This report will establish an early dialogue between the source and 
the regulatory agency, allowing both to plan for compliance activities. 
The notice is due no later than 120 days after the effective date of 
the proposed standards. Under the proposed rule, the initial 
notification is not required from any source that has submitted a 
permit application under title V of the Act, provided that the permit 
application has been submitted by the same due dates as for the initial 
notification and that the state to which the permit application has 
been submitted has a permit program in place and has received 
delegation of authority from the EPA.
    b. Notification of Performance Tests and Continuous Emission 
Monitor [[Page 13681]] Evaluation Periods. As adopted through the 
General Provisions, Sec. 63.7 and Sec. 63.9(g), owners or operators 
would be required to notify the Administrator in advance of conducting 
performance tests of control devices and evaluating continuous 
emissions monitors.
    c. Notification of Compliance Status. As adopted through the 
General Provisions, owners or operators who are subject to this subpart 
would be required to submit a notification of compliance status. This 
report contains the information necessary to demonstrate that 
compliance has been achieved, such as the results of performance tests, 
and average organic HAP contents, as well as the methods that will be 
used for determining continuing compliance as outlined under Sec. 63.9. 
Another type of information to be included in the notification of 
compliance status is the specific range of each monitored parameter for 
each affected source, the rationale for why this range indicates 
compliance with the emission standard, and whether each source has 
operated within its designated operating parameters. The report would 
be due within 60 days after the final compliance date as specified in 
the General Provisions.
    d. Periodic Reports. The EPA is proposing to adopt a standard basis 
for submitting periodic reports for each of the operations for which 
standards are being proposed. Semiannual reports would be required 
whenever an operation was found to be in non-compliance or whenever a 
monitored parameter exceeded its value. For example, for a publication 
rotogravure source, a semiannual report would be triggered for any 
monthly period covered by the semiannual report in which the overall 
efficiency of the solvent recovery system failed to meet the standard.
    Semiannual reports would also be required whenever a change 
occurred at a facility that might affect a source's compliance status 
or that introduces a new element to the operation that was required to 
be reported in the notification of compliance status. For example, 
conversion of a press requiring a control device to operate with low-
HAP materials would require monthly averaging of materials applied to 
maintain compliance. This change in compliance status would trigger a 
semiannual report. For operations that did not experience any 
exceedances or changes, the EPA is proposing that annual reports be 
submitted to this effect.
    The EPA is proposing to adopt the above schedule of reporting 
because it provides a fair balance between the need to know certain 
information in a timely fashion and reduces the burden to industry and 
provides consistency within this regulation. The following paragraphs 
discuss in more detail the specific types of information to be included 
in these various periodic reports. The information being requested is 
that which the EPA believes is necessary in the enforcement of the 
proposed rule.
    (1) Sources Operating Solvent Recovery Systems. A semiannual report 
would be required whenever a monthly liquid-liquid mass balance failed 
to meet the standard. Owners or operators choosing to demonstrate 
compliance using CEM would be required to submit a semiannual report 
for any semiannual period in which the calculated average efficiency, 
including capture efficiency and control device efficiency failed to 
meet the standard during any three hour period.
    (2) Sources Operating Thermal and Catalytic Incinerators. A 
semiannual report would be required for any semiannual period when a 
monitored temperature parameter, averaged over a three hour period, 
falls outside its appropriate range during any three hour period. A 
semiannual report would be required for any semiannual period when a 
monitored site-specific capture system parameter, averaged over a three 
hour period, falls outside its appropriate range during any three hour 
period.
    (3) Package and Product Rotogravure and Flexographic Sources 
Complying by Means of Low-HAP Materials. A semiannual report would be 
required for any semiannual period in which the materials applied, when 
averaged over a monthly period, exceed the standard for organic HAP 
content based on solids applied or on materials applied during any 
month.
    e. Other Reports. The only ``other reports'' in the proposed rule 
are those that are required under the General Provisions, subpart A of 
40 CFR part 63. Of particular note is the report required in response 
to periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. When the procedures 
used during such periods are completely consistent with the plan, a 
report stating such is to be delivered or postmarked by the thirtieth 
(30th) day following the end of each calendar half. If the procedures 
are not completely consistent with the plan, an owner or operator is to 
report the actions taken within 2 working days after commencing actions 
inconsistent with the plan, followed by a letter within 7 working days 
after the end of the event.

I. Selection of Compliance Deadline

    The proposed standards would require the owner or operator of an 
existing rotogravure or wide-web flexographic printing operation to 
comply with these standards within three years after they are 
promulgated in the Federal Register. Section 63.7(a)(2) of the General 
Provisions then allows a source 180 days after the compliance date to 
demonstrate compliance through an initial performance test. A shorter 
compliance time was not selected because the proposed timeframe is 
necessary for those sources that will be required to install new 
capture and/or control devices to purchase and install the equipment. 
The proposed timeframe will also provide the greatest opportunity for 
developing and adopting low HAP content materials. Administrative 
procedures are established in Sec. 63.6(i) to implement compliance 
extensions for existing sources that are unable to install controls by 
the required compliance dates.
    Owners or operators of new sources that commence construction after 
the standards are proposed but before the standards are promulgated 
will have to comply immediately upon startup, unless the promulgated 
regulation is more strict than the proposed regulation. In accordance 
with Section 112(i)(2) of the Act, if the promulgated standards are 
more stringent than the proposed standards, the compliance date for 
construction after proposal but before promulgation will be 3 years 
after the promulgation date, provided the owner or operator complies 
with the standards as proposed until the compliance date. The owner or 
operator would then be required to conduct a performance test within 
120 days after the compliance date. All other new sources will have to 
comply with the proposed standards immediately upon startup.

J. Operating Permit Program

    Under 40 CFR part 70, all major sources of HAP will be required to 
obtain an operating permit. Emission limits, monitoring, and reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements are typically scattered among numerous 
provisions of State implementation plans (SIP's) or Federal 
regulations. As discussed in the rule for the operating permit program, 
this new permit program would include in a single document all of the 
requirements that pertain to a single source. Once a state's permit 
program has been approved, each printing and publishing facility that 
is a major source within that state [[Page 13682]] must apply for and 
obtain an operating permit. If the state wherein the printing and 
publishing facility is located does not have an approved permitting 
program, the owner or operator of a printing and publishing facility 
must submit a part 71 permit application if requested under 40 CFR part 
71.

K. Pollution Prevention Considerations

    The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 establishes the following 
management hierarchy as national policy:
    1. Pollution should be prevented or reduced at the source whenever 
feasible;
    2. Pollution that cannot be prevented should be recycled in an 
environmentally safe manner whenever feasible;
    3. Pollution that cannot be prevented or recycled should be treated 
in an environmentally safe manner whenever feasible; and
    4. Disposal or other release into the environment should be 
employed only as a last resort and should be conducted in an 
environmentally safe manner.
    The Pollution Prevention Act considers ``source reduction'' a 
fundamental aspect of pollution prevention. Source reduction is any 
practice that reduces the amount of any hazardous substance entering 
the waste stream or otherwise released into the environment prior to 
recycling, energy recovery, treatment, or disposal. Practices such as 
recycling, energy recovery, treatment, and disposal are not considered 
pollution prevention measures under the Pollution Prevention Act.
    The proposed rule provides strong incentives for pollution 
prevention. Within the publication rotogravure segment, substitution of 
non-HAP materials for organic HAP is encouraged by allowing sources to 
claim credit for recovery of 100 percent of non-HAP volatile matter 
(including water) used in the calculation of equivalent overall organic 
HAP control efficiency.
    Within the product and package rotogravure and wide-web 
flexographic segments, use of non-HAP materials is encouraged by 
expressing the overall organic HAP limitation in terms of kg of organic 
HAP emitted per kg of solids applied. Use of low HAP materials 
decreases the required overall control efficiency. If materials 
averaging less than 0.20 kg organic HAP per kg solids applied are used, 
no control device is required. This provision makes the use of 
waterborne materials without control devices feasible for most 
applications.

L. Solicitation of Comments

    The Administrator welcomes comments from interested persons on any 
aspect of the proposed standards, and on any statement in the preamble 
or the referenced supporting documents. In particular, the 
Administrator solicits comments on (1) The suitability of EPA Method 
311 for determination of HAP in ink and other printing materials; (2) 
the mechanism by which owners or operators may accept case-by-case 
operating restrictions that would ensure that the potential to emit of 
their facility does not exceed the major source threshold; and (3) the 
effect of this regulation on effluent from industrial laundries.
    The EPA Method 311 was proposed as part of the NESHAP for Wood 
Furniture Manufacturing Operations on December 6, 1994 (59 FR 62652). 
The comment period for the Wood Furniture NESHAP and Method 311 was 
scheduled to close on February 21, 1995. On February 22, 1995 (60 FR 
35), the comment period for the proposed Wood Furniture NESHAP was 
extended to March 23, 1995 and the comment period for the proposed 
Method 311 was extended to April 24, 1995. Persons who submit comments 
on the suitability of Method 311 for determination of HAP in ink and 
other printing materials in response to the proposed Printing and 
Publishing Industry NESHAP should consider also submitting comments in 
response to the proposed Method 311. For information on the address and 
docket number for submitting comments on the proposed Method 311, see 
the February 22, 1995 Federal Register notice.
    The proposed standards were developed on the basis of information 
available. The Administrator is specifically requesting factual 
information that may support either the approach taken in the proposed 
standards or an alternate approach. To receive proper consideration, 
documentation or data should be provided.

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Public Hearing

    A public hearing will be held, if requested, to discuss the 
proposed standards in accordance with section 307(d)(5) of the Act. 
Persons wishing to make an oral presentation on the proposed standards 
for printing and publishing should contact the EPA at the address given 
in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. Oral presentations will be 
limited to 15 minutes each. Any member of the public may file a written 
statement before, during, or within 30 days after the hearing. Written 
statements should be addressed to the Air and Radiation Docket address 
given in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble, and should refer to 
Docket No. A-92-42.
    A verbatim transcript of the hearing and any written statements 
will be available for public inspection and copying during normal 
working hours at the EPA's Air and Radiation Docket in Washington, D.C. 
(see ADDRESSES section of this preamble).

B. Docket

    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 proposed rulemaking. The principal purposes of the docket are: (1) 
To allow interested parties to readily identify and locate documents so 
that they can intelligently and 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).

C. 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 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.
    Pursuant to the terms of the Executive Order, OMB has notified EPA 
that it considers this a ``significant regulatory action'' within the 
meaning of the Executive Order. EPA has submitted this action to OMB 
for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or 
recommendations will be documented in the public record. 
[[Page 13683]] 

D. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership under Executive Order 
12875

    In compliance with Executive Order 12875 we have involved state, 
local, and tribal governments in the development of this rule. State 
and local air pollution control associations participated in work group 
meetings and made comments which were incorporated in the proposed 
rule.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An Information Collection Request (ICR) document 
has been prepared by the EPA (ICR No. 1739.01) and a copy may be 
obtained from Sandy Farmer, Information Policy Branch, EPA, 401 M 
Street SW., (2136), Washington, DC 20460 or by calling (202) 260-2740.
    The public reporting burden for this collection of information is 
estimated to average 251 hours per respondent for the first year after 
the date of promulgation of the rule, including time 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 Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503, marked 
``Attention: Desk Officer for the EPA.'' The final rule will respond to 
any OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements 
contained in this proposal.

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (or RFA, Public Law 96-354, 
September 19, 1980) requires Federal agencies to give special 
consideration to the impact of regulation on small businesses. The RFA 
specifies that a final regulatory flexibility analysis must be prepared 
if a proposed regulation will have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. To determine whether a final RFA 
is required, a screening analysis, otherwise known as an initial RFA, 
is necessary.
    Regulatory impacts are considered significant if:
    (1) Annual compliance costs increase total costs of production by 
more than 5 percent, or
    (2) Annual compliance costs as a percent of sales are at least 20 
percent higher for small entities, or
    (3) Capital cost of compliance represent a significant portion of 
capital available to small entities, or
    (4) The requirements of the regulation are likely to result in 
closures of small entities.
    A ``substantial number'' of small entities is generally considered 
to be more than 20 percent of the small entities in the affected 
industry.
    In addition to the requirement above, the Agency requires a final 
RFA if any small business impacts are attributed to a regulatory action 
for any action initiated after April 1992. In this case, the regulatory 
action began before April 1992, so the former RFA requirements are 
pertinent.
    Consistent with Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards, 
a firm is classified as a small entity if it has less than 500 
employees for most of the affected industries at the 4-digit SIC code 
level, 750 for 3 affected industries at that level (2656--sanitary food 
containers, 2657--folding paperboard boxes, and 3221--glass 
containers), and 1,000 for 1 affected industry (3411--metal cans); and 
is unaffiliated with a larger entity.
    Using the information above, none of the firms in the publication 
gravure sector are small. For the packaging and product gravure sector, 
29 out of 60 firms, or 48.3 percent are classified as small. For the 
flexographic sector, virtually all of the affected firms are small.
    Data were available to examine all four of the criteria.
    For the first criterion, the maximum increase in the total cost of 
production from compliance with the standard is, on average, 1.4 
percent for affected small entities. This is not a significant 
increase. For the second, annual compliance costs as a percentage of 
sales were calculated to be 9 percent higher for small entities, and 
this is not significant. For the third criterion, the increase in costs 
from compliance as a percentage of assets and as a percentage of equity 
was negligible (less than 1 percent). For the fourth and final 
criterion, no small firms are at risk of closure due to the standard.
    In conclusion, and pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Administrator certifies that this 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. The basis for the certification is that the 
economic impacts for small entities do not meet or exceed the criteria 
in the Guidelines to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as shown 
above. Further information on the initial RFA is available in the 
background information document.

G. Clean Air Act Section 117

    In accordance with section 117 of the Act, publication of this 
proposal was preceded by consultation with appropriate advisory 
committees, independent experts, and Federal departments and agencies. 
The Administrator welcomes comment on all aspects of the proposed 
regulation, including health, economic, technological, or other 
aspects.

H. Regulatory Review

    In accordance with sections 112(d)(6) and 112(f)(2) of the Act, 
this regulation will be reviewed within 8 years from the date of 
promulgation. This review may include an assessment of such factors as 
evaluation of the residual health risk, 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.

VII. Statutory Authority

    The statutory authority for this proposal is provided by sections 
101, 112, 114, 116, and 301 of the Clean Air Act, as amended; 42 
U.S.C., 7401, 7412, 7414, 7416, and 7601.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous 
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Standard for 
printing and publishing industry.
    Dated: March 1, 1995.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-5983 Filed 3-13-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P