13664 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 14, 1995 / Proposed Rules

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Part

50 Notice—Ms. Susan Lyon Stone, Air

Quality Strategies and Standards

Division (MD–15), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Research Triangle

Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541–

1146. Part 53 Notice—Mr. Frank

McElroy, Atmospheric Research and

Exposure Assessment Laboratory (MD–

77), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC

27711, telephone (919) 541–2622.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In order to

allow additional time to review the

Proposed Requirements for

Implementation Plans and Ambient Air

Quality Surveillance for SO2 National

Ambient Air Quality Standards (40 CFR

parts 51 and 58) before submitting

comment on the National Ambient Air

Quality Standards for Sulfur Oxides

(Sulfur Dioxide)—Reproposal (40 CFR

parts 50 and 53), the EPA is extending

the public comment period on the 40

CFR parts 50 and 53 proposals from

March 15, 1995 to April 14, 1995. The

document that proposes for public

comment the requirements for

implementing the alternative measures

and changes in the sulfur dioxide

ambient air surveillance network will be

published in the Federal Register on or

about March 1, 1995.

The comment period extension is also

intended to provide additional

opportunity for members of the medical

community who are experts in the field

of asthma treatment to provide comment

on the health significance of the sulfur

dioxide-induced effects. The extended

comment period will also provide

additional time to comment on other

parts of the November 15, 1994 notice

(59 FR 58958).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 50

Air pollution control, Carbon

monoxide, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide,

Ozone, Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides.

40 CFR Part 53

Administrative practice and

procedure, Air pollution control,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: March 9, 1995.

Mary D. Nichols,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation.

[FR Doc. 95–6266 Filed 3–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 14, 1995 / Proposed Rules 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
13666 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 14, 1995 / Proposed Rules

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 §§ 63.4 through 63.6 of the General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, except for

§ 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 § 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

§§ 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))
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 14, 1995 / Proposed Rules 13667

TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF SUBPART KK OF 40 CFR PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR THE PRINTING AND

PUBLISHING INDUSTRY—Continued

Affected source and requirement Description

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 § 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
13668 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 14, 1995 / Proposed Rules

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 § 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 § 63.821(a)(2) would be

subject only to the recordkeeping

provisions in § 63.829(d) and the

reporting provisions in § 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 § 63.821(a)(1) and would no

longer be eligible to use the provisions

of § 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 caseby-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 caseby-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 wideweb 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 wideweb 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

§ 63.6. In addition to the information

required in § 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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 14, 1995 / Proposed Rules 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

§ 63.6. The authority to approve an

alternate air pollution control device is

retained by the Administrator and is not

delegated.

Finally, § 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 § 63.6(b) and § 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, § 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 § 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
13670 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 14, 1995 / Proposed Rules

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.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 14, 1995 / Proposed Rules 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 § 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
13672 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 14, 1995 / Proposed Rules

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 § 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 § 63.9(a)

through § 63.9(e) and § 63.9(h) through

§ 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

§ 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 § 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 liquidliquid 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 liquidliquid 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.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 14, 1995 / Proposed Rules 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 kilowatthours (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
13674 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 14, 1995 / Proposed Rules

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, fabricbacked 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.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 14, 1995 / Proposed Rules 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 wideweb 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.
13676 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 14, 1995 / Proposed Rules

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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 14, 1995 / Proposed Rules 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 wideweb 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 wideweb 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 facilitywide 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 Wideweb Flexographic Printing Facilities.

Operations related to press and parts

cleaning, proof presses, ink mixing and
13678 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 14, 1995 / Proposed Rules

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 wideweb 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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 14, 1995 / Proposed Rules 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 nonHAP compounds. Thus, a facility

achieving 90 percent overall efficiency,

using a solvent system which is 70

percent toluene and 30 percent nonHAP 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
13680 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 14, 1995 / Proposed Rules

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 § 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

§ 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 § 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

§ 63.9(a) through § 63.9(e) and § 63.9(g)

through § 63.9(j) and § 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 § 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

§ 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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 14, 1995 / Proposed Rules 13681

Evaluation Periods. As adopted through

the General Provisions, § 63.7 and

§ 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 § 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 noncompliance 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 lowHAP 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 § 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
13682 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 14, 1995 / Proposed Rules

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.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 14, 1995 / Proposed Rules 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

40 CFR Part 70

[AD-FRL–5172–5]

Clean Air Act Proposed Full/Interim

Approval of Title V Operating Permits

Program; Clark County Health District,

Nevada

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes interim

approval of the Operating Permits

Program submitted by Nevada’s Clark

County Health District. Alternatively,

EPA proposes to grant full approval if

specified changes are made. Clark