27132 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 105 / Thursday, May 30, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 9 and 63

[AD–FRL–5509–1]

RIN 2060–AD95

National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants; Final

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant

Emissions From the Printing and

Publishing Industry

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This action promulgates

national emission standards for

hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP)

under section 112 of the Clean Air Act

(CAA), as amended in 1990 for the

printing and publishing industry. The

NESHAP requires existing and new

major sources to control emissions using

the maximum achievable control

technology (MACT) to control

hazardous air pollutants (HAP). The

standards were proposed in the Federal

Register on March 14, 1995 (60 FR

13664). This Federal Register action

announces the EPA’s final decisions on

the rule.

The final rule includes organic HAP

emission limits for publication

rotogravure, product and packaging

rotogravure, and wide-web flexographic

printing. A variety of organic HAP are

used as solvents and components of

inks and other materials used by

printers. The HAP emitted by the

facilities covered by this final rule

include xylene, toluene, ethylbenzene,

methyl ethyl ketone, methyl isobutyl

ketone, methanol, ethylene glycol, and

certain 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 damage to the heart, liver,

kidneys, and blood cells. The final rule

is estimated to reduce baseline

emissions of HAP by 31 percent or 6700

megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (7400 tons

per year (tpy)).

The emissions reductions achieved by

these standards, combined with the

emissions reductions achieved by

similar standards, will achieve the

primary goal of the CAA, which is to

‘‘enhance the quality of the Nation’s air

resources so as to promote the public

health and welfare and productive

capacity of its population’’. The intent

of this final regulation is to protect the

public health by requiring the maximum

degree of reduction in emissions of

organic HAP from new and existing

sources, taking into consideration the

cost of achieving such emission

reduction, any nonair quality, health

and environmental impacts, and energy

requirements.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 30, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Background Information

Document. The background information

document (BID) for the promulgated

standards may be obtained from the U.S.

Department of Commerce, National

Technical Information Service,

Springfield, Virginia, 22161, telephone

number (703) 487–4650. Please refer to

‘‘National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants for the

Printing and Publishing Industry—

Background Information for

Promulgated Standards,’’ EPA–453/R–

96–005b. The BID contains (1) a

summary of the changes made to the

standards since proposal, and (2) a

summary of all the public comments

made on the proposed standards and the

Administrator’s response to the

comments.

Electronic versions of the

promulgation BID as well as this final

rule are available for download from the

EPA’s Technology Transfer Network

(TTN), a network of electronic bulletin

boards developed and operated by the

Office of Air Quality Planning and

Standards. The TTN provides

information and technology exchange in

various areas of air pollution control.

The service is free, except for the cost

of a phone call. Dial (919) 541–5742 for

data transfer of up to 14,400 bits per

second. If more information on TTN is

needed, contact the systems operator at

(919) 541–5384.

Docket. Docket No. A–92–42,

containing supporting information used

in developing the promulgated

standards, is available for public

inspection and copying from 8 a.m. to

5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, at

the EPA Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center, Waterside Mall,

Room M–1500, Ground Floor, 401 M

Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460;

telephone number (202) 260–7548, FAX

(202) 260–4400. A reasonable fee may

be charged for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

David Salman at (919) 541–0859,

Emission Standards Division (MD–13),

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

27711.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

Entities potentially regulated by this

action are those which have the

potential to emit HAP listed in section

112(b) of the CAA in the following

regulated categories and entities:

Category Examples of regulated

entities

Industry ......... Printers, publishers, and

manufacturers of packaging, wall and floor coverings, house furnishings

and sanitary paper products employing rotogravure

printing or wide-web flexographic printing technologies.

This table is not intended to be

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide

for readers regarding entities likely to be

regulated by this action. This table lists

the types of entities that the EPA is now

aware could potentially be regulated by

this action. Other types of entities not

listed in the table could also be

regulated. To determine whether your

facility is regulated by this action, you

should carefully examine the

applicability criteria in § 63.820 of the

rule. If you have questions regarding the

applicability of this action to a

particular entity, consult the person

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this

preamble.

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,

judicial review of NESHAP is available

only by the filing of a petition for review

in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the

District of Columbia Circuit within 60

days of today’s publication of this rule.

Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the

requirements that are the subject of

today’s notice may not be challenged

later in civil or criminal proceedings

brought by the EPA to enforce these

requirements.

The information presented in this

preamble is organized as follows:

I. Background

A. Regulatory Background and Purpose

B. Common Sense Initiative

II. The Standards

III. Summary of Impacts

IV. Significant Changes to the Proposed

Standards

A. Public Participation

B. Comments on the Proposed Standards

C. Significant Changes

D. Minor Changes

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

C. Executive Order 12866: Administrative

Designation and Regulatory Analysis

D. Executive Order 12875

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

F. Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995

G. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA)
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 105 / Thursday, May 30, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 27133

I. Background

A. Regulatory Background and Purpose

Section 112 of the CAA requires

control of emissions of HAP to protect

public health and the environment. This

final regulation will reduce emissions of

organic HAP from rotogravure and

wide-web flexographic printing

operations.

In part, section 112 requires that

emission standards be promulgated for

all categories of major sources of HAP,

and for many categories of small ‘‘area’’

sources. The CAA lists 189 HAP

believed to cause adverse health or

environmental effects. Major sources are

defined as those that emit or have the

potential to emit at least 10 tons per

year of any single HAP or 25 tons per

year of any combination of HAP.

In the July 16, 1992, Federal Register

(57 FR 31576), the EPA published the

initial list of categories of sources slated

for regulation. This list includes the

printing and publishing category.

Emissions standards for the listed

source categories are required to be

promulgated between November 1992

and November 2000.

Congress specified that each of these

standards must require the maximum

reduction in emissions of HAP that the

EPA determines is achievable

considering cost, non-air-quality health

and environmental impacts, and energy

requirements. In essence, these MACT

standards ensure that all major sources

of air toxics achieve the level of control

already being achieved by the better

controlled and lower emitting sources in

each category. This approach creates a

level economic playing field, ensuring

that facilities that employ cleaner

processes and good emissions controls

are not disadvantaged relative to

competitors with poorer controls. At the

same time, this approach provides

assurance to every citizen, in every

community, that any major source of

toxic air pollution located nearby will

have to effectively control its emissions.

All U.S. publication rotogravure

facilities and some product and

packaging rotogravure and wide-web

flexographic printing facilities are major

sources of HAP emissions, with the

potential to emit over 23 Mg/yr (25 tpy)

of organic HAP, including toluene,

xylene, ethylbenzene, methanol, methyl

ethyl ketone, methyl isobutyl ketone,

ethylene glycol, and certain glycol

ethers. All of these pollutants can cause

reversible or irreversible toxic effects

following exposure. The potential toxic

effects include irritation of the eyes,

nose, throat, and skin; and damage to

the heart, liver, kidneys, and blood

cells.

The EPA recognizes that the degree of

adverse effects to health resulting from

the most significant emissions identified

can range from mild to severe. The

extent to which the effects could be

experienced is dependent upon the

ambient concentrations and exposure

time. The latter is further influenced by

source-specific characteristics such as

emission rates and local meteorological

conditions. Human variability factors,

including genetics, age, pre-existing

health conditions, and lifestyle also

influence the degree to which effects to

health occur.

The final standards will reduce

organic HAP emissions from rotogravure

and wide-web flexographic printing

operations by 6,700 Mg/yr (7,400 tpy)

from a baseline level of 21,700 Mg/yr

(23,900 tpy). No small firms are at risk

of closure as a result of the final

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 CSI

Subcommittee addresses the Printing

and Publishing industry.

The following are the six principles 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

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 Printing CSI Subcommittee met

for the first time just before the

proposed rule was published. Several

Subcommittee members were very

involved in the development of the

proposed rule. All Subcommittee

members were made aware of the

proposal and copies of the proposal

were provided to all interested

Subcommittee members. Although the

Subcommittee did not choose to make

review of the proposed rule one of its

projects, several Subcommittee

members did submit comments on the

proposed rule. The subcommittee was

provided with an update on the final

rule at its March 19, 1996 meeting.

Many aspects of the CSI principles are

reflected in the final 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, printers, trade organizations,

ink manufacturers, and State and local

regulatory authorities commented on

draft versions of the proposed regulation

and on the proposed regulation. Two

trade organizations provided extensive

comments. All comments were

considered, and a number of changes to

the final rule reflect these comments. Of

major concern to industry were the

opportunity to comply through

pollution prevention by using low HAP

content materials, the analytical method

for HAP content determination, reliance

on formulation data for HAP and

volatile matter determination, and

flexible compliance demonstration

provisions that account for different

configurations of work stations and

printing presses within a facility.

The regulation allows sources the

flexibility to select from various options

for compliance. Sources may reduce

HAP usage and emissions through

conversion 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 final rule allows existing facilities

three years from the date of

promulgation to comply. This is the

maximum amount of time allowed

under the CAA. This time frame will

provide the greatest opportunity for
27134 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 105 / Thursday, May 30, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

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 final 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 EPA has also attempted to maintain

consistency with existing regulations.

Representatives from other interested

EPA offices and programs were

included in the regulatory development

process as members of the work group.

The work group reviewed and

concurred 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 the rule.

II. The Standards

The final rule is applicable to all

existing and new rotogravure and wideweb flexographic facilities that are

major sources of HAP or are located at

plant sites that are major sources of

HAP.

Publication rotogravure facilities

subject to this rule must limit emissions

of organic HAP to no more than eight

percent of the total volatile matter used

each month. The emission limitation

may be achieved by capture and control

of at least 92 percent of organic HAP

used, by substitution of non-HAP

materials for organic HAP, or by a

combination of capture and control

technologies and substitution of

materials.

Product and packaging rotogravure

and wide-web flexographic printing

facilities subject to this rule must limit

emissions to no more than five percent

of the organic HAP applied each month,

or to no more than four percent of the

mass of inks, coatings, varnishes,

adhesives, primers, solvents, reducers,

thinners, and other materials applied

each month, or to no more than 20

percent of the solids applied each

month, or to an equivalent allowable

mass based on the as-applied solids

contents of the materials applied each

month.

Section 112(a) of the CAA defines

major source as a source, or group of

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 individual HAP or 22.7

Mg/yr (25 tpy) or more of any

combination of HAP. Area sources are

stationary sources that do not qualify as

‘‘major.’’ ‘‘Potential to emit’’ is defined

in the section 112 General Provisions

(40 CFR 63.2) as ‘‘the maximum

capacity of a stationary source to emit

a pollutant under its physical or

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 the 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

would have on emissions is Federally

enforceable.

The EPA notes that in recent

decisions, National Mining Ass’n v.

EPA, 59 F.3d 1351 (D.C. Cir. 1995) and

Chemical Manufacturers Ass’n v. EPA,

No. 89–1514, slip op. (D.C. Cir. Sept. 15,

1995), the District of Columbia Circuit

court addressed challenges related to

the EPA’s requirement that a source

which wishes to limit its potential to

emit must obtain a federally enforceable

limit for the New Source Review and

NESHAP programs. The EPA is

currently reviewing its Federal

enforceability requirements in light of

these court decisions, and has not yet

decided how it will address this issue.

Once the EPA has completed its review

of the Federal enforceability

requirements in all relevant programs

including the NESHAP program, the

EPA will make available in a Federal

Register notice its response to the court

decisions. In the interim, the EPA has

issued its Interim Policy on

Enforceability of Limitations on

Potential to Emit (January 22, 1996),

which summarizes how certain Stateenforceable limits may be recognized

under this definition pending further

rulemaking.

To determine the applicability of this

rule to facilities that are within a

contiguous area of other HAP-emitting

emission sources that are not part of the

source category covered by this rule, the

owner or operator must determine

whether the plant site as a whole is a

major source. A formal HAP emissions

inventory must be used to determine if

total potential HAP emissions from all

HAP emission sources at the plant site

meet the definition of a major source. If

the facility commits to HAP usage

restrictions as provided in the rule that

ensure potential HAP emissions will be

below the major source cutoffs, only

simplified reporting and recordkeeping

requirements apply. A facility may also

limit its potential to emit through other

appropriate mechanisms that may be

available through the permitting

authority.

Existing major sources may switch to

area source status by obtaining and

complying with a federally enforceable

limit on their potential to emit prior to

the ‘‘compliance date’’ of the regulation.

The ‘‘compliance date’’ for existing

sources for this regulation is defined as

May 30, 1999. New major sources are

required to comply with the NESHAP

requirements upon start-up or the

promulgation date, whichever is later. A

facility that has not obtained federally

enforceable limits on its potential to

emit by the compliance date, and that

has not complied with the NESHAP

requirements, will be in violation of the

NESHAP. All sources that are major

sources for HAP on the compliance date

or become major sources after the

compliance date are required to comply

permanently with the NESHAP to

ensure that the maximum achievable

reductions in toxic emissions are

achieved and maintained.

The final standards impose limits on

organic HAP emissions from rotogravure

and wide-web flexographic printing.

Publication rotogravure facilities must

demonstrate compliance on a monthly

basis considering all organic HAP used

on publication rotogravure presses and

all affiliated equipment, including proof

presses, cylinder and parts cleaners, ink

and solvent mixing and storage

equipment, and solvent recovery

equipment. Facilities may comply using

capture and control equipment,

substitution of non-HAP solvents for

HAP, or a combination of these

methods.

Product and packaging rotogravure

and wide-web flexographic printing

facilities must demonstrate compliance

on a monthly basis considering all

organic HAP applied on product and

packaging rotogravure and wide-web

flexographic printing presses. Certain

presses which are used primarily for

coating, laminating, or printing using

other technologies than rotogravure

printing and wide-web flexographic

printing may be excluded from the

affected source, subject only to

simplified recordkeeping requirements.

Owners or operators of such equipment

will be subject to the appropriate source

category standard when such a standard

is issued.

Product and packaging rotogravure

and wide-web flexographic printers may

comply through the use of capture and

control equipment, the substitution of

non-HAP solvents for HAP, or a

combination of these methods. Facilities

may comply on the basis of organic HAP

emissions per mass of solids applied,

organic HAP emissions per mass of
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 105 / Thursday, May 30, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 27135

materials applied, allowable organic

HAP emissions based on the as-applied

solids content of the materials applied,

or overall organic HAP control

efficiency.

III. Summary of Impacts

These standards will reduce

nationwide emissions of HAP from

rotogravure and wide-web flexographic

printing operations by approximately

6700 Mg/yr (7400 tpy) in 1999

compared to the emissions that would

result in the absence of the standards.

These standards will also, to some

extent, reduce volatile organic

compounds (VOC) emissions from those

same operations compared to the

emissions that would result in the

absence of the standards. The extent of

the reduction in VOC emissions cannot

be predicted because of uncertainty over

the extent to which printers will comply

through substitution of water and nonVOC organics for organic HAP. No

significant adverse secondary air, water,

solid waste, or energy impacts are

anticipated from the promulgation of

these standards.

Implementation of this regulation is

expected to result in nationwide annual

costs (including capital recovery) of

approximately $40 million beyond

baseline. These costs include $21

million per year for publication

rotogravure printers and $19 million per

year for package and product

rotogravure and wide-web flexographic

printers. These costs include capital

recovery over a ten year period,

operating costs for newly installed and

upgraded capture and control systems,

and costs for recordkeeping, reporting,

and monitoring. Cost estimates for

publication rotogravure printers remain

unchanged from the proposed rule.

Estimated costs for package and product

rotogravure and wide-web flexographic

printers are $2 million less than those

for the proposed rule as a result of the

facility-wide definition of affected

source.

The economic impact analysis

conducted before proposal showed that

the economic impacts from the

proposed standards would be

insignificant. Since compliance costs

and reporting and recordkeeping

burdens have been reduced in the final

rule, the economic impacts of the final

rule are also insignificant.

IV. Significant Changes to the Proposed

Standards

A. Public Participation

The standards were proposed and the

preamble was published in the Federal

Register on March 14, 1995 (60 FR

13664). The preamble to the proposed

standards discussed the availability of

the regulatory text and proposal BID,

which described the regulatory

alternatives considered and the impacts

of those alternatives. Public comments

were solicited at the time of proposal,

and copies of the regulatory text and

BID were distributed to interested

parties. Electronic versions of the

preamble, regulation, and BID were

made available to interested parties via

the TTN (see SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this preamble). A

correction notice which addressed

minor typographical errors was

published in the Federal Register on

April 3, 1995 (60 FR 16920).

The preamble to the proposed

standards provided the public the

opportunity to request a public hearing.

However, a public hearing was not

requested. The public comment period

was from March 14, 1995 to May 30,

1995. In all, 117 comment letters were

received. The comments have been

carefully considered, and changes have

been made to the proposed standards

when determined by the Administrator

to be appropriate.

B. Comments on the Proposed

Standards

Comments on the proposed standards

were received from 117 commenters; the

commenters were comprised of printers,

ink manufacturers, State and local air

pollution control agencies, trade

organizations for printers and control

equipment manufacturers, and citizens.

A detailed discussion of these

comments and responses can be found

in the promulgation BID, which is

referred to in the ADDRESSES section of

this preamble. The discussion of

comments and responses in the BID

serves as the basis for the revisions that

have been made to the standards

between proposal and promulgation.

Many of the comment letters contained

multiple comments.

C. Significant Changes

Several significant changes have been

made in response to the comments

received on the proposed standards. A

summary of the major changes is

presented below.

(1) Incidental Printing and Ancillary

Printing Equipment

The rule affects rotogravure and wideweb flexographic printing operations at

major sources. Several commenters

noted that this will include facilities

that use little or no HAP on rotogravure

or wide-web flexographic printing

presses, but are major sources as a result

of activities conducted on other

equipment in other source categories. In

addition, commenters noted that

equipment that meets the definition of

rotogravure or wide-web flexographic

printing press but conducts only a small

amount of rotogravure or wide-web

flexographic printing operations and is

primarily used for coating, laminating,

or printing by other processes would

have, as proposed, been subject to the

standard.

The first case above can be

characterized as ‘‘incidental printing’’

because the total work done on

rotogravure and wide-web flexographic

printing presses at the facility is

minimal and is incidental to the other

operations conducted at the facility. In

the second case above, the equipment

can be characterized as ‘‘ancillary

printing equipment’’ because the work

being done on rotogravure and wideweb flexographic print stations is

minimal in comparison to, and ancillary

to, the work being done on other work

stations (i.e., coating stations) on that

equipment.

The EPA has considered control

requirements for incidental printing as a

separate subgroup. Under the rule,

product and packaging rotogravure and

wide-web flexographic printing affected

sources that apply no more than 500

kilograms of materials each month and

that are located at facilities that are

major sources of HAP are considered

incidental printers. This definition

ensures that the total work done on

product and packaging rotogravure and

wide-web flexographic presses at the

facility is minimal and is incidental to

the other operations conducted at the

facility.

The EPA believes it is appropriate not

to subject incidental printing operations

to the requirements in § 63.825 that

apply to product and packaging

rotogravure and wide-web flexographic

printing. The EPA’s analysis of the

MACT floor for product and packaging

rotogravure and wide-web flexographic

printing is based on emissions levels

and control techniques at facilities

primarily engaged in printing that

generally apply more than 500

kilograms of material each month on

product and packaging rotogravure and

wide-web flexographic presses. The

EPA has little information on which to

establish a MACT control level for

incidental printing. The available

information indicates that the MACT

floor for this subgroup is no control.

The final standard includes simplified

requirements and does not mandate

emission controls for incidental

printers. Affected sources within this

subgroup are those which apply no

more than 500 kilograms of material
27136 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 105 / Thursday, May 30, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

each month or no more than 400

kilogams of HAP each month on

product and packaging rotogravure and

wide-web flexographic presses. The 400

kilogram of HAP applied per month

alternative threshold has been included

to provide affected sources applying

somewhat more than 500 kilograms of

material per month with the

opportunity to maintain incidental

printer status if they reduce the HAP

content of the materials applied so that

the monthly HAP applied is no more

than would be applied by an affected

source that applied 500 kilograms of

material per month. Affected sources in

this subgroup would be subject only to

initial notification requirements and

recordkeeping requirements to show

that one of the thresholds is met every

month.

The type of simplified requirements

included in the final standard for this

subgroup of product and packaging or

wide-web flexographic sources were not

made available to publication

rotogravure affected sources because

each press at a publication rotogravure

affected source would far exceed the

thresholds every month. A single

publication rotogravure press would, in

fact, be a major source of HAP.

The final standard also permits the

owner or operator of a product and

packaging rotogravure or wide-web

flexographic printing affected source to

choose to exclude ancillary printing

equipment from the affected source.

This equipment is used primarily for

coating, laminating, or other operations

besides product and packaging

rotogravure and wide-web flexographic

printing. Presses on which five weightpercent or less of the total material

applied each month is applied by

rotogravure or wide-web flexographic

print stations would be subject only to

a simplified recordkeeping requirement.

The EPA believes it is appropriate to

provide the owner or operator with the

option not to subject these presses to the

HAP emission limitations for product

and packaging and wide-web

flexographic printing in § 63.825

because the work being done on the

rotogravure and wide-web flexographic

print stations on these presses is

ancillary to the work being done on

other work stations (i.e., coating

stations) on these presses. The EPA is

separately establishing MACT for other

source categories, such as the paper and

other web coating source category and

the metal coil coating source category,

which may be more appropriate for this

type of equipment. Ancillary printing

equipment, if excluded from this

standard, will be subject to the

appropriate source category standard

when such a standard is issued.

(2) Research and Laboratory Equipment

Several comments were received

requesting exemption of research and

laboratory equipment. Commenters

noted that the purpose and operation of

research presses are independent of

their location. One commenter noted

that research and laboratory operations

could be exempted from this standard

and a separate standard for these

operations could be developed.

All research and laboratory

equipment has been excluded from the

final standard whether or not it is

collocated with production facilities. In

order to regulate research and laboratory

equipment, it would be necessary to

develop a separate source category as

directed by section 112(c)(7) of the CAA

to assure equitable treatment of such

equipment.

(3) Addition of Presses to Existing

Affected Sources

Comments were received concerning

triggering of new source compliance

deadlines as a result of adding new

presses to existing control systems or

new stations to existing presses.

Commenters noted that this would

discourage replacement and

modification of presses or stations to

take advantage of low-HAP materials.

Addition of presses to existing

affected sources will subject the affected

source to the compliance deadline for

new sources only if the additional press

or presses constitutes a reconstruction

of the source, as defined in § 63.2.

Additions, replacements, and

modifications to existing sources which

do not meet the definition of

reconstruction do not alter the

compliance deadline.

(4) Affected Source for Product and

Packaging Rotogravure and Wide-web

Flexographic Printing Facilities

Comments were received suggesting

changes in the definition of affected

source at product and packaging

rotogravure and wide-web flexographic

printing facilities to simplify

compliance demonstration. One

commenter stated that a facility-wide

definition of affected source would

significantly cut recordkeeping

expenses.

In response, the final standard

considers all rotogravure and wide-web

flexographic printing equipment at a

given facility as a single affected source.

This grouping is more consistent with

the way that the MACT floor was

determined and is consistent with other

MACT standards which have grouped

various emission points into a single

affected source. It is also more

consistent with the definition of affected

source for publication rotogravure.

This definition of affected source

simplifies reporting and recordkeeping

in many cases. In addition, sources may

achieve the required emissions

reductions by considering emissions

from the entire affected source,

including controlled and uncontrolled

presses. This will allow sources to

comply in the most cost-effective way

and will not require expensive control

equipment for small presses which emit

relatively small amounts of organic HAP

if equivalent emissions reductions can

be achieved elsewhere in the affected

source.

(5) Organic HAP Analysis Methods

Ninety-six comments were received

requesting that the EPA accept

formulation data in lieu of requiring the

use of EPA Method 311 to determine

organic HAP content of printing

materials. Formulation data were

preferred to reduce analytical cost and

delays due to chemical analysis. Some

commenters also suggested various

modifications to the proposed analytical

technique in the interests of improved

accuracy, consistency with apparatus

presently in operation, and reduced

analytical costs.

The final standard adopts Method

311, as revised and promulgated with

the Wood Furniture Manufacturing

Operations NESHAP (60 FR 62930), for

organic HAP analysis. Printers and ink

manufacturers have the option of

relying on formulation data if the data

meet specified criteria. In the event of

any discrepancy between formulation

data and the results of EPA Method 311,

the results of EPA Method 311 shall be

presumed to govern for all compliance

purposes. In addition, the printer may

determine the total volatile matter

content of the material and use this

value for the organic HAP content for all

compliance purposes. This option may

be chosen by printers using materials in

which all, or nearly all, of the volatile

matter is organic HAP in order to avoid

the need for a more time-consuming

analytic procedure.

(6) Volatile Matter Analysis Methods

Several comments were received

requesting that formulation data be

acceptable instead of chemical analysis

data. Commenters noted this would

greatly reduce analytical costs.

The final standard allows printers and

ink manufacturers the option of relying

on formulation data for volatile matter

and solids content, in lieu of EPA

Methods 24 and 24A. In the event of any
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 105 / Thursday, May 30, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 27137

discrepancy between formulation data

and the results of the EPA test methods,

the test methods shall be presumed to

govern for all compliance purposes.

(7) Compliance Monitoring for Catalytic

Oxidizers

Nine commenters noted that the

temperature downstream of a catalytic

oxidizer was inappropriate for use as a

monitoring parameter to indicate HAP

destruction. The commenters noted that

downstream temperature parameters

established during performance testing

under normal conditions might not be

maintained during low-load conditions,

yet this would not be an indication of

excess emissions.

The final standard requires owners or

operators using a catalytic oxidizer (that

is, a catalytic incinerator) and

monitoring an operating parameter to

ensure compliance with the standard to

monitor the temperature immediately

upstream of the catalyst bed. The

requirement to monitor the temperature

downstream of the catalyst bed has been

eliminated. Since the operating

parameters are established during a test

under normal operating conditions, a

downstream temperature monitoring

parameter might be impossible to meet

during periods when organic loading to

the oxidizer was lower than normal.

This might have led to exceedances

which were not indicative of improper

operating conditions or excessive

emissions.

(8) Additional Compliance Options for

Product and Packaging Rotogravure and

Wide-web Flexographic Printing

Affected Sources

Several commenters requested

clarification that compliance need only

be demonstrated by a single procedure

appropriate to the source’s compliance

strategy. Several commenters suggested

that the rule should provide a variety of

compliance demonstration alternatives

to accomodate different aggregations of

work stations and HAP control

strategies.

In order to make the compliance

options consistent with facility-wide

definition of affected source, additional

means of demonstrating compliance

have been added to the final rule.

Facilities may demonstrate that each

material applied meets either of the

organic HAP thresholds, or that all

materials on average meet either of the

organic HAP thresholds, or that the

organic HAP emitted is less than the

organic HAP allowed taking these

thresholds into account. In addition,

emissions from controlled and

uncontrolled presses are aggregated to

determine compliance across the entire

affected source.

The final rule has been expanded to

include ten procedures under which

compliance can be demonstrated under

different circumstances. Any one of the

ten procedures can be used. These

procedures are consistent with the

proposed standards for low HAP

materials and HAP emission control

device operation. These procedures

encompass the range of suggestions

made by the commenters. The new

compliance demonstration procedures

in the final rule are expected to have a

negligible impact on HAP emissions

compared to the provisions in the

proposed rule.

(9) Capture Efficiency Protocols and

Test Methods

Four commenters requested that the

rule allow the use of alternate capture

efficiency test protocols approved by the

EPA in lieu of the procedures specified

in § 52.741.

The final rule includes additional

options for capture efficiency tests.

Provisions of the proposed rule

pertaining to verification of permanent

total enclosures and temporary total

enclosure capture efficiency testing in

accordance with § 52.741 have been

retained in the final rule. The final rule

also allows, as an alternative, the use of

any capture efficiency protocol and test

methods which satisfy the criteria of

either the Data Quality Objective or

Lower Confidence Limit approaches. An

appendix describing these approaches

has been added to the final rule. The use

of these alternative approaches is

optional for the owner or operator of the

affected source and the EPA has

determined that capture efficiency tests

satisfying the criteria of these alternate

approaches will be sufficiently rigorous

to ensure compliance with the standard.

(10) Transition from Area Source to

Major Source Status

A commenter requested that a

provision allowing a transition period

for a newly designated major source to

come into compliance be incorporated

in the rule. The commenter noted that

the proposed rule had no provisions for

a source to make this transition without

being in violation of the standard.

A provision has been added to the

final rule which provides a mechanism

for owners or operators that have used

the provisions of § 63.820(a)(2) to

establish the facility as an area source to

reestablish the facility as a major source.

Such a source must continue to comply

with its HAP usage commitments until

it meets all requirements for major

sources.

(11) Definition of ‘‘Month’’

In response to a comment, the

definition of ‘‘month’’ in the final rule

has been changed to include

prespecified periods of 28 to 35 days.

The revised definition will fit better

with the materials accounting systems

used by some facilities and have little or

no effect on the emission reduction

achieved by the standard.

(12) Alternatives to Vent Stream Flow

Rate Monitoring

Seven commenters requested

inclusion of alternative methods for

vent stream flow rate monitoring,

substitution of flow indicators rather

than flow meters, or elimination of the

flow rate monitoring requirement. One

commenter recommended that press

interlocks be permitted as an alternative

to vent stream flow rate monitoring.

The final regulation includes

alternatives to the vent stream flow rate

measurement requirement. These

alternatives are simpler than the

requirements in the proposed rule, but

still ensure that sufficient records will

be generated to show when HAP

containing vent streams are being

delivered to a control device and to

allow for proper calculation of HAP

emissions. Owners or operators of

product and packaging rotogravure or

wide-web flexographic presses with

intermittently-controllable work stations

may, as alternatives to measuring vent

stream flow rate, install flow indicators

on the bypass lines, secure bypass line

valves with locking mechanisms or car

seals, continuously monitor bypass

valve position, or equip the press with

an interlock preventing operation when

the control device is bypassed.

Sampling lines for gas analyzers and

relief valves needed for safety purposes

are not considered bypass lines for the

purposes of these provisions. Presses

that do not have any intermittentlycontrollable work stations are not

subject to these provisions.

(13) Provisions for Inclusion of Standalone Coating Equipment in Affected

Source

One comment was received

suggesting that off-line coaters sharing a

common control device with printing

presses should be included in the

affected source at the discretion of the

facility. It was noted that such a

provision would avoid penalizing

facilities that had tightened up their

control systems by tying in other

sources of HAP.

Provisions have been added to the

final rule through which owners or

operators of affected sources may, at
27138 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 105 / Thursday, May 30, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

their option, under certain conditions,

include stand-alone coating equipment

in the affected source subject to this

standard. This type of coating

equipment is expected to be covered by

one of several MACT standards (e.g.,

Paper and Other Web Coating) which

are scheduled to be promulgated in the

future. Printers choosing this option

may avoid the difficulty of complying

with multiple standards in the future.

Stand-alone coating equipment must

meet certain requirements to be eligible

for inclusion under this provision. To be

eligible, stand-alone coating equipment

must either share a control device with

a press included in the affected source,

or process the same substrate as a press

included in the affected source, or apply

one or more of the same solidscontaining materials as a press included

in the affected source. If any eligible

equipment is included under this

provision, all eligible equipment at the

facility must be included.

(14) Addition of Criteria To Determine

Whether Method 25 or Method 25A is

Appropriate for Performance Testing

The proposed rule required that

performance tests employ either Method

25 or 25A, as appropriate to the

conditions of the site. The final rule has

been clarified to specify the conditions

based on the required or anticipated

organic volatile matter concentration at

the exhaust from the control device.

These conditions are based on guidance

provided to regional offices and State

programs, and clarify the conditions

under which Method 25A are

appropriate. This will reduce the

administrative burden on some sources

and will not reduce the stringency of the

rule.

(15) Conditions Under Which

Performance Test Is To Be Conducted

One commenter recommended testing

under reasonably expected conditions

and a second commenter recommended

testing under normal conditions instead

of maximum conditions.

The final rule has been made

consistent with the General Provisions

to require performance testing under

‘‘normal operating conditions’’ rather

than ‘‘maximum capacity.’’ This will

result in establishment of more

representative operating parameters and

will not cause an increase in HAP

emissions.

(16) Clarification of Reporting and

Recordkeeping Requirements

Several comments were received

requesting clarification that only

recordkeeping and reporting applicable

to the specific control strategy employed

were required. One commenter stated

that area sources should be required to

submit initial notifications so that States

would be advised of their operations.

The final rule enumerates the types of

excess emissions (including operating

parameter exceedences) which must be

included, as applicable, in the summary

report. Recordkeeping requirements for

incidental printing, ancillary printing

equipment, and optional inclusion of

stand-alone coating equipment have

been added to the final rule.

The requirement for annual reporting

of HAP usage by sources using the

optional provisions of this rule to

establish area source status has been

eliminated from the final rule. A less

burdensome requirement that such

sources submit initial notifications has

been added to the final rule. This initial

notification will inform the

Administrator that a source is using

these optional provisions to establish

area source status. The annual report

was determined to be unnecessary

because the source is required to

maintain monthly records of HAP usage

and to report any 12 month period in

which the area source commitment is

not met as part of its summary report.

D. Minor Changes

This section contains a list of several

of the minor changes to the final rule.

(1) Revisions to definitions and

phrasing have been made to clarify the

regulation.

(2) Variables have been redefined as

necessary to avoid ambiguity, and

additional variables have been defined

where necessary to explicitly describe

the additional compliance options

available in the final rule.

(3) Typographical errors have been

corrected.

(4) The citation of the basis for

delegation of regulatory authority has

been corrected.

(5) The summary table in the

proposed rule has been eliminated. (The

General Provisions cross reference table

has been retained and additional

clarifying notes have been added.)

(6) Language has been added to the

final rule which clarifies that the

optional area source mechanism

included in the rule does not preclude

an owner or operator from taking

advantage of other mechanisms which

are available to establish area source

status.

(7) A provision in the proposed rule

requiring owners or operators of affected

sources to obtain part 70 or part 71

operating permits has been eliminated

from the final rule because this

provision may have been inadvertently

interpreted to require these permits for

sources which used the optional

provisions of the rule to establish area

source status. Such sources may be

required to obtain such permits, but are

not required to obtain them as a result

of using the optional provision in this

standard.

(8) The deadline for initial

notification for existing sources has

been extended until one year before the

compliance date.

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

The Docket is an organized and

complete file of all the information

considered by the EPA in the

development of this rulemaking. The

Docket is a dynamic file, since material

is added throughout the rulemaking

development. The docketing system is

intended to allow members of the public

and industries involved to readily

identify and locate documents so that

they can effectively participate in the

rulemaking process. The contents of the

Docket, including the BID for the

proposed and promulgated standards

and the EPA responses to significant

comments, will serve as the record in

case of judicial review (see 42 U.S.C.

7607(d)(7)(A)).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has approved the information

collection requirements contained in

this rule under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq., and has assigned OMB

control number 2060–0335. The EPA is

therefore amending the table of

currently approved information

collection request (ICR) control numbers

issued by OMB for various regulations.

This amendment updates the table to

accurately display those information

requirements contained in this final

rule. This display of the OMB control

number and its subsequent codification

in the Code of Federal Regulations

satisfies the requirements of the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.) and OMB’s implementing

regulations at 5 CFR part 1320.

The ICR was previously subject to

public notice and comment prior to

OMB approval. As a result, the EPA

finds that there is ‘‘good cause’’ under

section 553(b) of the Administrative

Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)) to

amend the table in part 9 without prior

notice and comment. Due to the

technical nature of the table, further

notice and comment would be

unnecessary. For the same reasons, the

EPA finds that there is good cause under

5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 105 / Thursday, May 30, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 27139

The information required to be

collected by this rule is necessary to

identify the regulated entities who are

subject to the rule and to ensure their

compliance with the rule. The

recordkeeping and reporting

requirements are mandatory and are

being established under authority of

section 114 of the CAA. All information

submitted to the EPA for which a claim

of confidentiality is made will be

safeguarded according to the EPA

policies set forth in title 40, part 2,

subpart B—Confidentiality of Business

Information.

The total annual reporting and

recordkeeping burden for this collection

averaged over the first three years is

estimated to be 89,965 hours per year.

The average burden, per respondent, is

164 hours per year. The rule requires an

initial one-time notification from each

respondent and subsequent reports/

notification would have to be submitted

semiannually. Respondents operating

capture systems and control devices

would also be required to submit

notifications of performance tests,

performance test plans and reports of

performance tests. There would be an

estimated 500 respondents to the

collection requirements. This estimate

includes the time needed to review

instructions; develop, acquire, install,

and utilize technology and systems for

the purposes of collecting, validating,

and verifying information, processing

and maintaining information, and

disclosing and providing information;

adjust the existing methods for

compliance with any previously

applicable instructions and

requirements; train personnel to be able

to respond to a collection of

information; search data sources;

complete and review the collection of

information; and transmit or otherwise

disclose the information.

Send comments on the EPA’s need for

this information, the accuracy of the

provided burden estimates, and any

suggested methods for minimizing

respondent burden, including the use of

automated collection techniques, to the

Director, OPPE Regulatory Information

Division; U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (2136), 401 M St. SW.,

Washington, DC 20460; and to the

Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs, Office of Management and

Budget, 725 17th St. NW, Washington,

DC 20503; marked ‘‘Attention: Desk

Officer for EPA.’’ Include the OMB

control number in any correspondence.

C. Executive Order 12866:

Administrative Designation and

Regulatory Analysis

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735 (October 4, 1993)), the EPA is

required to judge whether a regulation

is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore subject to

OMB review and the requirements of

this executive order to prepare a

regulatory impact analysis (RIA). 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 obligation 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 Executive

Order 12866, OMB has notified the EPA

that it considers this a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ within the meaning

of the executive order. The 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.

D. Executive Order 12875

To reduce the burden of Federal

regulations on States and small

governments, the President issued

Executive Order 12875 on October 26,

1993, entitled Enhancing the

Intergovernmental Partnership. In

particular, this executive order is

designed to require agencies to assess

the effects of regulations that are not

required by statute and that create

mandates upon State, local, or tribal

governments. Two methods exist for

complying with the requirements of the

executive order: (1) Assure that funds

necessary to pay direct costs of

compliance with a regulation are

provided, or (2) provide OMB a

description of the communications and

consultations with State/local/tribal

governments, the nature of their

concerns, any written submission from

them, and the EPA’s position supporting

the need to issue the regulation.

The EPA has always been concerned

about the effect of the cost of regulations

on small entities; the EPA has consulted

with and sought input from public

entities to explain costs and burdens

they may incur.

The EPA advised interested parties on

July 16, 1992 (57 FR 21592), of the

categories considered as major and area

sources of HAP, and the printing/

publishing (surface coating) industry

was listed as a category of both major

and area sources. The EPA made

significant effort to hear from all levels

of interest and all segments of the

rotogravure and wide-web flexographic

printing industry. To facilitate

comments and input, the EPA

participated in numerous meetings with

trade organizations representing all

industry sectors affected by this rule.

Throughout the regulatory development

process, and more specifically, in

consultation meetings, industry

representatives from printing

companies, ink manufacturers, and

various trade associations were given an

opportunity to comment on the

proposed regulatory approach and the

MACT alternatives being developed.

The major topic areas resulting from

these discussions included industry

segmentation, the determination of the

MACT floor, test methods, monitoring

procedures, facility-wide averaging,

compliance deadlines, and pollution

prevention. Documentation of all

meetings and public comments can be

found in Docket A–92–42.

Representatives of State and local air

pollution control agencies participated

in all of the EPA work group meetings,

and several State and local agencies

submitted public comments in response

to the proposed standards.

The EPA has considered the purpose

and intent of Executive Order 12875 and

has determined that printing and

publishing NESHAP are needed. The

rule is generally required by statute

under section 112 of the CAA because

printing and publishing facilities emit

significant quantities of air pollutants.

Through meetings and consultations

during project development and

proposal, efforts were made to inform

entities of the costs required to comply

with the regulation; in addition,

modifications were made to reduce the

burden to small entities.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires the EPA to

consider potential impacts of proposed

regulations on small business ‘‘entities.’’

If a preliminary analysis indicates that

a proposed regulation would have a

significant economic impact on 20

percent or more of small entities, then

a final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
27140 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 105 / Thursday, May 30, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

(RFA) must be prepared. The EPA’s

analysis of these impacts was

summarized in the preamble to the

proposed rule (60 FR 13664).

In addition, the EPA has a set of

Regulatory Flexibility Guidelines (RFG),

published in April 1992, that require the

EPA to conduct a final RFA if any small

business or small entity impacts occur

resulting from a rule whose Start Action

Notice (SAN) is approved after the date

of publication of the EPA RFG. The SAN

for this rule was approved before that

date, thus the former Regulatory

Flexibility Act guidelines hold. An RFA

was conducted, however, as part of the

larger economic impact analysis whose

results were presented in the preamble

to the proposed rule. The RFA prepared

meets the EPA RFG as well as the

original Regulatory Flexibility Act

Guidelines. It also meets the analytical

requirements of the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996.

This analysis found that the proposed

rule would not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. No comments

were received on this analysis. The

changes made in the final rule reduce

the cost of achieving and demonstrating

compliance for affected small and large

entities. Therefore, pursuant to the

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I hereby

certify that this rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small business

entities.

F. Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.L.

104–4, establishes requirements for

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their regulatory actions on State, local,

and tribal governments and the private

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

the EPA generally must prepare a

written statement including a costbenefit analysis, for proposed and final

rules with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may

result in expenditures to State, local,

and tribal governments, in the aggregate,

or to the private sector, of $100 million

or more in any one year. Before

promulgating an EPA rule for which a

written statement is needed, section 205

of the UMRA generally requires the EPA

to identify and consider a reasonable

number of regulatory alternatives and

adopt the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule. The provisions of section

205 do not apply when they are

inconsistent with applicable law.

Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to

adopt an alternative other than the least

costly, most cost-effective, or least

burdensome alternative if the

Administrator publishes with the final

rule an explanation why that alternative

was not adopted. Before the EPA

establishes any regulatory requirements

that may significantly or uniquely affect

small governments, including tribal

governments, it must have developed

under section 203 of the UMRA, a small

government agency plan. The plan must

provide for notifying potentially

affected small governments, enabling

officials of affected small governments

to have meaningful and timely input in

the development of the EPA regulatory

proposals with significant Federal

intergovernmental mandates and

informing, educating, and advising

small governments on compliance with

the regulatory requirements.

The EPA has determined that the

action promulgated today does not

include a Federal mandate that may

result in estimated costs of $100 million

or more in any one year to either State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate, or to the private sector.

Therefore, the requirements of the

UMRA do not apply to this action.

G. Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

(SBREFA)

Pursuant to Subtitle E of SBREFA,

this rule, which is nonmajor, was

submitted to Congress before

publication in the Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR parts 9 and

63

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hazardous

substances, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Standard

for printing and publishing industry.

Dated: May 15, 1996.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For reasons set out in the preamble,

title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal

Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 9—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 9

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136–136y;

15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2601–2671;

21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33

U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313(d), 1314,

1318, 1321, 1326, 1330, 1342, 1344, 1345(d)

and (e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3

CFR, 1971–1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241,

242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g, 300g–1, 300g–2,

300g–3, 300g–4, 300g–5, 300g–6, 300j–1,

300j–2, 300j–3, 300j–4, 300j–9, 1857 et seq.,

6901–6992k, 7401–7671q, 7542, 9601–9657,

11023, 11048.

2. Section 9.1 is amended by adding

a new entry to the table under the

indicated heading in numerical order to

read as follows:

§ 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork

Reduction Act.

* * * * *

40 CFR citation OMB

control No.

* * * * *

National Emission Standards for Hazardous

Air Pollutants for Source Categories 13

* * * * *

63.829–63.830 ........................ 2060–0335

* * * * *

3The ICRs referenced in this section of the

table encompass the applicable general provisions contained in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A,

which are not independent information collection requirements.

PART 63—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 63

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 101, 112, 114, 116, 183(f)

and 301 of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C.

7401, 7411, 7414, 7416, 7511b(f), 7601).

2. Part 63 is amended by adding a

new subpart KK consisting of §§ 63.820

through 63.839 to read as follows:

Subpart KK—National Emission Standards

for the Printing and Publishing Industry

Sec.

63.820 Applicability.

63.821 Designation of affected sources.

63.822 Definitions.

63.823 Standards: General.

63.824 Standards: Publication rotogravure

printing.

63.825 Standards: Product and packaging

rotogravure and wide-web flexographic

printing.

63.826 Compliance dates.

63.827 Performance test methods.

63.828 Monitoring requirements.

63.829 Recordkeeping requirements.

63.830 Reporting requirements.

63.831 Delegation of Authority.

63.832—63.839 [Reserved]

Table 1 to Subpart KK—Applicability of

General Provisions to Subpart KK

Appendix A to Subpart KK—Data Quality

Objective and Lower Confidence Limit

Approaches for Alternative Capture

Efficiency Protocols and Test Methods

Subpart KK—National Emission

Standards for the Printing and

Publishing Industry

§ 63.820 Applicability.

(a) The provisions of this subpart

apply to:

(1) Each new and existing facility that

is a major source of hazardous air
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 105 / Thursday, May 30, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 27141

pollutants (HAP), as defined in 40 CFR

63.2, at which publication rotogravure,

product and packaging rotogravure, or

wide-web flexographic printing presses

are operated, and

(2) each new and existing facility at

which publication rotogravure, product

and packaging rotogravure, or wide-web

flexographic printing presses are

operated for which the owner or

operator chooses to commit to, and

meets the criteria of paragraphs (a)(2)(i)

and (a)(2)(ii) of this section for purposes

of establishing the facility to be an area

source with respect to this subpart:

(i) Use less than 9.1 Mg (10 tons) per

each rolling 12-month period of each

HAP at the facility, including materials

used for source categories or purposes

other than printing and publishing, and

(ii) Use less than 22.7 Mg (25 tons) per

each rolling 12-month period of any

combination of HAP at the facility,

including materials used for source

categories or purposes other than

printing and publishing.

(3) Each facility for which the owner

or operator chooses to commit to and

meets the criteria stated in paragraph

(a)(2) of this section shall be considered

an area source, and is subject only to the

provisions of § 63.829(d) and

§ 63.830(b)(1) of this subpart.

(4) Each facility for which the owner

or operator commits to the conditions in

paragraph (a)(2) of this section may

exclude material used in routine

janitorial or facility grounds

maintenance, personal uses by

employees or other persons, the use of

products for the purpose of maintaining

electric, propane, gasoline and diesel

powered motor vehicles operated by the

facility, and the use of HAP contained

in intake water (used for processing or

noncontact cooling) or intake air (used

either as compressed air or for

combustion).

(5) Each facility for which the owner

or operator commits to the conditions in

paragraph (a)(2) of this section to

become an area source, but

subsequently exceeds either of the

thresholds in paragraph (a)(2) of this

section for any rolling 12-month period

(without first obtaining and complying

with other limits that keep its potential

to emit HAP below major source levels),

shall be considered in violation of its

commitment for that 12-month period

and shall be considered a major source

of HAP beginning the first month after

the end of the 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 paragraph (a)(1) of this

section and would no longer be eligible

to use the provisions of paragraph (a)(2)

of this section, even if in subsequent 12-

month periods the facility uses less HAP

than the thresholds in paragraph (a)(2)

of this section.

(6) An owner or operator of an

affected source subject to paragraph

(a)(2) of this section who chooses to no

longer be subject to paragraph (a)(2) of

this section shall notify the

Administrator of such change. If, by no

longer being subject to paragraph (a)(2)

of this section, the facility at which the

affected source is located becomes a

major source:

(i) The owner or operator of an

existing source must continue to comply

with the HAP usage provisions of

paragraph (a)(2) of this section until the

source is in compliance with all

relevant requirements for existing

affected sources under this subpart;

(ii) The owner or operator of a new

source must continue to comply with

the HAP usage provisions of paragraph

(a)(2) of this section until the source is

in compliance with all relevant

requirements for new affected sources

under this subpart.

(7) Nothing in this paragraph is

intended to preclude a facility from

establishing area source status by

limiting its potential to emit through

other appropriate mechanisms that may

be available through the permitting

authority.

(b) This subpart does not apply to

research or laboratory equipment.

§ 63.821 Designation of affected sources.

(a) The affected sources subject to this

subpart are:

(1) All of the publication rotogravure

presses and all affiliated equipment,

including proof presses, cylinder and

parts cleaners, ink and solvent mixing

and storage equipment, and solvent

recovery equipment at a facility.

(2) All of the product and packaging

rotogravure or wide-web flexographic

printing presses at a facility plus any

other equipment at that facility which

the owner or operator chooses to

include in accordance with paragraph

(a)(3) of this section, except

(i) Proof presses, and

(ii) Any product and packaging

rotogravure or wide-web flexographic

press which is used primarily for

coating, laminating, or other operations

which the owner or operator chooses to

exclude, provided that

(A) The sum of the total mass of inks,

coatings, varnishes, adhesives, primers,

solvents, thinners, reducers, and other

materials applied by the press using

product and packaging rotogravure work

stations and the total mass of inks,

coatings, varnishes, adhesives, primers,

solvents, thinners, reducers, and other

materials applied by the press using

wide-web flexographic print stations in

each month never exceeds five weightpercent of the total mass of inks,

coatings, varnishes, adhesives, primers,

solvents, thinners, reducers, and other

materials applied by the press in that

month, including all inboard and

outboard stations, and

(B) The owner or operator maintains

records as required in § 63.829(f).

(3) The owner or operator of an

affected source, as defined in paragraph

(a)(2) of this section, may elect to

include in that affected source standalone coating equipment subject to the

following provisions:

(i) Stand-alone coating equipment

meeting any of the criteria specified in

this subparagraph is eligible for

inclusion:

(A) The stand-alone coating

equipment and one or more product and

packaging rotogravure or wide-web

flexographic presses are used to apply

solids-containing materials to the same

web or substrate, or

(B) The stand-alone coating

equipment and one or more product and

packaging rotogravure or wide-web

flexographic presses apply a common

solids-containing material, or

(C) A common control device is used

to control organic HAP emissions from

the stand-alone coating equipment and

from one or more product and

packaging rotogravure or wide-web

flexographic printing presses;

(ii) All eligible stand-alone coating

equipment located at the facility is

included in the affected source; and

(iii) No product and packaging

rotogravure or wide-web flexographic

presses are excluded from the affected

source under the provisions of

paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section.

(b) Each product and packaging

rotogravure or wide-web flexographic

printing affected source at a facility that

is a major source of HAP, as defined in

40 CFR 63.2, that complies with the

criteria of paragraphs (b)(1) or (b)(2) on

and after the applicable compliance date

as specified in § 63.826 of this subpart

is subject only to the requirements of

§ 63.829(e) and § 63.830(b)(1) of this

subpart.

(1) The owner or operator of the

source applies no more than 500 kg per

month, for every month, of inks,

coatings, varnishes, adhesives, primers,

solvents, thinners, reducers, and other

materials on product and packaging

rotogravure or wide-web flexographic

printing presses, or

(2) The owner or operator of the

source applies no more than 400 kg per

month, for every month, of organic HAP
27142 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 105 / Thursday, May 30, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

on product and packaging rotogravure

or wide-web flexographic printing

presses.

(c) Each product and packaging

rotogravure or wide-web flexographic

printing affected source at a facility that

is a major source of HAP, as defined in

40 CFR 63.2, that complies with neither

the criterion of paragraph (b)(1) nor

(b)(2) of this section in any month after

the applicable compliance date as

specified in § 63.826 of this subpart is,

starting with that month, subject to all

relevant requirements of this subpart

and is no longer eligible to use the

provisions of paragraph (b) of this

section, even if in subsequent months

the affected source does comply with

the criteria of paragraphs (b)(1) or (b)(2)

of this section.

§ 63.822 Definitions.

(a) All terms used in this subpart that

are not defined below have the meaning

given to them in the CAA and in subpart

A of this part.

Always-controlled work station means

a work station associated with a dryer

from which the exhaust is delivered to

a control device, with no provision for

the dryer exhaust to bypass the control

device. Sampling lines for analyzers and

relief valves needed for safety purposes

are not considered bypass lines.

Capture efficiency means the fraction

of all organic HAP emissions generated

by a process that are delivered to a

control device, expressed as a

percentage.

Capture system means a hood,

enclosed room, or other means of

collecting organic HAP emissions into a

closed-vent system that exhausts to a

control device.

Car-seal means a seal that is placed on

a device that is used to change the

position of a valve or damper (e.g., from

open to closed) in such a way that the

position of the valve or damper cannot

be changed without breaking the seal.

Certified product data sheet (CPDS)

means documentation furnished by

suppliers of inks, coatings, varnishes,

adhesives, primers, solvents, and other

materials or by an outside laboratory

that provides the organic HAP content

of these materials, by weight, measured

using Method 311 of appendix A of this

Part 63 or an equivalent or alternative

method (or formulation data as provided

in § 63.827(b)) and the solids content of

these materials, by weight, determined

in accordance with § 63.827(c). The

purpose of the CPDS is to assist the

owner or operator in demonstrating

compliance with the emission

limitations presented in §§ 63.824–

63.825.

Coating operation means the

application of a uniform layer of

material across the entire width of a

substrate.

Coating station means a work station

on which a coating operation is

conducted.

Control device means a device such as

a carbon adsorber or oxidizer which

reduces the organic HAP in an exhaust

gas by recovery or by destruction.

Control device efficiency means the

ratio of organic HAP emissions

recovered or destroyed by a control

device to the total HAP emissions that

are introduced into the control device,

expressed as a percentage.

Day means a 24-consecutive-hour

period.

Facility means all contiguous or

adjoining property that is under

common ownership or control,

including properties that are separated

only by a road or other public right-ofway.

Flexographic press means an unwind

or feed section, a series of individual

work stations, one or more of which is

a flexographic print station, any dryers

(including interstage dryers and

overhead tunnel dryers) associated with

the work stations, and a rewind, stack,

or collection station. The work stations

may be oriented vertically, horizontally,

or around the circumference of a single

large impression cylinder. Inboard and

outboard work stations, including those

employing any other technology, such

as rotogravure, are included if they are

capable of printing or coating on the

same substrate.

Flexographic print station means a

work station on which a flexographic

printing operation is conducted. A

flexographic print station includes a

flexographic printing plate which is an

image carrier made of rubber or other

elastomeric material. The image (type

and art) to be printed is raised above the

printing plate.

HAP applied means the organic HAP

content of all inks, coatings, varnishes,

adhesives, primers, solvent, and other

materials applied to a substrate by a

product and packaging rotogravure or

wide-web flexographic printing affected

source.

HAP used means the organic HAP

applied by a publication rotogravure

printing affected source, including all

organic HAP used for cleaning, parts

washing, proof presses, and all organic

HAP emitted during tank loading, ink

mixing, and storage.

Intermittently-controllable work

station means a work station associated

with a dryer with provisions for the

dryer exhaust to be delivered to or

diverted from a control device

depending on the position of a valve or

damper. Sampling lines for analyzers

and relief valves needed for safety

purposes are not considered bypass

lines.

Month means a calendar month or a

prespecified period of 28 days to 35

days.

Never-controlled work station means a

work station which is not equipped

with provisions by which any

emissions, including those in the

exhaust from any associated dryer, may

be delivered to a control device.

Overall Organic HAP control

efficiency means the total efficiency of

a control system, determined either by:

(1) The product of the capture

efficiency and the control device

efficiency or

(2) A liquid-liquid material balance.

Print station means a work station on

which a printing operation is

conducted.

Printing operation means the

formation of words, designs, and

pictures on a substrate other than fabric

through the application of material to

that substrate.

Product and packaging rotogravure

printing means the production, on a

rotogravure press, of any printed

substrate not otherwise defined as

publication rotogravure printing. This

includes, but is not limited to, folding

cartons, flexible packaging, labels and

wrappers, gift wraps, wall and floor

coverings, upholstery, decorative

laminates, and tissue products.

Proof press means any device used

only to check the quality of the image

formation of rotogravure cylinders or

flexographic plates, which prints only

non-saleable items.

Publication rotogravure printing

means the production, on a rotogravure

press, of the following saleable paper

products:

(1) Catalogues, including mail order

and premium,

(2) Direct mail advertisements,

including circulars, letters, pamphlets,

cards, and printed envelopes,

(3) Display advertisements, including

general posters, outdoor advertisements,

car cards, window posters; counter and

floor displays; point of purchase and

other printed display material,

(4) Magazines,

(5) Miscellaneous advertisements,

including brochures, pamphlets, catalog

sheets, circular folders, announcements,

package inserts, book jackets, market

circulars, magazine inserts, and

shopping news,

(6) Newspapers, magazine and comic

supplements for newspapers, and

preprinted newspaper inserts, including

hi-fi and spectacolor rolls and sections,
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 105 / Thursday, May 30, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 27143

(7) Periodicals, and

(8) Telephone and other directories,

including business reference services.

Research or laboratory equipment

means any equipment for which the

primary purpose is to conduct research

and development into new processes

and products, where such equipment 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.

Rotogravure press means an unwind

or feed section, a series of one or more

work stations, one or more of which is

a rotogravure print station, any dryers

associated with the work stations, and a

rewind, stack, or collection section.

Inboard and outboard work stations

including those employing any other

technology, such as flexography, are

included if they are capable of printing

or coating on the same substrate.

Rotogravure print station means a

work station on which a rotogravure

printing operation is conducted. A

rotogravure print station includes a

rotogravure cylinder and ink supply.

The image (type and art) to be printed

is etched or engraved below the surface

of the rotogravure cylinder. On a

rotogravure cylinder the printing image

consists of millions of minute cells.

Stand-alone coating equipment means

an unwind or feed section, a series of

one or more coating stations and any

associated dryers, and a rewind, stack or

collection section that:

Is not part of a product and packaging

rotogravure or wide-web flexographic

press, and

Is used to conduct one or more

coating operations on a substrate. Standalone coating equipment

May or may not process substrate that

is also processed by a product and

packaging rotogravure or wide-web

flexographic press, apply solidscontaining materials that are also

applied by a product and packaging

rotogravure or wide-web flexographic

press, and utilize a control device that

is also utilized by a product and

packaging rotogravure or wide-web

flexographic press. Stand-alone coating

equipment is sometimes referred to as

‘‘off-line’’ coating equipment.

Wide-web flexographic press means a

flexographic press capable of printing

substrates greater than 18 inches in

width.

Work station means a unit on a

rotogravure or wide-web flexographic

press where material is deposited onto

a substrate.

(b) The symbols used in equations in

this subpart are defined as follows:

(1) Cahi=the monthly average, asapplied, organic HAP content of solidscontaining material, i, expressed as a

weight-fraction, kg/kg.

(2) Casi=the monthly average, as

applied, solids content, of solidscontaining material, i, expressed as a

weight-fraction, kg/kg.

(3) Chi=the organic HAP content of ink

or other solids-containing material, i,

expressed as a weight-fraction, kg/kg.

(4) Chij=the organic HAP content of

solvent j, added to solids-containing

material i, expressed as a weightfraction, kg/kg.

(5) Chj=the organic HAP content of

solvent j, expressed as a weight-fraction,

kg/kg.

(6) Ci=the organic volatile matter

concentration in ppm, dry basis, of

compound i in the vent gas, as

determined by Method 25 or Method

25A.

(7) Csi=the solids content of ink or

other material, i, expressed as a weightfraction, kg/kg.

(8) Cvi=the volatile matter content of

ink or other material, i, expressed as a

weight-fraction, kg/kg.

(9) E=the organic volatile matter

control efficiency of the control device,

percent.

(10) F=the organic volatile matter

capture efficiency of the capture system,

percent.

(11) Gi=the mass fraction of each

solids containing material, i, which was

applied at 20 weight-percent or greater

solids content, on an as-applied basis,

kg/kg.

(12) H=the total monthly organic HAP

applied, kg.

(13) Ha=the monthly allowable

organic HAP emissions, kg.

(14) HL=the monthly average, asapplied, organic HAP content of all

solids-containing materials applied at

less than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg of

material applied, kg/kg.

(15) Hs=the monthly average, asapplied, organic HAP to solids ratio, kg

organic HAP/kg solids applied.

(16) Hsi=the as-applied, organic HAP

to solids ratio of material i.

(17) L=the mass organic HAP

emission rate per mass of solids applied,

kg/kg.

(18) MBi=the sum of the mass of

solids-containing material, i, applied on

intermittently-controllable work stations

operating in bypass mode and the mass

of solids-containing material, i, applied

on never-controlled work stations, in a

month, kg.

(19) MBj=the sum of the mass of

solvent, thinner, reducer, diluent, or

other non-solids-containing material, j,

applied on intermittently-controllable

work stations operating in bypass mode

and the mass of solvent, thinner,

reducer, diluent, or other non-solidscontaining material, j, applied on nevercontrolled work stations, in a month, kg.

(20) Mci=the sum of the mass of

solids-containing material, i, applied on

intermittently-controllable work stations

operating in controlled mode and the

mass of solids-containing material, i,

applied on always-controlled work

stations, in a month, kg.

(21) Mcj=the sum of the mass of

solvent, thinner, reducer, diluent, or

other non-solids-containing material, j,

applied on intermittently-controllable

work stations operating in controlled

mode and the mass of solvent, thinner,

reducer, diluent, or other non-solidscontaining material, j, applied on

always-controlled work stations in a

month, kg.

(22) Mf=the total organic volatile

matter mass flow rate, kg/h.

(23) Mfi=the organic volatile matter

mass flow rate at the inlet to the control

device, kg/h.

(24) Mfo=the organic volatile matter

mass flow rate at the outlet of the

control device, kg/h.

(25) Mhu=the mass of organic HAP

used in a month, kg.

(26) Mi=the mass of ink or other

material, i, applied in a month, kg.

(27) Mij=the mass of solvent, thinner,

reducer, diluent, or other non-solidscontaining material, j, added to solidscontaining material, i, in a month, kg.

(28) Mj=the mass of solvent, thinner,

reducer, diluent, or other non-solidscontaining material, j, applied in a

month, kg.

(29) MLj=the mass of solvent, thinner,

reducer, diluent, or other non-solidscontaining material, j, added to solidscontaining materials which were

applied at less than 20 weight-percent

solids content, on an as-applied basis, in

a month, kg.

(30) Mvr=the mass of volatile matter

recovered in a month, kg.

(31) Mvu=the mass of volatile matter,

including water, used in a month, kg.

(32) MWi=the molecular weight of

compound i in the vent gas, kg/kg-mol.

(33) n=the number of organic

compounds in the vent gas.

(34) p=the number of different inks,

coatings, varnishes, adhesives, primers,

and other materials applied in a month.

(35) q=the number of different

solvents, thinners, reducers, diluents, or

other non-solids-containing materials

applied in a month.

(36) Qsd=the volumetric flow rate of

gases entering or exiting the control

device, as determined by Method 2,

dscm/h.

(37) R=the overall organic HAP

control efficiency, percent.
27144 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 105 / Thursday, May 30, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

(38) Re=the overall effective organic

HAP control efficiency for publication

rotogravure, percent.

(39) Rv=the organic volatile matter

collection and recovery efficiency,

percent.

(40) S=the mass organic HAP

emission rate per mass of material

applied, kg/kg.

(41) 0.0416=conversion factor for

molar volume, kg-mol/m3(@ 293 K and

760 mmHg).

§ 63.823 Standards: General.

Table 1 to this subpart provides cross

references to the 40 CFR part 63, subpart

A, general provisions, indicating the

applicability of the general provisions

requirements to this subpart KK.

§ 63.824 Standards: Publication

rotogravure printing.

(a) Each owner or operator of any

publication rotogravure printing

affected source that is subject to the

requirements of this subpart shall

comply with these requirements on and

after the compliance dates as specified

in § 63.826 of this subpart.

(b) Each publication rotogravure

affected source shall limit emissions of

organic HAP to no more than eight

percent of the total volatile matter used

each month. The emission limitation

may be achieved by overall control of at

least 92 percent of organic HAP used, by

substitution of non-HAP materials for

organic HAP, or by a combination of

capture and control technologies and

substitution of materials. To

demonstrate compliance, each owner or

operator shall follow the procedure in

paragraph (b)(1) of this section when

emissions from the affected source are

controlled by a solvent recovery device,

the procedure in paragraph (b)(2) of this

section when emissions from the

affected source are controlled by an

oxidizer, and the procedure in

paragraph (b)(3) of this section when no

control device is used.

(1) Each owner or operator using a

solvent recovery device to control

emissions shall demonstrate compliance

by showing that the HAP emission

limitation is achieved by following the

procedures in either paragraph (b)(1)(i)

or (b)(1)(ii) of this section:

(i) Perform a liquid-liquid material

balance for each month as follows:

(A) Measure the mass of each ink,

coating, varnish adhesive, primer,

solvent, and other material used by the

affected source during the month.

(B) Determine the organic HAP

content of each ink, coating, varnish,

adhesive, primer, solvent and other

material used by the affected source

during the month following the

procedure in § 63.827(b)(1).

(C) Determine the volatile matter

content, including water, of each ink,

coating, varnish, adhesive, primer,

solvent, and other material used by the

affected source during the month

following the procedure in

§ 63.827(c)(1).

(D) Install, calibrate, maintain and

operate, according to the manufacturer’s

specifications, a device that indicates

the cumulative amount of volatile

matter recovered by the solvent recovery

device on a monthly basis. The device

shall be initially certified by the

manufacturer to be accurate to within

±2.0 percent.

(E) Measure the amount of volatile

matter recovered for the month.

(F) Calculate the overall effective

organic HAP control efficiency (Re) for

the month using Equation 1:

R

M M M M M

M

Eq e

vu hu vr hu vu

vu

= ( )

− +[ ] ( )( ) 100 1

/

For the purposes of this calculation, the

mass fraction of organic HAP present in

the recovered volatile matter is assumed

to be equal to the mass fraction of

organic HAP present in the volatile

matter used.

(G) The affected source is in

compliance for the month, if Re is at

least 92 percent each month.

(ii) Use continuous emission

monitors, conduct an initial

performance test of capture efficiency,

and continuously monitor a site specific

operating parameter to assure capture

efficiency as specified in paragraphs

(b)(1)(ii)(A) through (b)(1)(ii)(E) of this

section:

(A) Install continuous emission

monitors to determine the total organic

volatile matter mass flow rate (e.g., by

determining the concentration of the

vent gas in grams per cubic meter, and

the volumetric flow rate in cubic meters

per second, such that the total organic

volatile matter mass flow rate in grams

per second can be calculated and

summed) at both the inlet to and the

outlet from the control device, such that

the percent control efficiency (E) of the

control device can be calculated for

each month.

(B) Determine the percent capture

efficiency (F) of the capture system

according to § 63.827(e).

(C) Calculate the overall effective

organic HAP control efficiency (Re)

achieved for each month using Equation

2.

R

M M E F M

M

Eq e

vu hu hu

vu

= ( )

− +[ ] ( ) ( ) 100

100 100

2

/ /

(D) Install, calibrate, operate and

maintain the instrumentation necessary

to measure continuously the sitespecific operating parameter established

in accordance with § 63.828(a)(5)

whenever a publication rotogravure

printing press is operated.

(E) The affected source is in

compliance with the requirement for the

month if Re is at least 92 percent, and

the capture device is operated at an

average value greater than, or less than

(as appropriate) the operating parameter

value established in accordance with

§ 63.828(a)(5) for each three-hour

period.

(2) Each owner or operator using an

oxidizer to control emissions shall

demonstrate compliance by showing

that the HAP emission limitation is

achieved by following the procedure in

either paragraph (b)(2)(i) or (b)(2)(ii) of

this section:

(i) Demonstrate initial compliance

through performance tests and

continuing compliance through

continuous monitoring as follows:

(A) Determine the oxidizer

destruction efficiency (E) using the

procedure in § 63.827(d).
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 105 / Thursday, May 30, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 27145

(B) Determine the capture efficiency

(F) using the procedure in § 63.827(e).

(D) Calculate the overall effective

organic HAP control efficiency (Re)

achieved using Equation 2.

(E) The affected source is in initial

compliance if Re is at least 92 percent.

Demonstration of continuing

compliance is achieved by continuous

monitoring of an appropriate oxidizer

operating parameter in accordance with

§ 63.828(a)(4), and by continuous

monitoring of an appropriate capture

system monitoring parameter in

accordance with § 63.828(a)(5). The

affected source is in continuing

compliance if the capture device is

operated at an average value greater

than or less than (as appropriate) the

operating parameter value established in

accordance with § 63.828(a)(5), and

(1) if an oxidizer other than a catalytic

oxidizer is used, the average combustion

temperature for all three-hour periods is

greater than or equal to the average

combustion temperature established

under § 63.827(d), or

(2) if a catalytic oxidizer is used, the

average catalyst bed inlet temperature

for all three-hour periods is greater than

or equal to the average catalyst bed inlet

temperature established in accordance

with § 63.827(d).

(ii) Use continuous emission

monitors, conduct an initial

performance test of capture efficiency,

and continuously monitor a site specific

operating parameter to assure capture

efficiency in accordance with the

requirements of paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of

this section.

(3) To demonstrate compliance

without the use of a control device, each

owner or operator shall compare the

mass of organic HAP used to the mass

of volatile matter used each month, as

specified in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through

(b)(3)(iv) of this section:

(i) Measure the mass of each ink,

coating, varnish adhesive, primer,

solvent, and other material used in the

affected source during the month,

(ii) Determine the organic HAP

content of each ink, coating, varnish,

adhesive, primer, solvent, and other

material used during the month

following the procedure in

§ 63.827(b)(1), and

(iii) Determine the volatile matter

content, including water, of each ink,

coating, varnish, adhesive, primer,

solvent, and other material used during

the month following the procedure in

§ 63.827(c)(1).

(iv) The affected source is in

compliance for the month if the mass of

organic HAP used does not exceed eight

percent of the mass of volatile matter

used.

§ 63.825 Standards: Product and

packaging rotogravure and wide-web

flexographic printing.

(a) Each owner or operator of any

product and packaging rotogravure or

wide-web flexographic printing affected

source that is subject to the

requirements of this subpart shall

comply with these requirements on and

after the compliance dates as specified

in § 63.826 of this subpart.

(b) Each product and packaging

rotogravure or wide-web flexographic

printing affected source shall limit

emissions to no more than five percent

of the organic HAP applied for the

month; or to no more than four percent

of the mass of inks, coatings, varnishes,

adhesives, primers, solvents, reducers,

thinners, and other materials applied for

the month; or to no more than 20

percent of the mass of solids applied for

the month; or to a calculated equivalent

allowable mass based on the organic

HAP and solids contents of the inks,

coatings, varnishes, adhesives, primers,

solvents, reducers, thinners, and other

materials applied for the month. The

owner or operator of each product and

packaging rotogravure or wide-web

flexographic printing affected source

shall demonstrate compliance with this

standard by following one of the

procedures in paragraphs (b)(1) through

(b)(10) of this section:

(1) Demonstrate that each ink, coating,

varnish, adhesive, primer, solvent,

diluent, reducer, thinner, and other

material applied during the month

contains no more than 0.04 weightfraction organic HAP, on an aspurchased basis, as determined in

accordance with § 63.827(b)(2).

(2) Demonstrate that each ink, coating,

varnish, adhesive, primer, and other

solids-containing material applied

during the month contains no more than

0.04 weight-fraction organic HAP, on a

monthly average as-applied basis as

determined in accordance with

paragraphs (b)(2)(i)–(ii) of this section.

The owner or operator shall calculate

the as-applied HAP content of materials

which are reduced, thinned, or diluted

prior to application, as follows:

(i) Determine the organic HAP content

of each ink, coating, varnish, adhesive,

primer, solvent, diluent, reducer,

thinner, and other material applied on

an as-purchased basis in accordance

with § 63.827(b)(2).

(ii) Calculate the monthly average asapplied organic HAP content, Cahi of

each ink, coating, varnish, adhesive,

primer, and other solids-containing

material using Equation 3.

C

C M C M

M M

Eq ahi

hi i hij ij

j

q

i ij

j

q =

+

















+

=

=

∑

∑

1

1

3

(3)(i) Demonstrate that each ink,

coating, varnish, adhesive, primer, and

other solids-containing material

applied, either

(A) Contains no more than 0.04

weight-fraction organic HAP on a

monthly average as-applied basis, or

(B) Contains no more than 0.20 kg of

organic HAP per kg of solids applied, on

a monthly average as-applied basis.

(ii) The owner or operator may

demonstrate compliance in accordance

with paragraphs (b)(3)(ii) (A)–(C) of this

section.

(A) Use the procedures of paragraph

(b)(2) of this section to determine which

materials meet the requirements of

paragraph (b)(3)(i)(A) of this section,

(B) Determine the as-applied solids

content following the procedure in

§ 63.827(c)(2) of all materials which do

not meet the requirements of paragraph

(b)(3)(i)(A) of this section. The owner or

operator may calculate the monthly

average as-applied solids content of

materials which are reduced, thinned,

or diluted prior to application, using

Equation 4, and

C

C M

M M

Eq asi

si i

i ij

j

q =

+

=

∑

1

4

(C) Calculate the as-applied organic

HAP to solids ratio, Hsi, for all materials

which do not meet the requirements of
27146 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 105 / Thursday, May 30, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

paragraph (b)(3)(i)(A) of this section,

using Equation 5.

H C

C si Eq ahi

asi

= 5

(4) Demonstrate that the monthly

average as-applied organic HAP content,

HL, of all materials applied is less than

0.04 kg HAP per kg of material applied,

as determined by Equation 6.

H

M C M C

M M

Eq L

i hi

i

p

j hj

j

q

i

i

p

j

j

q =

+

+

= =

= =

∑ ∑

∑ ∑

1 1

1 1

6

(5) Demonstrate that the monthly

average as-applied organic HAP content

on the basis of solids applied, Hs, is less

than 0.20 kg HAP per kg solids applied

as determined by Equation 7.

H

M C M C

M C

Eq S

i hi

i

p

j hj

j

q

i si

i

p =

+

= =

=

∑ ∑

∑

1 1

1

7

(6) Demonstrate that the total monthly

organic HAP applied, H, as determined

by Equation 8, is less than the

calculated equivalent allowable organic

HAP, Ha, as determined by paragraph (e)

of this section.

H M C M C Eq i hi

i

p

j hj

j

q

= +

= =

∑ ∑

1 1

8

(7) Operate a capture system and

control device and demonstrate an

overall organic HAP control efficiency

of at least 95 percent for each month. If

the affected source operates more than

one capture system or more than one

control device, and has only alwayscontrolled work stations, then the owner

or operator shall demonstrate

compliance in accordance with the

provisions of either paragraph (f) or (h)

of this section. If the affected source

operates one or more never-controlled

work stations or one or more

intermittently-controllable work

stations, then the owner or operator

shall demonstrate compliance in

accordance with the provisions of

paragraph (f) of this section. Otherwise,

the owner or operator shall demonstrate

compliance in accordance with the

procedure in paragraph (c) of this

section when emissions from the

affected source are controlled by a

solvent recovery device or the

procedure in paragraph (d) of this

section when emissions are controlled

by an oxidizer.

(8) Operate a capture system and

control device and limit the organic

HAP emission rate to no more than 0.20

kg organic HAP emitted per kg solids

applied as determined on a monthly

average as-applied basis. If the affected

source operates more than one capture

system, more than one control device,

one or more never-controlled work

stations, or one or more intermittentlycontrollable work stations, then the

owner or operator shall demonstrate

compliance in accordance with the

provisions of paragraph (f) of this

section. Otherwise, the owner or

operator shall demonstrate compliance

following the procedure in paragraph (c)

of this section when emissions from the

affected source are controlled by a

solvent recovery device or the

procedure in paragraph (d) of this

section when emissions are controlled

by an oxidizer.

(9) Operate a capture system and

control device and limit the organic

HAP emission rate to no more than 0.04

kg organic HAP emitted per kg material

applied as determined on a monthly

average as-applied basis. If the affected

source operates more than one capture

system, more than one control device,

one or more never-controlled work

stations, or one or more intermittentlycontrollable work stations, then the

owner or operator shall demonstrate

compliance in accordance with the

provisions of paragraph (f) of this

section. Otherwise, the owner or

operator shall demonstrate compliance

following the procedure in paragraph (c)

of this section when emissions from the

affected source are controlled by a

solvent recovery device or the

procedure in paragraph (d) of this

section when emissions are controlled

by an oxidizer.

(10) Operate a capture system and

control device and limit the monthly

organic HAP emissions to less than the

allowable emissions as calculated in

accordance with paragraph (e) of this

section. If the affected source operates

more than one capture system, more

than one control device, one or more

never-controlled work stations, or one

or more intermittently-controllable work

stations, then the owner or operator

shall demonstrate compliance in

accordance with the provisions of

paragraph (f) of this section. Otherwise,

the owner or operator shall demonstrate

compliance following the procedure in

paragraph (c) of this section when

emissions from the affected source are

controlled by a solvent recovery device

or the procedure in paragraph (d) of this

section when emissions are controlled

by an oxidizer.

(c) To demonstrate compliance with

the overall organic HAP control

efficiency requirement in § 63.825(b)(7)

or the organic HAP emissions limitation

requirements in § 63.825(b)(8)–(10),

each owner or operator using a solvent

recovery device to control emissions

shall show compliance by following the

procedures in either paragraph (c)(1) or

(c)(2) of this section:

(1) Perform a liquid-liquid material

balance for each and every month as

follows:

(i) Measure the mass of each ink,

coating, varnish, adhesive, primer,

solvent and other material applied on

the press or group of presses controlled

by a common solvent recovery device

during the month.

(ii) If demonstrating compliance on

the basis of organic HAP emission rate

based on solids applied, organic HAP

emission rate based on material applied

or emission of less than the calculated

allowable organic HAP, determine the

organic HAP content of each ink,

coating, varnish, adhesive, primer,

solvent, and other material applied

during the month following the

procedure in § 63.827(b)(2).

(iii) Determine the volatile matter

content of each ink, coating, varnish,

adhesive, primer, solvent, and other

material applied during the month

following the procedure in

§ 63.827(c)(2).

(iv) If demonstrating compliance on

the basis of organic HAP emission rate

based on solids applied or emission of

less than the calculated allowable

organic HAP, determine the solids

content of each ink, coating, varnish,

adhesive, primer, solvent, and other

material applied during the month

following the procedure in

§ 63.827(c)(2).

(v) Install, calibrate, maintain, and

operate according to the manufacturer’s

specifications, a device that indicates

the cumulative amount of volatile

matter recovered by the solvent recovery

device on a monthly basis. The device

shall be initially certified by the

manufacturer to be accurate to within

±2.0 percent.

(vi) Measure the amount of volatile

matter recovered for the month.

(vii) Calculate the volatile matter

collection and recovery efficiency, Rv,

using Equation 9.

R

M

M C M

Eq v

vr

i vi

i

p

j

j

q =

+

= =

∑ ∑

100 9

1 1

(viii) If demonstrating compliance on

the basis of organic HAP emission rate

based on solids applied, organic HAP
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 105 / Thursday, May 30, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 27147

emission rate based on material applied

or emission of less than the calculated

allowable organic HAP, calculate the

organic HAP emitted during the month,

H, using Equation 10.

H

R

C M C M Eq v

hi i hij ij

j

q

i

p

= − 



 



 +































 = =

1 ∑ ∑ 10010

1 1

(ix) If demonstrating compliance on

the basis of organic HAP emission rate

based on solids applied, calculate the

organic HAP emission rate based on

solids applied, L, using Equation 11.

L

H

C M

Eq

si i

i

p =

=

∑

1

11

(x) If demonstrating compliance on

the basis of organic HAP emission rate

based on materials applied, calculate

the organic HAP emission rate based on

material applied, S, using Equation 12.

S

H

M M

Eq

i ij

j

q

i

p

=

+















 = =

∑ ∑

1 1

12

(xi) The affected source is in

compliance if

(A) The organic volatile matter

collection and recovery efficiency, Rv, is

95 percent or greater, or

(B) The organic HAP emission rate

based on solids applied, L, is 0.20 kg

organic HAP per kg solids applied or

less, or

(C) the organic HAP emission rate

based on material applied, S, is 0.04 kg

organic HAP per kg material applied or

less, or

(D) the organic HAP emitted during

the month, H, is less than the calculated

allowable organic HAP, Ha, as

determined using paragraph (e) of this

section.

(2) Use continuous emission

monitors, conduct an initial

performance test of capture efficiency,

and continuously monitor a site specific

operating parameter to assure capture

efficiency following the procedures in

paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (c)(2)(xi) of

this section:

(i) If demonstrating compliance on the

basis of organic HAP emission rate

based on solids applied, organic HAP

emission rate based on materials

applied, or emission of less than the

calculated allowable organic HAP,

measure the mass of each ink, coating,

varnish, adhesive, primer, solvent, and

other material applied on the press or

group of presses controlled by a

common control device during the

month.

(ii) If demonstrating compliance on

the basis of organic HAP emission rate

based on solids applied, organic HAP

emission rate based on material applied

or emission of less than the calculated

allowable organic HAP, determine the

organic HAP content of each ink,

coating, varnish, adhesive, primer,

solvent, and other material applied

during the month following the

procedure in § 63.827(b)(2).

(iii) Install continuous emission

monitors to determine the total organic

volatile matter mass flow rate (e.g., by

determining the concentration of the

vent gas in grams per cubic meter, and

the volumetric flow rate in cubic meters

per second, such that the total organic

volatile matter mass flow rate in grams

per second can be calculated and

summed) at both the inlet to and the

outlet from the control device, such that

the percent control efficiency (E) of the

control device can be calculated for

each month.

(iv) If demonstrating compliance on

the basis of organic HAP emission rate

based on solids applied or emission of

less than the calculated allowable

organic HAP, determine the solids

content of each ink, coating, varnish,

adhesive, primer, solvent, and other

material applied during the month

following the procedure in

§ 63.827(c)(2).

(v) Install, calibrate, operate and

maintain the instrumentation necessary

to measure continuously the sitespecific operating parameter established

in accordance with § 63.828(a)(5)

whenever a product and packaging

rotogravure or wide-web flexographic

printing press is operated.

(vi) Determine the capture efficiency

(F) in accordance with § 63.827(e)–(f).

(vii) Calculate the overall organic

HAP control efficiency, (R), achieved for

each month using Equation 13.

R

EF = Eq

100

13

(viii) If demonstrating compliance on

the basis of organic HAP emission rate

based on solids applied, organic HAP

emission rate based on material applied

or emission of less than the calculated

allowable organic HAP, calculate the

organic HAP emitted during the month,

H, for each month using Equation 14.

H

E F

C M C M Eq hi i hij ij

j

q

i

p

= − 



 









 



 +































 = =

1 ∑ ∑ 100 10014

1 1

(ix) If demonstrating compliance on

the basis of organic HAP emission rate

based on solids applied, calculate the

organic HAP emission rate based on

solids applied, L, using Equation 15.

L

H

C M

Eq

si i

i

p =

=

∑

1

15

(x) If demonstrating compliance on

the basis of organic HAP emission rate

based on materials applied, calculate

the organic HAP emission rate based on

material applied, S, using Equation 16.

S

H

M M

Eq

i ij

j

q

i

p

=

+















 = =

∑ ∑

1 1

16

(xi) The affected source is in

compliance if the capture system

operating parameter is operated at an

average value greater than or less than

(as appropriate) the operating parameter
27148 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 105 / Thursday, May 30, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

value established in accordance with

§ 63.828(a)(5) for each three hour

period, and

(A) The organic volatile matter

collection and recovery efficiency, Rv, is

95 percent or greater, or

(B) The organic HAP emission rate

based on solids applied, L, is 0.20 kg

organic HAP per kg solids applied or

less, or

(C) The organic HAP emission rate

based on material applied, S, is 0.04 kg

organic HAP per kg material applied or

less, or

(D) The organic HAP emitted during

the month, H, is less than the calculated

allowable organic HAP, Ha, as

determined using paragraph (e) of this

section.

(d) To demonstrate compliance with

the overall organic HAP control

efficiency requirement in § 63.825(b)(7)

or the overall organic HAP emission rate

limitation requirements in

§ 63.825(b)(8)–(10), each owner or

operator using an oxidizer to control

emissions shall show compliance by

following the procedures in either

paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2) of this section:

(1) demonstrate initial compliance

through performance tests of capture

efficiency and control device efficiency

and continuing compliance through

continuous monitoring of capture

system and control device operating

parameters following the procedures in

paragraph (d)(1)(i) through (d)(1)(xi) of

this section:

(i) Determine the oxidizer destruction

efficiency (E) using the procedure in

§ 63.827(d).

(ii) Determine the capture system

capture efficiency (F) in accordance

with § 63.827(e)–(f).

(iii) Calculate the overall organic HAP

control efficiency, (R), achieved using

Equation 13.

(iv) If demonstrating compliance on

the basis of organic HAP emission rate

based on solids applied, organic HAP

emission rate based on materials

applied or emission of less than the

calculated allowable organic HAP,

measure the mass of each ink, coating,

varnish, adhesive, primer, solvent, and

other material applied on the press or

group of presses controlled by a

common solvent recovery device during

the month.

(v) If demonstrating compliance on

the basis of organic HAP emission rate

based on solids applied, organic HAP

emission rate based on material applied

or emission of less than the calculated

allowable organic HAP, determine the

organic HAP content of each ink,

coating, varnish, adhesive, primer,

solvent, and other material applied

during the month following the

procedure in § 63.827(b)(2).

(vi) If demonstrating compliance on

the basis of organic HAP emission rate

based on solids applied or emission of

less than the calculated allowable

organic HAP, determine the solids

content of each ink, coating, varnish,

adhesive, primer, solvent, and other

material applied during the month

following the procedure in

§ 63.827(c)(2).

(vii) If demonstrating compliance on

the basis of organic HAP emission rate

based on solids applied, organic HAP

emission rate based on material applied

or emission of less than the calculated

allowable organic HAP, calculate the

organic HAP emitted during the month,

H, for each month using Equation 14.

(viii) If demonstrating compliance on

the basis of organic HAP emission rate

based on solids applied, calculate the

organic HAP emission rate based on

solids applied, L, for each month using

Equation 15.

(ix) If demonstrating compliance on

the basis of organic HAP emission rate

based on materials applied, calculate

the organic HAP emission rate based on

material applied, S, using Equation 16.

(x) Install, calibrate, operate and

maintain the instrumentation necessary

to measure continuously the sitespecific operating parameters

established in accordance with

§ 63.828(a)(4)–(5) whenever a product

and packaging rotogravure or wide-web

flexographic press is operating.

(xi) The affected source is in

compliance, if the oxidizer is operated

such that the average operating

parameter value is greater than the

operating parameter value established in

accordance with § 63.828(a)(4) for each

three-hour period, and the capture

system operating parameter is operated

at an average value greater than or less

than (as appropriate) the operating

parameter value established in

accordance with § 63.828(a)(5) for each

three hour period, and

(A) The overall organic HAP control

efficiency, R, is 95 percent or greater, or

(B) The organic HAP emission rate

based on solids applied, L, is 0.20 kg

organic HAP per kg solids applied or

less, or

(C) The organic HAP emission rate

based on material applied, S, is 0.04 kg

organic HAP per kg material applied or

less, or

(D) The organic HAP emitted during

the month, H, is less than the calculated

allowable organic HAP, Ha, as

determined using paragraph (e) of this

section.

(2) Use continuous emission

monitors, conduct an initial

performance test of capture efficiency,

and continuously monitor a site specific

operating parameter to assure capture

efficiency. Compliance shall be

demonstrated in accordance with the

requirements of paragraph (c)(2) of this

section.

(e) Owners or operators may calculate

the monthly allowable HAP emissions,

Ha, for demonstrating compliance in

accordance with paragraph (b)(6),

(c)(1)(xi)(D), (c)(2)(xi)(D), or (d)(1)(xi)(D)

of this section as follows:

(1) Determine the as-purchased mass

of each ink, coating, varnish, adhesive,

primer, and other solids-containing

material applied each month, Mi.

(2) Determine the as-purchased solids

content of each ink, coating, varnish,

adhesive, primer, and other solidscontaining material applied each month,

in accordance with § 63.827(c)(2), Csi.

(3) Determine the as-purchased mass

fraction of each ink, coating, varnish,

adhesive, primer, and other solidscontaining material which was applied

at 20 weight-percent or greater solids

content, on an as-applied basis, Gi.

(4) Determine the total mass of each

solvent, diluent, thinner, or reducer

added to materials which were applied

at less than 20 weight-percent solids

content, on an as-applied basis, each

month, MLj.

(5) Calculate the monthly allowable

HAP emissions, Ha, using Equation 17.

H M G C M G M Eq a i i si

i

p

i i

i

p

Lj

j

q

= 















+ − ( ) +















 = = =

0 20 0 04 1 17 ∑ ∑ ∑

1 1 1

. .

(f) Owners or operators of product and

packaging rotogravure or wide-web

flexographic printing presses shall

demonstrate compliance according to

the procedures in paragraphs (f)(1)

through (f)(7) of this section if the

affected source operates more than one

capture system, more than one control

device, one or more never-controlled
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 105 / Thursday, May 30, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 27149

work stations, or one or more

intermittently-controllable work

stations.

(1) The owner or operator of each

solvent recovery system used to control

one or more product and packaging

rotogravure or wide-web flexographic

presses for which the owner or operator

chooses to comply by means of a liquidliquid mass balance shall determine the

organic HAP emissions for those presses

controlled by that solvent recovery

system either

(i) in accordance with paragraphs

(c)(1)(i)–(iii) and (c)(1)(v)–(viii) of this

section if the presses controlled by that

solvent recovery system have only

always-controlled work stations, or

(ii) in accordance with paragraphs

(c)(1)(ii)–(iii), (c)(1)(v)–(vi), and (g) of

this section if the presses controlled by

that solvent recovery system have one or

more never-controlled or intermittentlycontrollable work stations.

(2) The owner or operator of each

solvent recovery system used to control

one or more product and packaging

rotogravure or wide-web flexographic

presses, for which the owner or operator

chooses to comply by means of an

initial test of capture efficiency,

continuous emission monitoring of the

control device, and continuous

monitoring of a capture system

operating parameter, shall

(i) For each capture system delivering

emissions to that solvent recovery

system, monitor an operating parameter

established in accordance with

§ 63.828(a)(5) to assure capture system

efficiency, and

(ii) Determine the organic HAP

emissions for those presses served by

each capture system delivering

emissions to that solvent recovery

system either

(A) In accordance with paragraphs

(c)(2)(i)–(iii) and (c)(2)(v)–(viii) of this

section if the presses served by that

capture system have only alwayscontrolled work stations, or

(B) In accordance with paragraphs

(c)(2)(ii)–(iii), (c)(2)(v)–(vii), and (g) of

this section if the presses served by that

capture system have one or more nevercontrolled or intermittently-controllable

work stations.

(3) The owner or operator of each

oxidizer used to control emissions from

one or more product and packaging

rotogravure or wide-web flexographic

presses choosing to demonstrate

compliance through performance tests

of capture efficiency and control device

efficiency and continuing compliance

through continuous monitoring of

capture system and control device

operating parameters, shall

(i) Monitor an operating parameter

established in accordance with

§ 63.828(a)(4) to assure control device

efficiency, and

(ii) For each capture system delivering

emissions to that oxidizer, monitor an

operating parameter established in

accordance with § 63.828(a)(5) to assure

capture efficiency, and

(iii) Determine the organic HAP

emissions for those presses served by

each capture system delivering

emissions to that oxidizer either

(A) In accordance with paragraphs

(d)(1)(i)–(v) and (d)(1)(vii) of this section

if the presses served by that capture

system have only always-controlled

work stations, or

(B) In accordance with paragraphs

(d)(1)(i)–(iii), (d)(1)(v), and (g) of this

section if the presses served by that

capture system have one or more nevercontrolled or intermittently-controllable

work stations.

(4) The owner or operator of each

oxidizer used to control emissions from

one or more product and packaging

rotogravure or wide-web flexographic

presses choosing to demonstrate

compliance through an initial capture

efficiency test, continuous emission

monitoring of the control device and

continuous monitoring of a capture

system operating parameter, shall

(i) For each capture system delivering

emissions to that oxidizer, monitor an

operating parameter established in

accordance with § 63.828(a)(5) to assure

capture efficiency, and

(ii) Determine the organic HAP

emissions for those presses served by

each capture system delivering

emissions to that oxidizer either

(A) In accordance with paragraphs

(c)(2)(i)–(iii) and (c)(2)(v)–(viii) of this

section if the presses served by that

capture system have only alwayscontrolled work stations, or

(B) In accordance with paragraphs

(c)(2)(ii)–(iii), (c)(2)(v)–(vii), and (g) of

this section if the presses served by that

capture system have one or more nevercontrolled or intermittently-controllable

work stations.

(5) The owner or operator of one or

more uncontrolled product and

packaging rotogravure or wide-web

flexographic printing presses shall

determine the organic HAP applied on

those presses using Equation 8. The

organic HAP emitted from an

uncontrolled press is equal to the

organic HAP applied on that press.

(6) If demonstrating compliance on

the basis of organic HAP emission rate

based on solids applied or emission of

less than the calculated allowable

organic HAP, the owner or operator

shall determine the solids content of

each ink, coating, varnish, adhesive,

primer, solvent and other material

applied during the month following the

procedure in § 63.827(c)(2).

(7) The owner or operator shall

determine the organic HAP emissions

for the affected source for the month by

summing all organic HAP emissions

calculated according to paragraphs

(f)(1), (f)(2)(ii), (f)(3)(iii), (f)(4)(ii), and

(f)(5) of this section. The affected source

is in compliance for the month, if all

operating parameters required to be

monitored under paragraphs (f)(2)–(4) of

this section were maintained at the

appropriate values, and

(i) The total mass of organic HAP

emitted by the affected source was not

more than four percent of the total mass

of inks, coatings, varnishes, adhesives,

primers, solvents, diluents, reducers,

thinners and other materials applied by

the affected source, or

(ii) The total mass of organic HAP

emitted by the affected source was not

more than 20 percent of the total mass

of solids applied by the affected source,

or

(iii) The total mass of organic HAP

emitted by the affected source was not

more than the equivalent allowable

organic HAP emissions for the affected

source, Ha, calculated in accordance

with paragraph (e) of this section, or

(iv) The total mass of organic HAP

emitted by the affected source was not

more than five percent of the total mass

of organic HAP applied by the affected

source. The total mass of organic HAP

applied by the affected source in the

month shall be determined by the owner

or operator using Equation 8.

(g) Owners or operators determining

organic HAP emissions from a press or

group of presses having one or more

never-controlled or intermittentlycontrollable work stations and using the

procedures specified in paragraphs

(f)(1)(ii), (f)(2)(ii)(B), (f)(3)(iii)(B), or

(f)(4)(ii)(B) of this section shall for that

press or group of presses:

(1) Determine the sum of the mass of

all inks, coatings, varnishes, adhesives,

primers, and other solids-containing

materials which are applied on

intermittently-controllable work stations

in bypass mode and the mass of all inks,

coatings, varnishes, adhesives, primers,

and other solids-containing materials

which are applied on never-controlled

work stations during the month, MBi.

(2) Determine the sum of the mass of

all solvents, reducers, thinners, and

other diluents which are applied on

intermittently-controllable work stations

in bypass mode and the mass of all

solvents, reducers, thinners, and other

diluents which are applied on never-
27150 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 105 / Thursday, May 30, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

controlled work stations during the

month, MBj.

(3) Determine the sum of the mass of

all inks, coatings, varnishes, adhesives,

primers, and other solids-containing

materials which are applied on

intermittently-controllable work stations

in controlled mode and the mass of all

inks, coatings, varnishes, adhesives,

primers, and other solids-containing

materials which are applied on alwayscontrolled work stations during the

month, MBj.

(4) Determine the sum of the mass of

all solvents, reducers, thinners, and

other diluents which are applied on

intermittently-controllable work stations

in controlled mode and the mass of all

solvents, reducers, thinners, and other

diluents which are applied on alwayscontrolled work stations during the

month, MCj.

(5) For each press or group of presses

for which the owner or operator uses the

provisions of paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of this

section, the owner or operator shall

calculate the organic HAP emitted

during the month using Equation 18.

H M C M C

M

M C M

M C M C Eq Ci hi Cj hj

j

q

i

p

vr

Ci vi Cj

j

q

i

p Bi hi

i

p

Bj hj

j

q

= +















 −

+





























+ +















 = =

= =

= =

∑ ∑

∑ ∑

∑ ∑

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 18

(6) For each press or group of presses

for which the owner or operator uses the

provisions of paragraphs (f)(2)(ii)(B),

(f)(3)(iii)(B), or (f)(4)(ii)(B) of this

section, the owner or operator shall

calculate the organic HAP emitted

during the month using Equation (19).

H M C M C

E F

M C M C Eq Ci hi Cj hj

j

q

i

p

Bi hi

i

p

Bj hj

j

q

= +















 − 



 









 



 + +















 = = = =

∑ ∑ ∑ ∑

1 1 1 1

1

100 100

19

(h) If the affected source operates

more than one capture system or more

than one control device, and has no

never-controlled work stations and no

intermittently-controllable work

stations, then the affected source is in

compliance with the 95 percent overall

organic HAP control efficiency

requirement for the month if for each

press or group of presses controlled by

a common control device:

(1) The volatile matter collection and

recovery efficiency, Rv, as determined

by paragraphs (c)(1)(i), (c)(1)(iii), and

(c)(1)(v)–(vii) of this section is equal to

or greater than 95 percent, or

(2) The overall organic HAP control

efficiency as determined by paragraphs

(c)(2)(iii) and (c)(2)(v)–(vii) of this

section for each press or group of

presses served by that control device

and a common capture system is equal

to or greater than 95 percent and the

average capture system operating

parameter value for each capture system

serving that control device is greater

than or less than (as appropriate) the

operating parameter value established

for that capture system in accordance

with § 63.828(a)(5) for each three hour

period, or

(3) The overall organic HAP control

efficiency as determined by paragraphs

(d)(1)(i)–(iii) and (d)(1)(x) of this section

for each press or group of presses served

by that control device and a common

capture system is equal to or greater

than 95 percent, the oxidizer is operated

such that the average operating

parameter value is greater than the

operating parameter value established in

accordance with § 63.828(a)(4) for each

three hour period, and the average

capture system operating parameter

value for each capture system serving

that control device is greater than or less

than (as appropriate) the operating

parameter value established for that

capture system in accordance with

§ 63.828(a)(5) for each three hour

period.

§ 63.826 Compliance dates.

(a) The compliance date for an owner

or operator of an existing affected source

subject to the provisions of this subpart

is May 30, 1999.

(b) The compliance date for an owner

or operator of a new affected source

subject to the provisions of this subpart

is immediately upon start-up of the

affected source, or May 30, 1996,

whichever is later.

(c) Affected sources which have

undergone reconstruction are subject to

the requirements for new affected

sources. The costs associated with the

purchase and installation of air

pollution control equipment are not

considered in determining whether the

affected source has been reconstructed.

Additionally, the costs of retrofitting

and replacement of equipment that is

installed specifically to comply with

this subpart are not considered

reconstruction costs.

§ 63.827 Performance test methods.

(a) An owner or operator using a

control device to comply with the

requirements of §§ 63.824–63.825 is not

required to conduct an initial

performance test to demonstrate

compliance if one or more of the criteria

in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this

section are met:

(1) A control device that is in

operation prior to May 30, 1996, does

not need to be tested if

(i) It is equipped with continuous

emission monitors for determining inlet

and outlet total organic volatile matter

concentration, and capture efficiency

has been determined in accordance with

the requirements of this subpart, such

that an overall HAP control efficiency

can be calculated, and

(ii) The continuous emission monitors

are used to demonstrate continuous

compliance in accordance with

§ 63.828, or

(2) The owner or operator has met the

requirements of either § 63.7(e)(2)(iv) or

§ 63.7(h), or

(3) The control device is a solvent

recovery system and the owner or

operator chooses to comply by means of

a monthly liquid-liquid material

balance.

(b) Determination of the organic HAP

content of inks, coatings, varnishes,

adhesives, primers, solvents, thinners,

reducers, diluents, and other materials

for the purpose of meeting the

requirements of § 63.824 shall be
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 105 / Thursday, May 30, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 27151

conducted according to paragraph (b)(1)

of this section. Determination of the

organic HAP content of inks, coatings,

varnishes, adhesives, primers, solvents,

thinners, reducers, diluents, and other

materials for the purpose of meeting the

requirements of § 63.825 shall be

conducted according to paragraph (b)(2)

of this section.

(1) Each owner or operator of a

publication rotogravure facility shall

determine the organic HAP weightfraction of each ink, coating, varnish,

adhesive, primer, solvent, and other

material used in a publication

rotogravure affected source by following

one of the procedures in paragraphs

(b)(1)(i) through (b)(1)(iii) of this

section:

(i) The owner or operator may test the

material in accordance with Method 311

of appendix A of this Part 63. The

Method 311 determination may be

performed by the manufacturer of the

material and the results provided to the

owner or operator. If these values

cannot be determined using Method

311, the owner or operator shall submit

an alternative technique for determining

their values for approval by the

Administrator. The recovery efficiency

of the technique must be determined for

all of the target organic HAP and a

correction factor, if necessary, must be

determined and applied.

(ii) The owner or operator may

determine the volatile matter content of

the material in accordance with

§ 63.827(c)(1) and use this value for the

organic HAP content for all compliance

purposes.

(iii) The owner or operator may,

except as noted in paragraph (b)(1)(iv) of

this section, rely on formulation data

provided by the manufacturer of the

material on a CPDS if

(A) The manufacturer has included in

the organic HAP content determination

all HAP present at a level greater than

0.1 percent in any raw material used,

weighted by the mass fraction of each

raw material used in the material, and

(B) The manufacturer has determined

the HAP content of each raw material

present in the formulation by Method

311 of appendix A of this part 63, or by

an alternate method approved by the

Administrator, or by reliance on a CPDS

from a raw material supplier prepared

in accordance with § 63.827(b)(1)(iii)(A).

(iv) In the event of any inconsistency

between the Method 311 of appendix A

of this part 63 test data and formulation

data, that is, if the Method 311 test

value is higher, the Method 311 test data

shall govern, unless after consultation,

an owner or operator demonstrates to

the satisfaction of the enforcement

authority that the formulation data are

correct.

(2) Each owner or operator of a

product and packaging rotogravure or

wide-web flexographic printing facility

shall determine the organic HAP weight

fraction of each ink, coating, varnish,

adhesive, primer, solvent, thinner,

reducer, diluent, and other material

applied by following one of the

procedures in paragraphs (b)(2)(i)

through (b)(2)(iii) of this section:

(i) The owner or operator may test the

material in accordance with Method 311

of appendix A of this part 63. The

Method 311 determination may be

performed by the manufacturer of the

material and the results provided to the

owner or operator. If these values

cannot be determined using Method

311, the owner or operator shall submit

an alternative technique for determining

their values for approval by the

Administrator. The recovery efficiency

of the technique must be determined for

all of the target organic HAP and a

correction factor, if necessary, must be

determined and applied.

(ii) The owner or operator may

determine the volatile matter content of

the material in accordance with

§ 63.827(c)(2) and use this value for the

organic HAP content for all compliance

purposes.

(iii) The owner or operator may,

except as noted in paragraph (b)(2)(iv) of

this section, rely on formulation data

provided by the manufacturer of the

material on a CPDS if

(A) The manufacturer has included in

the organic HAP content determination,

all organic HAP present at a level

greater than 0.1 percent in any raw

material used, weighted by the mass

fraction of each raw material used in the

material, and

(B) The manufacturer has determined

the organic HAP content of each raw

material present in the formulation by

Method 311 of appendix A of this part

63, or, by an alternate method approved

by the Administrator, or, by reliance on

a CPDS from a raw material supplier

prepared in accordance with

§ 63.827(b)(2)(iii)(A).

(iv) In the event of any inconsistency

between the Method 311 of appendix A

of this part 63 test data and a facility’s

formulation data, that is, if the Method

311 test value is higher, the Method 311

test data shall govern, unless after

consultation, an owner or operator

demonstrates to the satisfaction of the

enforcement authority that the

formulation data are correct.

(c) Determination by the owner or

operator of the volatile matter content of

inks, coatings, varnishes, adhesives,

primers, solvents, reducers, thinners,

diluents, and other materials used for

the purpose of meeting the requirements

of § 63.824 shall be conducted according

to paragraph (c)(1) of this section.

Determination by the owner or operator

of the volatile matter and solids content

of inks, coatings, varnishes, adhesives,

primers, solvents, reducers, thinners,

diluents, and other materials applied for

the purpose of meeting the requirements

of § 63.825 shall be conducted according

to paragraph (c)(2) of this section.

(1) Each owner or operator of a

publication rotogravure facility shall

determine the volatile matter weightfraction of each ink, coating, varnish,

adhesive, primer, solvent, reducer,

thinner, diluent, and other material

used using Method 24A of 40 CFR part

60, appendix A. The Method 24A

determination may be performed by the

manufacturer of the material and the

results provided to the owner or

operator. If these values cannot be

determined using Method 24A, the

owner or operator shall submit an

alternative technique for determining

their values for approval by the

Administrator. The owner or operator

may rely on formulation data, subject to

the provisions of paragraph (c)(3) of this

section.

(2) Each owner or operator of a

product and packaging rotogravure or

wide-web flexographic printing facility

shall determine the volatile matter and

solids weight-fraction of each ink,

coating, varnish, adhesive, primer,

solvent, reducer, thinner, diluent, and

other material applied using Method 24

of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. The

Method 24 determination may be

performed by the manufacturer of the

material and the results provided to the

owner or operator. If these values

cannot be determined using Method 24,

the owner or operator shall submit an

alternative technique for determining

their values for approval by the

Administrator. The owner or operator

may rely on formulation data, subject to

the provisions of paragraph (c)(3) of this

section.

(3) Owners or operators may

determine the volatile matter content of

materials based on formulation data,

and may rely on volatile matter content

data provided by material suppliers. In

the event of any inconsistency between

the formulation data and the results of

Test Methods 24 or 24A of 40 CFR part

60, appendix A, the applicable test

method shall govern, unless after

consultation, the owner or operator can

demonstrate to the satisfaction of the

enforcement agency that the formulation

data are correct.

(d) A performance test of a control

device to determine destruction
27152 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 105 / Thursday, May 30, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

efficiency for the purpose of meeting the

requirements of §§ 63.824–63.825 shall

be conducted by the owner or operator

in accordance with the following:

(1) An initial performance test to

establish the destruction efficiency of an

oxidizer and the associated combustion

zone temperature for a thermal oxidizer

and the associated catalyst bed inlet

temperature for a catalytic oxidizer shall

be conducted and the data reduced in

accordance with the following reference

methods and procedures:

(i) Method 1 or 1A of 40 CFR part 60,

appendix A is used for sample and

velocity traverses to determine sampling

locations.

(ii) Method 2, 2A, 2C, or 2D of 40 CFR

part 60, appendix A is used to

determine gas volumetric flow rate.

(iii) Method 3 of 40 CFR part 60,

appendix A is used for gas analysis to

determine dry molecular weight.

(iv) Method 4 of 40 CFR part 60,

appendix A is used to determine stack

gas moisture.

(v) Methods 2, 2A, 3, and 4 of 40 CFR

part 60, appendix A shall be performed,

as applicable, at least twice during each

test period.

(vi) Method 25 of 40 CFR part 60,

Appendix A, shall be used to determine

organic volatile matter concentration,

except as provided in paragraphs

(d)(1)(vi)(A)–(C) of this section. The

owner or operator shall submit notice of

the intended test method to the

Administrator for approval along with

notice of the performance test required

under § 63.7(c). The owner or operator

may use Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60,

appendix A, if

(A) An exhaust gas organic volatile

matter concentration of 50 parts per

million by volume (ppmv) or less is

required to comply with the standards

of §§ 63.824–63.825, or

(B) The organic volatile matter

concentration at the inlet to the control

system and the required level of control

are such to result in exhaust gas organic

volatile matter concentrations of 50

ppmv or less, or

(C) Because of the high efficiency of

the control device, the anticipated

organic volatile matter concentration at

the control device exhaust is 50 ppmv

or less, regardless of inlet concentration.

(vii) Each performance test shall

consist of three separate runs; each run

conducted for at least one hour under

the conditions that exist when the

affected source is operating under

normal operating conditions. For the

purpose of determining organic volatile

matter concentrations and mass flow

rates, the average of results of all runs

shall apply.

(viii) Organic volatile matter mass

flow rates shall be determined using

Equation 20:

M Q C MW Eq f sd i i

i

n

= 















[ ][ ] =

−

∑

1

6 0 0416 10 20 .

(ix) Emission control device efficiency

shall be determined using Equation 21:

E

M M

M

Eq fi fo

fi

= − 21

(2) The owner or operator shall record

such process information as may be

necessary to determine the conditions of

the performance test. Operations during

periods of start-up, shutdown, and

malfunction shall not constitute

representative conditions for the

purpose of a performance test.

(3) For the purpose of determining the

value of the oxidizer operating

parameter that will demonstrate

continuing compliance, the timeweighted average of the values recorded

during the performance test shall be

computed. For an oxidizer other than

catalytic oxidizer, the owner or operator

shall establish as the operating

parameter the minimum combustion

temperature. For a catalytic oxidizer, the

owner or operator shall establish as the

operating parameter the minimum gas

temperature upstream of the catalyst

bed. These minimum temperatures are

the operating parameter values that

demonstrate continuing compliance

with the requirements of §§ 63.824–

63.825.

(e) A performance test to determine

the capture efficiency of each capture

system venting organic emissions to a

control device for the purpose of

meeting the requirements of

§§ 63.824(b)(1)(ii), 63.824(b)(2),

63.825(c)(2), 63.825(d)(1)–(2),

63.825(f)(2)–(4), or 63.825(h)(2)–(3) shall

be conducted by the owner or operator

in accordance with the following:

(1) For permanent total enclosures,

capture efficiency shall be assumed as

100 percent. Procedure T—Criteria for

and Verification of a Permanent or

Temporary Total Enclosure as found in

appendix B to § 52.741 of part 52 of this

chapter shall be used to confirm that an

enclosure meets the requirements for

permanent total enclosure.

(2) For temporary total enclosures, the

capture efficiency shall be determined

according to the protocol specified in

§ 52.741(a)(4)(iii)(B) of part 52 of this

chapter. The owner or operator may

exclude never-controlled work stations

from such capture efficiency

determinations.

(f) As an alternative to the procedures

specified in § 63.827(e) an owner or

operator required to conduct a capture

efficiency test may use any capture

efficiency protocol and test methods

that satisfy the criteria of either the Data

Quality Objective (DQO) or the Lower

Confidence Limit (LCL) approach as

described in Appendix A of this

subpart. The owner or operator may

exclude never-controlled work stations

from such capture efficiency

determinations.

§ 63.828 Monitoring requirements.

(a) Following the date on which the

initial performance test of a control

device is completed, to demonstrate

continuing compliance with the

standard, the owner or operator shall

monitor and inspect each control device

required to comply with §§ 63.824–

63.825 to ensure proper operation and

maintenance by implementing the

applicable requirements in paragraph

(a)(1) through (a)(5) of this section.

(1) Owners or operators of product

and packaging rotogravure or wide-web

flexographic presses with

intermittently-controllable work stations

shall follow one of the procedures in

paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (a)(1)(iv) of

this section for each dryer associated

with such a work station:

(i) Install, calibrate, maintain, and

operate according to the manufacturer’s

specifications a flow control position

indicator that provides a record

indicating whether the exhaust stream

from the dryer was directed to the

control device or was diverted from the

control device. The time and flow

control position must be recorded at

least once per hour, as well as every

time the flow direction is changed. The

flow control position indicator shall be

installed at the entrance to any bypass

line that could divert the exhaust stream

away from the control device to the

atmosphere.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 105 / Thursday, May 30, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 27153

(ii) Secure any bypass line valve in

the closed position with a car-seal or a

lock-and-key type configuration; a

visual inspection of the seal or closure

mechanism shall be performed at least

once every month to ensure that the

valve or damper is maintained in the

closed position and the exhaust stream

is not diverted through the bypass line.

(iii) Ensure that any bypass line valve

or damper is in the closed position

through continuous monitoring of valve

position. The monitoring system shall

be inspected at least once every month

to ensure that it is functioning properly.

(iv) Use an automatic shutdown

system in which the press is stopped

when flow is diverted away from the

control device to any bypass line. The

automatic system shall be inspected at

least once every month to ensure that it

is functioning properly.

(2) Compliance monitoring shall be

subject to the provisions of paragraphs

(a)(2)(i) and (a)(2)(ii) of this section, as

applicable.

(i) All continuous emission monitors

shall comply with performance

specifications (PS) 8 or 9 of 40 CFR part

60, appendix B, as appropriate. The

requirements of Appendix F of 40 CFR

part 60 shall also be followed. In

conducting the quarterly audits required

by appendix F, owners or operators

must challenge the monitors with

compounds representative of the

gaseous emission stream being

controlled.

(ii) All temperature monitoring

equipment shall be installed, calibrated,

maintained, and operated according to

manufacturers specifications. The

calibration of the chart recorder, data

logger, or temperature indicator shall be

verified every three months; or the chart

recorder, data logger, or temperature

indicator shall be replaced. The

replacement shall be done either if the

owner or operator chooses not to

perform the calibration, or if the

equipment cannot be calibrated

properly.

(3) An owner or operator complying

with §§ 63.824–63.825 through

continuous emission monitoring of a

control device shall install, calibrate,

operate, and maintain continuous

emission monitors to measure the total

organic volatile matter concentration at

both the control device inlet and the

outlet.

(4) An owner or operator complying

with the requirements of §§ 63.824–

63.825 through the use of an oxidizer

and demonstrating continuous

compliance through monitoring of an

oxidizer operating parameter shall:

(i) For an oxidizer other than a

catalytic oxidizer, install, calibrate,

operate, and maintain a temperature

monitoring device equipped with a

continuous recorder. The device shall

have an accuracy of ±1 percent of the

temperature being monitored in °C or ±1

°C, whichever is greater. The

thermocouple or temperature sensor

shall be installed in the combustion

chamber at a location in the combustion

zone.

(ii) For a catalytic oxidizer, install,

calibrate, operate, and maintain a

temperature monitoring device

equipped with a continuous recorder.

The device shall be capable of

monitoring temperature with an

accuracy of ±1 percent of the

temperature being monitored in °C or ±1

°C, whichever is greater. The

thermocouple or temperature sensor

shall be installed in the vent stream at

the nearest feasible point to the catalyst

bed inlet.

(5) An owner or operator complying

with the requirements of §§ 63.824–

63.825 through the use of a control

device and demonstrating continuous

compliance by monitoring an operating

parameter to ensure that the capture

efficiency measured during the initial

compliance test is maintained, shall:

(i) Submit to the Administrator with

the compliance status report required by

§ 63.9(h) of the General Provisions, a

plan that

(A) Identifies the operating parameter

to be monitored to ensure that the

capture efficiency measured during the

initial compliance test is maintained,

(B) Discusses why this parameter is

appropriate for demonstrating ongoing

compliance, and

(C) Identifies the specific monitoring

procedures;

(ii) Set the operating parameter value,

or range of values, that demonstrate

compliance with §§ 63.824–63.825, and

(iii) Conduct monitoring in

accordance with the plan submitted to

the Administrator unless comments

received from the Administrator require

an alternate monitoring scheme.

(b) Any excursion from the required

operating parameters which are

monitored in accordance with

paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(5) of this

section, unless otherwise excused, shall

be considered a violation of the

emission standard.

§ 63.829 Recordkeeping requirements.

(a) The recordkeeping provisions of

40 CFR part 63 subpart A of this part

that apply and those that do not apply

to owners and operators of affected

sources subject to this subpart are listed

in Table 1 of this subpart.

(b) Each owner or operator of an

affected source subject to this subpart

shall maintain the records specified in

paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of this

section on a monthly basis in

accordance with the requirements of

§ 63.10(b)(1) of this part:

(1) Records specified in § 63.10(b)(2)

of this part, of all measurements needed

to demonstrate compliance with this

standard, such as continuous emission

monitor data, control device and

capture system operating parameter

data, material usage, HAP usage, volatile

matter usage, and solids usage that

support data that the source is required

to report.

(2) Records specified in § 63.10(b)(3)

of this part for each applicability

determination performed by the owner

or operator in accordance with the

requirements of § 63.820(a) of this

subpart, and

(3) Records specified in § 63.10(c) of

this part for each continuous monitoring

system operated by the owner or

operator in accordance with the

requirements of § 63.828(a) of this

subpart.

(c) Each owner or operator of an

affected source subject to this subpart

shall maintain records of all liquidliquid material balances performed in

accordance with the requirements of

§§ 63.824–63.825 of this subpart. The

records shall be maintained in

accordance with the requirements of

§ 63.10(b) of this part.

(d) The owner or operator of each

facility which commits to the criteria of

§ 63.820(a)(2) shall maintain records of

all required measurements and

calculations needed to demonstrate

compliance with these criteria,

including the mass of all HAP

containing materials used and the mass

fraction of HAP present in each HAP

containing material used, on a monthly

basis.

(e) The owner or operator of each

facility which meets the limits and

criteria of § 63.821(b)(1) shall maintain

records as required in paragraph (e)(1)

of this section. The owner or operator of

each facility which meets the limits and

criteria of § 63.821(b)(2) shall maintain

records as required in paragraph (e)(2)

of this section. Owners or operators

shall maintain these records for five

years, and upon request, submit them to

the Administrator.

(1) For each facility which meets the

criteria of § 63.821(b)(1), the owner or

operator shall maintain records of the

total volume of each material applied on

product and packaging rotogravure or

wide-web flexographic printing presses

during each month.

(2) For each facility which meets the

criteria of § 63.821(b)(2), the owner or

operator shall maintain records of the
27154 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 105 / Thursday, May 30, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

total volume and organic HAP content

of each material applied on product and

packaging rotogravure or wide-web

flexographic printing presses during

each month.

(f) The owner or operator choosing to

exclude from an affected source, a

product and packaging rotogravure or

wide-web flexographic press which

meets the limits and criteria of

§ 63.821(a)(2)(ii)(A) shall maintain the

records specified in paragraphs (f)(1)

and (f)(2) of this section for five years

and submit them to the Administrator

upon request:

(1) The total mass of each material

applied each month on the press,

including all inboard and outboard

stations, and

(2) The total mass of each material

applied each month on the press by

product and packaging rotogravure or

wide-web flexographic printing

operations.

§ 63.830 Reporting requirements.

(a) The reporting provisions of 40 CFR

part 63 subpart A of this part that apply

and those that do not apply to owners

and operators of affected sources subject

to this subpart are listed in Table 1 of

this subpart.

(b) Each owner or operator of an

affected source subject to this subpart

shall submit the reports specified in

paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(6) of this

section to the Administrator:

(1) An initial notification required in

§ 63.9(b).

(i) Initial notifications for existing

sources shall be submitted no later than

one year before the compliance date

specified in § 63.826(a).

(ii) Initial notifications for new and

reconstructed sources shall be

submitted as required by § 63.9(b).

(iii) For the purpose of this subpart,

a Title V or part 70 permit application

may be used in lieu of the initial

notification required under § 63.9(b),

provided the same information is

contained in the permit application as

required by § 63.9(b), and the State to

which the permit application has been

submitted has an approved operating

permit program under part 70 of this

chapter and has received delegation of

authority from the EPA.

(iv) Permit applications shall be

submitted by the same due dates as

those specified for the initial

notifications.

(2) A Notification of Performance

Tests specified in § 63.7 and § 63.9(e) of

this part. This notification, and the sitespecific test plan required under

§ 63.7(c)(2) shall identify the operating

parameter to be monitored to ensure

that the capture efficiency measured

during the performance test is

maintained. The operating parameter

identified in the site-specific test plan

shall be considered to be approved

unless explicitly disapproved, or unless

comments received from the

Administrator require monitoring of an

alternate parameter.

(3) A Notification of Compliance

Status specified in § 63.9(h) of this part.

(4) Performance test reports specified

in § 63.10(d)(2) of this part.

(5) Start-up, shutdown, and

malfunction reports specified in

§ 63.10(d)(5) of this part, except that the

provisions in subpart A pertaining to

start-ups, shutdowns, and malfunctions

do not apply unless a control device is

used to comply with this subpart.

(i) If actions taken by an owner or

operator during a start-up, shutdown, or

malfunction of an affected source

(including actions taken to correct a

malfunction) are not completely

consistent with the procedures specified

in the source’s start-up, shutdown, and

malfunction plan specified in

§ 63.6(e)(3) of this part, the owner or

operator shall state such information in

the report. The start-up, shutdown, or

malfunction report shall consist of a

letter containing the name, title, and

signature of the responsible official who

is certifying its accuracy, that shall be

submitted to the Administrator.

(ii) Separate start-up, shutdown, or

malfunction reports are not required if

the information is included in the report

specified in paragraph (b)(6) of this

section.

(6) A summary report specified in

§ 63.10(e)(3) of this part shall be

submitted on a semi-annual basis (i.e.,

once every six-month period). In

addition to a report of operating

parameter exceedances as required by

§ 63.10(e)(3)(i), the summary report

shall include, as applicable:

(i) Exceedances of the standards in

§§ 63.824–63.825.

(ii) Exceedances of either of the

criteria of § 63.820(a)(2).

(iii) Exceedances of the criterion of

§ 63.821(b)(1) and the criterion of

§ 63.821(b)(2) in the same month.

(iv) Exceedances of the criterion of

§ 63.821(a)(2)(ii)(A).

§ 63.831 Delegation of authority.

(a) In delegating implementation and

enforcement authority to a State under

40 CFR part 63 subpart E of this part,

the authorities contained in paragraph

(b) of this section shall be retained by

the Administrator and not transferred to

a State.

(b) Authority which will not be

delegated to States: § 63.827(b),

approval of alternate test method for

organic HAP content determination;

§ 63.827(c), approval of alternate test

method for volatile matter

determination.

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART KK.—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART KK

General provisions reference Applicable to subpart KK Comment

§ 63.1(a)(1)–(a)(4) .......................... Yes.

§ 63.1(a)(5) ..................................... No .................................................. Section reserved.

§ 63.1(a)(6)–(a)(8) .......................... No.

§ 63.1(a)(9) ..................................... No .................................................. Section reserved.

§ 63.1(a)(10)–(a)(14) ...................... Yes.

§ 63.1(b)(1) ..................................... No .................................................. Subpart KK specifies applicability.

§ 63.1(b)(2)–(b)(3) .......................... Yes.

§ 63.1(c)(1) ..................................... Yes.

§ 63.1(c)(2) ..................................... No .................................................. Area sources are not subject to subpart KK.

§ 63.1(c)(3) ..................................... No .................................................. Section reserved.

§ 63.1(c)(4) ..................................... Yes.

§ 63.1(c)(5) ..................................... No.

§ 63.1(d) ......................................... No .................................................. Section reserved.

§ 63.1(e) ......................................... Yes.

§ 63.2 .............................................. Yes ................................................. Additional definitions in subpart KK.

§ 63.3(a)–(c) ................................... Yes.

§ 63.4(a)(1)–(a)(3) .......................... Yes.

§ 63.4(a)(4) ..................................... No .................................................. Section reserved.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 105 / Thursday, May 30, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 27155

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART KK.—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART KK—Continued

General provisions reference Applicable to subpart KK Comment

§ 63.4(a)(5) ..................................... Yes.

§ 63.4(b–c) ...................................... Yes.

§ 63.5(a)(1)–(a)(2) .......................... Yes.

§ 63.5(b)(1) ..................................... Yes.

§ 63.5(b)(2) ..................................... No .................................................. Section reserved.

§ 63.5(b)(3)–(b)(6) .......................... Yes.

§ 63.5(c) .......................................... No .................................................. Section reserved.

§ 63.5(d) ......................................... Yes.

§ 63.5(e) ......................................... Yes.

§ 63.5(f) .......................................... Yes.

§ 63.6(a) ......................................... Yes.

§ 63.6(b)(1)–(b)(5) .......................... Yes.

§ 63.6(b)(6) ..................................... No .................................................. Section reserved.

§ 63.6(b)(7) ..................................... Yes.

§ 63.6(c)(1)–(c)(2) ........................... Yes.

§ 63.6(c)(3)–(c)(4) ........................... No .................................................. Sections reserved.

§ 63.6(c)(5) ..................................... Yes.

§ 63.6(d) ......................................... No .................................................. Section reserved.

§ 63.6(e) ......................................... Yes ................................................. Provisions pertaining to start-ups, shutdowns, malfunctions, and CMS

do not apply unless an add-on control system is used.

§ 63.6(f) .......................................... Yes.

§ 63.6(g) ......................................... Yes.

§ 63.6(h) ......................................... No .................................................. Subpart KK does not require COMS.

§ 63.6(i)(1)–(i)(14) ........................... Yes.

§ 63.6(i)(15) .................................... No .................................................. Section reserved.

§ 63.6(i)(16) .................................... Yes.

§ 63.6(j) ........................................... Yes.

§ 63.7 .............................................. Yes.

§ 63.8(a)(1)–(a)(2) .......................... Yes.

§ 63.8(a)(3) ..................................... No .................................................. Section reserved.

§ 63.8(a)(4) ..................................... No .................................................. Subpart KK specifies the use of solvent recovery devices or oxidizers.

§ 63.8(b) ......................................... Yes.

§ 63.8(c)(1)–(3) ............................... Yes.

§ 63.8(c)(4) ..................................... No .................................................. Subpart KK specifies CMS sampling requirements.

§ 63.8(c)(5) ..................................... No .................................................. Subpart KK does not require COMS.

§ 63.8(c)(6)–(c)(8) ........................... Yes ................................................. Provisions for COMS are not applicable.

§ 63.8(d)–(f) .................................... Yes.

§ 63.8(g) ......................................... No .................................................. Subpart KK specifies CMS data reduction requirements.

§ 63.9(a) ......................................... Yes.

§ 63.9(b)(1) ..................................... Yes.

§ 63.9(b)(2) ..................................... Yes ................................................. Initial notification submission date extended.

§ 63.9(b)(3)–(b)(5) .......................... Yes.

§ 63.9(c)–(e) ................................... Yes.

§ 63.9(f) .......................................... No .................................................. Subpart KK does not require opacity and visible emissions observations.

§ 63.9(g) ......................................... Yes ................................................. Provisions for COMS are not applicable.

§ 63.9(h)(1)–(h)(3) .......................... Yes.

§ 63.9(h)(4) ..................................... No .................................................. Section reserved.

§ 63.9(h)(5)–(h)(6) .......................... Yes.

§ 63.9(i) ........................................... Yes.

§ 63.9(j) ........................................... Yes.

§ 63.10(a) ....................................... Yes.

§ 63.10(b)(1)–(b)(3) ........................ Yes.

§ 63.10(c)(1) ................................... Yes.

§ 63.10(c)(2)–(c)(4) ......................... No .................................................. Sections reserved.

§ 63.10(c)(5)–(c)(8) ......................... Yes.

§ 63.10(c)(9) ................................... No .................................................. Section reserved.

§ 63.10(c)(10)–(c)(15) ..................... Yes.

§ 63.10(d)(1)–(d)(2) ........................ Yes.

§ 63.10(d)(3) ................................... No .................................................. Subpart KK does not require opacity and visible emissions observations.

§ 63.10(d)(4)–(d)(5) ........................ Yes.

§ 63.10(e) ....................................... Yes ................................................. Provisions for COMS are not applicable.

§ 63.10(f) ........................................ Yes.

§ 63.11 ............................................ No .................................................. Subpart KK specifies the use of solvent recovery devices or oxidizers.

§ 63.12 ............................................ Yes.

§ 63.13 ............................................ Yes.

§ 63.14 ............................................ Yes.

§ 63.15 ............................................ Yes.
27156 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 105 / Thursday, May 30, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

Appendix A to Subpart KK—Data Quality

Objective and Lower Confidence Limit

Approaches for Alternative Capture

Efficiency Protocols and Test Methods

1. Introduction

1.1 Alternative capture efficiency (CE)

protocols and test methods that satisfy the

criteria of either the data quality objective

(DQO) approach or the lower confidence

limit (LCL) approach are acceptable under

§ 63.827(f). The general criteria for alternative

CE protocols and test methods to qualify

under either the DQO or LCL approach are

described in section 2. The DQO approach

and criteria specific to the DQO approach are

described in section 3. The LCL approach

and criteria specific to the LCL approach are

described in section 4. The recommended

reporting for alternative CE protocols and test

methods are presented in section 5. The

recommended recordkeeping for alternative

CE protocols and test methods are presented

in section 6.

1.2 Although the Procedures L, G.1, G.2,

F.1, and F.2 in § 52.741 of part 52 were

developed for TTE and BE testing, the same

procedures can also be used in an alternative

CE protocol. For example, a traditional

liquid/gas mass balance CE protocol could

employ Procedure L to measure liquid VOC

input and Procedure G.1 to measure captured

VOC.

2. General Criteria for DQO and LCL

Approaches

2.1 The following general criteria must be

met for an alternative capture efficiency

protocol and test methods to qualify under

the DQO or LCL approach.

2.2 An alternative CE protocol must

consist of at least three valid test runs. Each

test run must be at least 20 minutes long. No

test run can be longer than 24 hours.

2.3 All test runs must be separate and

independent. For example, liquid VOC input

and output must be determined

independently for each run. The final liquid

VOC sample from one run cannot be the

initial sample for another run. In addition,

liquid input for an entire day cannot be

apportioned among test runs based on

production.

2.4 Composite liquid samples cannot be

used to obtain an ‘‘average composition’’ for

a test run. For example, separate initial and

final coating samples must be taken and

analyzed for each run; initial and final

samples cannot be combined prior to analysis

to derive an ‘‘average composition’’ for the

test run.

2.5 All individual test runs that result in

a CE of greater than 105 percent are invalid

and must be discarded.

2.6 If the source can demonstrate to the

regulatory agency that a test run should not

be considered due to an identified testing or

analysis error such as spillage of part of the

sample during shipping or an upset or

improper operating conditions that is not

considered part of normal operation then the

test result for that individual test run may be

discarded. This limited exception allows

sources to discard as ‘‘outliers’’ certain

individual test runs without replacing them

with a valid test run as long as the facility

has at least three valid test runs to use when

calculating its DQO or LCL. This exception

is limited solely to test runs involving the

types of errors identified above.

2.7 All valid test runs that are conducted

must be included in the average CE

determination. The individual test run CE

results and average CE results cannot be

truncated (i.e., 105 percent cannot be

reported as 100+ percent) for purposes of

meeting general or specific criteria for either

the DQO or the LCL. If the DQO is satisfied

and the average CE is greater than 100, then

100 percent CE must be considered the result

of the test.

2.8 Alternative test methods for

measuring VOC concentration must include

a three-point calibration of the gas analysis

instrument in the expected concentration

range.

3. Data Quality Objective Approach

3.1 The purpose of the DQO is to allow

sources to use alternative CE protocols and

test methods while ensuring reasonable

precision consistent with pertinent

requirements of the Clean Air Act. In

addition to the general criteria described in

section 2, the specific DQO criterion is that

the width of the two-sided 95 percent

confidence interval of the mean measured

value must be less than or equal to 10 percent

of the mean measured value (see Figure 1).

This ensures that 95 percent of the time,

when the DQO is met, the actual CE value

will be ±5 percent of the mean measured

value (assuming that the test protocol is

unbiased).

3.2 The DQO calculation is made as

follows using Equations 1 and 2:

P

a

x Eq

avg

= 100 1

a

t s

n = Eq 0 975 2 .

Where:

a=distance from the average measured CE

value to the endpoints of the 95-percent

(two-sided) confidence interval for the

measured value.

n=number of valid test runs.

P=DQO indicator statistic, distance from the

average measured CE value to the

endpoints of the 95-percent (two-sided)

confidence interval, expressed as a

percent of the average measured CE

value.

s=sample standard deviation.

t0.975=t-value at the 95-percent confidence

level (see Table 1).

xavg=average measured CE value (calculated

from all valid test runs).

xi=the CE value calculated from the ith test

run.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 105 / Thursday, May 30, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 27157

Number of valid test runs, n t0.975 t0.90

Number of

valid test

runs, n

t0.975 t0.90

1 or 2 ......................................................................................................... N/A N/A 12 2.201 1.363

3 ................................................................................................................. 4.303 1.886 13 2.179 1.356

4 ................................................................................................................. 3.182 1.638 14 2.160 1.350

5 ................................................................................................................. 2.776 1.533 15 2.145 1.345

6 ................................................................................................................. 2.571 1.476 16 2.131 1.341

7 ................................................................................................................. 2.447 1.440 17 2.120 1.337

8 ................................................................................................................. 2.365 1.415 18 2.110 1.333

9 ................................................................................................................. 2.306 1.397 19 2.101 1.330

10 ............................................................................................................... 2.262 1.383 20 2.093 1.328

1 ................................................................................................................. 12.228 1.372 21 2.086 1.325

Table 1.—T-Values

3.3 The sample standard deviation and

average CE value are calculated using

Equations 3 and 4 as follows:

s

x x

n

Eq

i avg

i

n

=

( ) −

−





























=

∑ 2

1

0 5

1

3

.

x

x

n

Eq avg

i

i

n

= =

∑

1 4

3.4 The DQO criteria are achieved when

all of the general criteria in section 2 are

achieved and P ≤5 percent (i.e., the specific

DQO criterion is achieved). In order to meet

this objective, facilities may have to conduct

more than three test runs. Examples of

calculating P, given a finite number of test

runs, are shown below. (For purposes of this

example it is assumed that all of the general

criteria are met.)

3.5 Facility A conducted a CE test using

a traditional liquid/gas mass balance and

submitted the following results and the

calculations shown in Equations 5 and 6:

Run CE

1 ........................................................ 96.1

2 ........................................................ 105.0

3 ........................................................ 101.2

Therefore:

n=3

t0.975=4.30

xavg=100.8

s=4.51

a

n = Eq ( ) ( ) = 4.30 4.51

11 20 5 .
27158 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 105 / Thursday, May 30, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

P Eq = = 11 2

100 8

100 1111 6 .

. .

3.6 Since the facility did not meet the

specific DQO criterion, they ran three more

test runs.

Run CE

4 ........................................................ 93.2

5 ........................................................ 96.2

6 ........................................................ 87.6

3.7 The calculations for Runs 1–6 are

made as follows using Equations 7 and 8:

n=6

t0.975=2.57

xavg=96.6

s=6.11

a Eq = ( ) ( ) = 2 57 6 11

6

6 41 7 . . .

P Eq = = 6 41

96 6

100 6 64 8 .

. .

3.8 The facility still did not meet the

specific DQO criterion. They ran three more

test runs with the following results:

Run CE

7 ........................................................ 92.9

8 ........................................................ 98.3

9 ........................................................ 91.0

3.9 The calculations for Runs 1–9 are

made as follows using Equations 9 and 10:

n=9

t0.975=2.31

xavg=95.7

s=5.33

a Eq = ( ) ( ) = 2 31 5 33

9

4.10 9 . .

P Eq = = 4.10

95 7

100 4.28 10

.

3.10 Based on these results, the specific

DQO criterion is satisfied. Since all of the

general criteria were also satisfied, the

average CE from the nine test runs can be

used to determine compliance.

4. Lower Confidence Limit Approach

4.1 The purpose of the LCL approach is

to provide sources, that may be performing

much better than their applicable regulatory

requirement, a screening option by which

they can demonstrate compliance. The

approach uses less precise methods and

avoids additional test runs which might

otherwise be needed to meet the specific

DQO criterion while still being assured of

correctly demonstrating compliance. It is

designed to reduce ‘‘false positive’’ or so

called ‘‘Type II errors’’ which may

erroneously indicate compliance where more

variable test methods are employed. Because

it encourages CE performance greater than

that required in exchange for reduced

compliance demonstration burden, the

sources that successfully use the LCL

approach could produce emission reductions

beyond allowable emissions. Thus, it could

provide additional benefits to the

environment as well.

4.2 The LCL approach compares the 80

percent (two-sided) LCL for the mean

measured CE value to the applicable CE

regulatory requirement. In addition to the

general criteria described in section 2, the

specific LCL criteria are that either the LCL

be greater than or equal to the applicable CE

regulatory requirement or that the specific

DQO criterion is met. A more detailed

description of the LCL approach follows:

4.3 A source conducts an initial series of

at least three runs. The owner or operator

may choose to conduct additional test runs

during the initial test if desired.

4.4 If all of the general criteria are met

and the specific DQO criterion is met, then

the average CE value is used to determine

compliance.

4.5 If the data meet all of the general

criteria, but do not meet the specific DQO

criterion; and the average CE, using all valid

test runs, is above 100 percent then the test

sequence cannot be used to calculate the

LCL. At this point the facility has the option

of (a) conducting more test runs in hopes of

meeting the DQO or of bringing the average

CE for all test runs below 100 percent so the

LCL can be used or (b) discarding all

previous test data and retesting.

4.6 The purpose of the requirement in

Section 4.5 is to protect against protocols and

test methods which may be inherently biased

high. This is important because it is

impossible to have an actual CE greater than

100 percent and the LCL approach only looks

at the lower end variability of the test results.

This is different from the DQO which allows

average CE values up to 105 percent because

the DQO sets both upper and lower limits on

test variability.

4.7 If at any point during testing the

results meet the DQO, the average CE can be

used for demonstrating compliance with the

applicable regulatory requirement. Similarly,

if the average CE is below 100 percent then

the LCL can be used for demonstrating

compliance with the applicable regulatory

requirement without regard to the DQO.

4.8 The LCL is calculated at a 80 percent

(two-sided) confidence level as follows using

Equation 11:

LC x

t s

n

Eq 1 avg

0 90 = − 11 .

Where:

LC1=LCL at a 80 percent (two-sided)

confidence level.

n=number of valid test runs.

s=sample standard deviation.

t0.90=t-value at the 80-percent (two-sided)

confidence level (see Table 3–1).

xavg=average measured CE value (calculated

from all valid test runs).

4.9 The resulting LC1 is compared to the

applicable CE regulatory requirement. If LC1

exceeds (i.e., is higher than) the applicable

regulatory requirement, then a facility is in

initial compliance. However, if the LC1 is

below the CE requirement, then the facility

must conduct additional test runs. After this

point the test results will be evaluated not

only looking at the LCL, but also the DQO of

±5 percent of the mean at a 95 percent

confidence level. If the test results with the

additional test runs meet the DQO before the

LCL exceeds the applicable CE regulatory

requirement, then the average CE value will

be compared to the applicable CE regulatory

requirement for determination of compliance.

4.10 If there is no specific CE requirement

in the applicable regulation, then the

applicable CE regulatory requirement is

determined based on the applicable

regulation and an acceptable destruction

efficiency test. If the applicable regulation

requires daily compliance and the latest CE

compliance demonstration was made using

the LCL approach, then the calculated LC1

will be the highest CE value which a facility

is allowed to claim until another CE

demonstration test is conducted. This last

requirement is necessary to assure both

sufficiently reliable test results in all

circumstances and the potential

environmental benefits referenced above.

4.11 An example of calculating the LCL is

shown below. Facility B’s applicable

regulatory requirement is 85 percent CE.

Facility B conducted a CE test using a

traditional liquid/gas mass balance and

submitted the following results and the

calculation shown in Equation 12:

Run CE

1 ........................................................ 94.2

2 ........................................................ 97.6

3 ........................................................ 90.5

Therefore:

n=3

t0.90=1.886

xavg=94.1

s=3.55

LC Eq 1 94.1

1 886 3 55

3 = − 90 23 12 ( ) ( ) = . . .
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 105 / Thursday, May 30, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 27159

4.12 Since the LC1 of 90.23 percent is

above the applicable regulatory requirement

of 85 percent then the facility is in

compliance. The facility must continue to

accept the LC1 of 90.23 percent as its CE

value until a new series of valid tests is

conducted. (The data generated by Facility B

do not meet the specific DQO criterion.)

5. Recommended Reporting for Alternative

CE Protocols

5.1 If a facility chooses to use alternative

CE protocols and test methods that satisfy

either the DQO or LCL and the additional

criteria in section 4., the following

information should be submitted with each

test report to the appropriate regulatory

agency:

1. A copy of all alternative test methods,

including any changes to the EPA reference

methods, QA/QC procedures and calibration

procedures.

2. A table with information on each liquid

sample, including the sample identification,

where and when the sample was taken, and

the VOC content of the sample;

3. The coating usage for each test run (for

protocols in which the liquid VOC input is

to be determined);

4. The quantity of captured VOC measured

for each test run;

5. The CE calculations and results for each

test run;

6. The DQO or LCL calculations and

results; and

7. The QA/QC results, including

information on calibrations (e.g., how often

the instruments were calibrated, the

calibration results, and information on

calibration gases, if applicable).

6. Recommended Recordkeeping for

Alternative CE Protocols.

6.1 A record should be kept at the facility

of all raw data recorded during the test in a

suitable form for submittal to the appropriate

regulatory authority upon request.

[FR Doc. 96–13084 Filed 5–29–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P