[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 240 (Thursday, December 15, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-30502]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: December 15, 1994]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 9, 60 and 63

[AD-FRL-5115-6]
RIN 2060-AD99

 

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action promulgates final standards that limit the 
emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from existing and new 
magnetic tape manufacturing operations that are located at major 
sources. These final standards implement section 112(d) and 112(h) of 
the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (the Act). The purpose of this 
final rule is to protect the public by requiring all new and existing 
major sources to control emissions to the level corresponding to the 
maximum achievable control technology (MACT).
    The EPA is also finalizing performance specifications for 
continuous emission monitors (CEM's) for volatile organic compounds 
(VOC) and gas chromatographic CEM's.

DATES: Effective Date. December 15, 1994.
    Judicial Review. Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, judicial 
review of national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants 
(NESHAP) is available only by filing a petition for review in the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days of 
today's publication of this final rule. Under section 307(b)(2) of the 
Act, the requirements that are the subject of today's notice may not be 
challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to 
enforce these requirements.

ADDRESSES:

Docket

    Docket No. A-91-31, containing information considered by the EPA in 
developing the promulgated NESHAP for magnetic tape manufacturing 
operations is available for public inspection and copying between 8 
a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except for Federal holidays, 
at the EPA's Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Room 
M1500, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20460; telephone (202) 260-7548. A reasonable fee may be 
charged for copying.

Background Information Document

    A background information document (BID) for the promulgated NESHAP 
may be obtained from the docket; the U. S. EPA Library (MD-35), 
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 
541-2777; or from National Technical Information Services, 5285 Port 
Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161, telephone (703) 487-4650. 
Please refer to ``Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions from Magnetic Tape 
Manufacturing Operations--Background Information for Promulgated 
Standards'' (EPA-453/R-94-074b). The BID contains a summary of the 
public comments made on the proposed magnetic tape manufacturing 
standard and EPA responses to the comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Gail Lacy of the Coatings and 
Consumer Products Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U. S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711, telephone (919) 541-5261. For more information on Performance 
Specifications 8 and 9 contact Mr. Bill Grimley of the Source 
Characterization B Group, telephone (919) 541-1065, and Ms. Rima 
Dishakjian of the Source Characterization A Group, telephone (919) 541-
0443, respectively, in the Emissions, Monitoring and Analysis Division 
(MD-14), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, 
North Carolina 27711.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information presented in this preamble 
is organized as follows:

I. Background
II. Summary
    A. Summary of Promulgated Standards
    B. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal
III. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts
    A. Environmental and Energy Impacts
    B. Cost Impacts
    C. Economic Impacts
IV. Public Participation
V. Significant Comments and Responses
    A. Applicability of Standard
    B. Selection of Compliance Dates
    C. Selection of Emission Limits and Equipment/Work Practice 
Specifications
    D. Regulation of Wastewater
    E. Selection of Test Methods and Monitoring Requirements
    F. Alternative Compliance Plans and Selection of the Affected 
Source
    G. Performance Specifications
VI. Administrative Requirements
    A. Docket
    B. Executive Order 12286
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    E. Miscellaneous

I. Background

    Section 112(b) of the Act lists 189 HAP and requires the EPA to 
establish national emission standards for all major sources and some 
area sources emitting those HAP. On July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576), EPA 
published a list of major and area sources for which NESHAP are to be 
promulgated, and on December 3, 1993 (58 FR 83941), EPA published a 
schedule for promulgating those standards. The magnetic tape 
manufacturing source category is included in the list of major sources 
to be regulated for which the EPA is to establish national emission 
standards by November 1994.
    This NESHAP was proposed in the Federal Register on March 11, 1994 
(59 FR 11662). A public hearing on the proposed rule was held on April 
13, 1994. In addition, 17 letters commenting on the proposed rule were 
received.

II. Summary

A. Summary of Promulgated Standards

    The final rule applies to major sources performing magnetic tape 
manufacturing operations, which is the affected source subject to these 
standards. The standards do not apply to research and laboratory 
facilities or to owners or operators whose magnetic tape production on 
a coating line is 1 percent or less of total production from that 
coating line (in terms of square footage coated) in any 12-month 
period.
    Table 1 summarizes the standards for magnetic tape manufacturing 
operations. In general, an overall HAP control efficiency of at least 
95 percent is required for emissions from each storage tank, piece of 
mix preparation equipment, coating operation, waste handling device, 
and condenser vent in solvent recovery. If an owner or operator uses an 
incinerator to control these emission points, an outlet HAP 
concentration of no greater than 20 parts per million by volume (ppmv) 
by compound may be met instead of achieving 95 percent control, as long 
as the efficiency of the capture system is 100 percent. If a coating 
with a HAP content no greater than 0.18 kilograms per liter (kg/L) of 
coating solids is used for a coating operation, that coating operation 
does not require further control. Owners or operators may choose to 
control HAP emissions from all coating operations at a source by an 
overall HAP control efficiency of at least 97, 98, or 99 percent in 
lieu of controlling 10, 15, or 20 HAP solvent storage tanks, 
respectively, that do not exceed 20,000 gallons each in capacity.

                    Table 1.--Summary of the Standard                   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Emission point                         Standards                  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each solvent storage tank  Sec. 63.703(c)(1): Overall (i.e., capture  x 
                            control devide efficiency) HAP control      
                            efficiency of 95 percent; or     
                           Sec. 63.703(c)(2): For incinerators an       
                            alternate outlet HAP concentration of 20 ppmv; or                          
                           Sec. 63.704(c)(4): Do not control but control
                            coating operations at higher efficiencies   
                            specified in rule; or                       
                           Sec. 63.703(i): Establish an alternate       
                            maximum HAP outlet concentration monitored  
                            with CEM to demonstrate compliance during   
                            periods when coaters are not operating.     
Each piece of mix          Sec. 63.703(c)(1): Overall HAP control       
 preparation equipment.     efficiency of 95 percent; or     
                           Sec. 63.703(c)(2): For incinerators an       
                            alternate outlet HAP concentration of 20ppmv; or                           
                           Sec. 63.703(i): Establish an alternate       
                            maximum HAP outlet concentration monitored  
                            with CEM to demonstrate compliance during   
                            periods when coaters are not operating.     
Each coating operation...  Sec. 63.703(c)(1): Overall HAP control       
                            efficiency of 95 percent; or     
                           Sec. 63.703(c)(2): For incinerators an       
                            alternate outlet HAP concentration of 20 ppmv; or                          
                           Sec. 63.703(c)(4): Control all coating       
                            operations at specified higher efficiencies 
                            instead of storage tanks; or                
                           Sec. 63.703(c)(5): Use coating with HAP      
                            content no greater than 0.18 kg/L coating   
                            solids.                                     
Each waste handling        Sec. 63.703(c)(1): Overall HAP control       
 device.                    efficiency of 95 percent; or     
                           Sec. 63.703(c)(2): For incinerators an       
                            alternate outlet HAP concentration of 20 ppmv; or                          
                           Sec. 63.703(i): Establish an alternate       
                            maximum HAP outlet concentration to         
                            demonstrate compliance during periods when  
                            coaters are not operating.                  
Each condenser vent        Sec. 63.703(c)(1): Overall HAP control       
 insolvent recoverya.       efficiency of 95 percent; or     
                           Sec. 63.703(c)(2): For incinerators an       
                            alternate outlet HAP concentration of 20 ppmv; or                          
                           Sec. 63.703(i): Establish an alternate       
                            maximum HAP outlet concentration to         
                            demonstrate compliance during periods when  
                            coaters are not operating.                  
Each particulate transfer  Sec. 63.703(d)(1): Use enclosed transfer; or 
 operation.                                                             
                           Sec. 63.703(d)(2): Vent to baghouse/fabric   
                            filter that exhibits no visible emissions   
                            while controlling particulate HAP transfer. 
Each wash sink for         Sec. 63.703(e)(1)(i): Overall HAP control    
 cleaning removable parts.  efficiency of percent; or        
                           Sec. 63.703(e)(1)(ii): Minimum freeboard     
                            ratio of 75 percent; or                     
                           Sec. 63.703(i): Establish an alternate       
                            maximum HAP outlet concentration to         
                            demonstrate compliance during periods when  
                            coaters are not operating.                  
Each piece of equipment    Sec. 63.703(f)(1)(i): Overall HAP control    
 for flushing fixed lines.  efficiency of 95 percent; or     
                           Sec. 63.703(f)(i)(ii): Use closed system; or 
                           Sec. 63.703(i): Establish an alternate       
                            maximum HAP outlet concentration to         
                            demonstrate compliance during periods when  
                            coaters are not operating.                  
Each wastewater treatment  Sec. 63.703(g): Treat to remove HAP by the   
 operation.                 fraction removed specified in Table 9 of 40 
                            CFR part 63, subpart G or so that total     
                            VOHAP concentration at exit is <50 ppmw.    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
aExcept the vent on the condenser serving as an add-on air pollution    
  control device.                                                       

    Owners or operators of existing affected sources are required to 
comply with these standards within 2 years after the effective date, 
unless a new control device is needed to comply with the requirements 
of Sec. 63.703 (c) or (g). If a new control device is needed, an owner 
or operator of an existing affected source must comply within 3 years 
of the effective date. All new and reconstructed sources must comply 
immediately upon startup.
    Owners or operators of affected sources must demonstrate initial 
compliance following the test methods and procedures of Sec. 63.705 
unless the criteria of Sec. 63.705(a) (1), (2) or (3) are met. 
Continuous compliance is demonstrated by conducting monitoring in 
accordance with Sec. 63.704(c). Continuous compliance monitoring 
requirements are summarized in Table 2. Compliant monitoring parameter 
values are established in accordance with Sec. 63.704(b), which also 
contains procedures to determine the compliant outlet HAP concentration 
during periods when coating operations are not occurring.

         Table 2.--Summary of Continuous Monitoring Requirements        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control/capture technique             Monitoring requirements           
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any add-on air pollution   Sec. 63.704(c)(3): Continuously inlet and    
 control device (APCD).     outlet HAP or VOC concentration or          
                            continuously monitor outlet HAP or VOC      
                            concentration; or                           
                           See below: If using condenser or incinerator 
                            as APCD, can perform alternate monitoring.  
                           Sec. 63.704(c)(10): Monitor bypass lines that
                            could divert flow from APCD, or install car-
                            seal or lock-and-key.                       
Solvent recovery device    Sec. 63.704(c)(9): Perform material balance  
 controlling only coating   over each 7-day period.                     
 operations.                                                            
Condenser................  Sec. 63.704(c)(4): Continuously monitor      
                            temperature of condenser vapor exhaust      
                            stream.                                     
Thermal incinerator......  Sec. 63.704(c)(5) Continuously monitor       
                            combustion temperature.                     
Catalytic incinerator....  Sec. 63.704(c)(6): Continuously monitor gas  
                            temperature upstream and temperature across 
                            the catalyst bed.                           
Capture system...........  Sec. 63.704(c)(7): Continuously monitor site-
                            specific operating parameter established    
                            according to Sec. 63.704(b)(6)              
Steam stripper...........  Sec. 63.704(d)(1): Continuously monitor steam-
                            to-feed radio.                              
Steam stripper/other       Sec. 63.704(d)(2): Monthly monitoring of     
 control technique.         VOHAP concentration.                        
Baghouse/fabric filter...  Sec. 63.704(e): Continuously monitor         
                            ventilation airflow rate and daily visible  
                            emission testing.                           
Low-HAP coating..........  Sec. 63.704(c)(8): Determine HAP content of  
                            coating used.                               
Other control techniques.  Sec. 63.704(f): Submit monitoring plan to    
                            Administrator for approval.                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Owners or operators of affected sources shall maintain records and 
submit reports in accordance with Secs. 63.706 and 63.707. Records are 
consistent with those required by subpart A, and also include records 
associated with freeboard ratio measurement, bypass valve monitoring, 
material balance calculations, and demonstrating compliance with the 
low-HAP coating limit. Reports include an initial notification, a 
notification of compliance status, compliance summary reports, a report 
to establish an alternate HAP outlet concentration limit for periods 
when the coating operations are not occurring, performance test 
results, and alternate compliance and monitoring reports.
    The final rule also includes provisions, in Sec. 63.703 (b) and (h) 
that an owner or operator of a magnetic tape manufacturing operation 
may choose to be subject to in order to obtain a Federally enforceable 
limit on their potential to emit HAP. These provisions do not preclude 
an owner or operator from using avenues other than this subpart to 
limit their potential to emit HAP. Moreover, this subpart does not 
apply to any plant that is already an area source without these 
provisions. The provisions would require limits on the usage of HAP in 
the magnetic tape manufacturing operation over 12-month periods as 
surrogates for potential emissions. Recordkeeping and reporting would 
be required to demonstrate compliance with the usage limits.

B. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal

    In response to public comments received and additional analysis 
performed by EPA, the following major changes have been made to the 
final rule since proposal:
    1. The rule does not apply to research and laboratory facilities or 
to owners or operators whose magnetic tape production on a coating line 
is 1 percent or less of total production from that line in terms of 
square footage coated in any 12-month period.
    2. Leader tape production is not included as part of magnetic tape 
manufacturing operations.
    3. The rule does not apply when nonmagnetic tape products are 
manufactured in affected sources.
    4. The applicability and intent of the HAP usage limits have been 
clarified in Sec. 63.703 (b) and (h).
    5. The final rule (Sec. 63.703(c)(4)) allows owners or operators of 
affected sources the option of controlling coating operations more 
stringently in lieu of controlling HAP emissions from solvent storage 
tanks.
    6. The final rule includes an alternative standard to control HAP 
from particulate transfer; it requires venting particulate HAP to a 
baghouse or fabric filter that has no visible emissions.
    7. The test methods and procedures for determining compliance with 
wastewater provisions have been clarified. The percent removal required 
for HAP has been changed from 99 percent to values found in 40 CFR part 
63 subpart G, the Hazardous Organic NESHAP for the synthetic organic 
chemical manufacturing industry (hereafter called the HON). Any control 
technique may be used to meet the treatment requirements. Also, monthly 
monitoring of the wastewater concentration is allowed to demonstrate 
continuous compliance.
    8. The compliance time for existing affected sources has been 
changed to 2 years after the effective date, unless a new control 
device is needed to comply with Sec. 63.703 (c) or (g). If a new 
control device is needed, an owner or operator of an existing affected 
source must comply within 3 years of the effective date.
    9. The final rule (Secs. 63.703(i) and 63.704(b)(11)) contains 
procedures for establishing an alternate HAP concentration limit to 
demonstrate compliance with the standards when coating operations are 
not occurring.
    10. The material balance averaging time was changed in the final 
rule. The averaging time is now 7 days to determine compliance with the 
standard.
    11. The definition of affected source was changed from each coating 
line, piece of mix equipment, storage tank, etc., to the entire 
magnetic tape manufacturing operation.
    12. A low-HAP content coating standard has been added to the final 
rule. A facility that uses a coating with a HAP content of no greater 
than 0.18 kg/L of coating solids for a coating operation is not 
required to further control that coating operation.
    The rationale for the above changes is discussed in detail in 
section V of this preamble, which summarizes the major comments 
received on the proposed rule and EPA's responses to these comments.

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

A. Environmental and Energy Impacts

    The environmental and energy impacts for this rule were not 
affected by changes made to the rule between proposal and promulgation.

B. Cost Impacts

    Several commenters provided comments on the estimate of nationwide 
compliance costs for the standard. The commenters stated that actual 
compliance costs could be as much as 15 times the costs estimated by 
the Agency. The EPA's evaluation of industry compliance costs was based 
on a careful analysis of information provided by industry during 
development of the proposed regulation. The costs are estimates and may 
be higher for some facilities and lower for others. Additionally, costs 
are based on the least expensive method for controlling emissions; 
sources that choose to utilize more expensive methods for control will 
find that their compliance costs are higher than those estimated for 
the standard.
    The Agency did revise facility specific cost impacts between 
proposal and promulgation based on information received from one 
facility. The revised industrywide annual costs to comply with the 
standards are $822,000/yr. This cost includes the annual cost of 
control ($596,120/yr), annual compliance costs including initial 
performance tests and ongoing monitoring ($115,638/yr), and annual 
reporting and recordkeeping costs ($110,240/yr). The total industrywide 
capital investment is estimated to be $5,206,920. The associated cost 
effectiveness is $390 per megagram (Mg) of HAP controlled ($354/ton 
HAP).
    The costs for new sources are unchanged from proposal. New source 
costs vary depending on whether a carbon adsorber or an incinerator is 
used as the control device but either system requires a total capital 
investment of approximately $500,000. Total annual costs for new 
sources are $349,360/yr if carbon adsorption is used and $270,367/yr if 
incineration is used, with associated cost effectivenesses of $2,470/Mg 
($2,250/ton) and $1,910/Mg ($1,740/ton), respectively. New source costs 
were calculated assuming six new coating lines constructed within the 
first 5 years of the standard.

C. Economic Impacts

    The economic impacts of this rule were recalculated to reflect a 
revision in the estimated industrywide annual costs associated with 
this rule. Despite the cost revisions, the conclusion of the economic 
impact analysis remains the same. The economic impacts of this rule are 
not considered to be significant. Under this rule, the average price of 
magnetic tape products would only need to increase by 0.03 percent in 
order for the magnetic tape industry to fully recover the new 
annualized costs.

IV. Public Participation

    Prior to proposal of the magnetic tape manufacturing rule, a 
meeting of the National Air Pollution Control Techniques Advisory 
Committee (NAPCTAC) was held to discuss the development of the draft 
rule for magnetic tape manufacturing operations. That meeting was held 
on November 17-18, 1992. The meeting was open to the public, and each 
attendee was given an opportunity to comment on the draft rule.
    The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on March 
11, 1994 (59 FR 11662). The preamble to the proposal discussed the 
availability of the proposal BID (Hazardous Air Pollutants from 
Magnetic Tape Manufacturing-- Background Information for Proposed 
Standards (EPA-453/R-93-059)), which describes in detail the regulatory 
alternatives considered and the impacts associated with those 
alternatives. Public comments were solicited at the time of proposal, 
and copies of the proposal BID were made available to interested 
parties.
    The public comment period ended on April 25, 1994. A public hearing 
was held on April 13, 1994 and the docket remained open until May 13, 
1994 for submission of rebuttal and supplementary information. 
Altogether, 17 comment letters were received. The comments were 
carefully considered, and, where determined by the Administrator to be 
appropriate, changes were made in the final rule.

V. Significant Comments and Responses

    Comments on the proposed rule were received from magnetic tape 
manufacturers, State and local air pollution control agencies, and 
environmental organizations. A detailed discussion of these comments 
and responses can be found in the promulgation BID (see ADDRESSES 
section). The summary of comments and responses in the promulgation BID 
serves as the basis for the revisions that have been made to the rule 
between proposal and promulgation. The major comments and responses are 
summarized in this preamble.

A. Applicability of Standards

1. HAP Usage Cutoff
    Although all comments on the HAP usage exemption in Sec. 63.701(a) 
of the proposed rule generally supported it, the commenters questioned 
the applicability and intent of the exemption. The commenters stated 
that an exemption in terms of utilization ignores actual emissions that 
may emanate from a magnetic tape operation. One of these commenters 
pointed out that the exemption is not available to facilities that have 
installed control devices (and now have the potential to emit less than 
10 tons/yr of HAP) yet can be used by uncontrolled facilities that emit 
less than 10 tons/yr of HAP; therefore, the exemption penalizes those 
that have installed controls. Commenters maintained that if potential 
to emit is used as the basis for the exemption, magnetic tape coating 
operations can choose to become exempt from the regulation by 
installing control devices or accepting Federally enforceable permit 
conditions to limit their emissions to below the stated threshold.
    Three commenters stated that with the HAP usage exemption, it was 
not clear whether the proposed standard applied to area source magnetic 
tape manufacturing operations that are located at major sources.
    Two commenters suggested allowing sources subject to the control 
requirements to use the HAP usage exemption at a later date if, for 
example, sources do not exceed the low HAP usage threshold for several 
consecutive years. The reason given was to encourage pollution 
prevention.
    The EPA agrees with the commenters that the proposed HAP usage 
cutoff requires clarification in the final rule. The first 
clarification is that only magnetic tape manufacturing operations at 
major sources of HAP emissions are required to comply with subpart EE. 
However, the owner or operator of any stationary source with magnetic 
tape manufacturing may choose to be subject to the HAP usage limits in 
subpart EE to obtain a Federally enforceable limit on the potential to 
emit HAP from magnetic tape manufacturing operations. Essentially, the 
HAP usage limits are a surrogate for the potential to emit HAP. A 
reason the owner or operator may want to use this mechanism in subpart 
EE is if the stationary source would be a major source, unless it had 
the potential to emit limit established by this subpart. The owner or 
operator could use the potential to emit established for magnetic tape 
manufacturing operations (determined by the HAP usage limit), in 
conjunction with the potential to emit from the other HAP emission 
points at the stationary source, to be an area source. Note that the 
determination of whether a stationary source is major or area is 
dependent on the potential emissions from all points within the 
stationary source, or group of stationary sources located within a 
contiguous area and under common control.
    Subpart EE does not preclude the determination of potential to 
emit, considering controls, by other mechanisms. For example, without 
controls, the potential to emit HAP could be low because the solvents 
used in coating are not HAP. An operation that has emission controls 
may have its potential to emit established by a Federally enforceable 
State operating permit. The definition of ``Federally enforceable'' in 
the General Provisions, subpart A of part 63, includes other examples 
of limits that are federally enforceable. The EPA did not include 
specific provisions in subpart EE to create enforceable limits for 
controls because, for this source category, very detailed and complex 
provisions would be required. The HAP usage limits, by comparison, are 
straightforward to determine, record, and can be easily confirmed by 
regulatory authorities. Because of the availability of the other 
mechanisms and the few plants in this source category, the EPA decided 
to include in this subpart only the HAP usage limits.
    If a stationary source becomes an area source by subjecting its 
magnetic tape manufacturing operations to the HAP usage limits in 
subpart EE, then the control requirements of subpart EE would not 
apply. Furthermore, for purposes of section 112 of the Act, it would 
not be a regulated area source that would be required to have an 
operating permit under 40 CFR part 70. In other words, being subject to 
the HAP usage limits in the rule does not in and of itself make the 
facility subject to part 70. However, there may be other reasons that 
the stationary source is required to comply with part 70. For example, 
it may be a major source of emissions of volatile organic compounds.
    The HAP usage limits at magnetic tape manufacturing operations have 
been changed from their proposed values of 10 tons/yr of an individual 
HAP and 25 tons/yr of combined HAP to take into account the potential 
emissions from other emission points at the stationary source. In the 
final rule, the HAP usage limits for the magnetic tape manufacturing 
operation are to be the values that, when summed with the values of the 
potential to emit each HAP from emission points other than magnetic 
tape manufacturing operations at the stationary source, are less than 
10 tons/yr of an individual HAP and 25 tons/yr of combined HAP.
    To illustrate how the HAP usage limits would be determined, three 
example situations have been developed. The first example is a 
stationary source at which the only HAP emission points are in the 
magnetic tape manufacturing operations. Since no other points go into 
the calculation in this case, the limits would be less than 10 tons/yr 
of an individual HAP and less than 25 tons/yr of a combination of HAP.
    The second example is a stationary source at which the only HAP 
emission points are the magnetic tape operation and a boiler. Assume 
that the boiler, without controls, has the potential to emit 1 ton/yr 
of HAP, and that the HAP from the boiler are different from those 
emitted from magnetic tape manufacturing. The limits on HAP usage in 
the magnetic tape manufacturing operation would be to not exceed 10 
tons/yr for each individual HAP and 24 tons/yr for the combination of 
HAP (i.e., the 25 tons/yr major source threshold minus the 1 ton/yr 
potential to emit of the boiler).
    The third example is a stationary source in which the HAP emission 
points, except those associated with magnetic tape, have controls with 
Federally enforceable emission limits, such as a new source performance 
standard (NSPS) under section 111 of the Act. Assume that these 
Federally enforceable limits have the effect of limiting the potential 
HAP emissions from these emission points to 4 tons/yr of a solvent that 
is also used in magnetic tape manufacturing (e.g., toluene). The limit 
on the magnetic tape manufacturing HAP usage for toluene would be to 
not exceed 6 tons/yr, for other individual HAP to not exceed 10 tons/
yr, and for the combination of HAP to not exceed 21 tons/yr.
    Two commenters remarked that a 12-month period is too long for 
determining if the threshold had been exceeded; the commenters 
suggested a 12-month rolling total. The EPA agrees; the final rule 
requires that the HAP usage be calculated monthly.
    In the final rule, the EPA has removed the proposed requirement 
that after a source has been subject to the control requirements of the 
maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standard, the owner or 
operator can not take advantage of the HAP usage limit anymore. The 
points made by the commenters who suggested this change are being 
considered as part of a general policy on the timing aspects of 
limitations on potential to emit, which is beyond the scope of this 
rulemaking. Therefore, this rulemaking does not include any specific 
requirements of this nature.
    One commenter suggested that the HAP usage cutoff be defined in 
terms of net usage to encourage onsite solvent recovery and reuse. The 
EPA agrees that net usage encourages pollution prevention by 
subtracting out the amount that is recycled at the facility. Therefore, 
the definition of ``utilize'' has been changed to incorporate this 
concept into the final rule by allowing the owner or operator to 
determine utilization as the HAP inventory for the magnetic tape 
manufacturing operation at the beginning of a 12-month period plus the 
amount purchased during the 12-month period minus the amount in 
inventory at the end of the 12-month period. However, the proposed 
definition is also included as a choice, because owners or operators of 
a plant that uses HAP for other purposes may not keep their inventory 
of HAP bought for the magnetic tape manufacturing operations separate. 
Therefore, they may prefer a record based on the amount of HAP actually 
put into the process.
    The proposed rule stated that when a source exceeded the HAP usage 
limit, the owner or operator would be required to comply with the 
control requirements of the rule by 1 year after the exceedance; this 
time had been selected to be consistent with the period given for 
existing sources to comply after the effective date. In the final rule, 
the EPA has clarified that the source shall be required to comply with 
the control requirements for major sources only if the owner or 
operator chooses to no longer be subject to the HAP usage limits and, 
in doing so, becomes a major source. In such a case, the owner or 
operator would be required to notify the Administrator or delegated 
State of this intent. The owner or operator would then have the same 
amount of time to comply with the control requirements as would an 
existing source, according to Sec. 63.6(c)(5) of the General 
Provisions. The HAP usage limits would continue to apply until the 
control requirements were met.
    An exceedance of a HAP usage limit would be a violation of the HAP 
usage provisions of subpart EE. If the source also has exceeded the 
major source definition thresholds by exceeding the HAP usage limit, 
and the source does not have an operating permit for major sources 
under 40 CFR part 70, the source potentially could be found in 
violation of the requirements of part 70 as well.
    Another clarifying change in the rule is that the owner or operator 
is not required to include 12 months of HAP usage data in the initial 
notification report required by the General Provisions; this 
requirement would have required sources to keep records before the 
effective date of the rule. Instead, the owner or operator is required 
to submit the values of the limits on the amount of HAP utilized, as 
determined in Sec. 63.703(b)(2), along with supporting calculations, 
with the initial notification.
    As in the proposed rule, the owner or operator would be required to 
submit an annual report on HAP usage, with the first one covering the 
12-month period before the compliance date of the rule (which, in the 
final rule, would be 2 years after the effective date, instead of the 
proposed 1 year). Because the final HAP usage limits are calculated 
monthly on a rolling 12-month basis, the final rule would require a 
report within 30 days of any exceedance of a HAP usage limit. It would 
be unreasonable to allow the owner or operator to wait until the annual 
report to report an exceedance.
2. Regulation of Leader Tape and Other Nonmagnetic Tape Products
    Two commenters suggested deleting Sec. 63.701(c) of the proposed 
rule that specifies that nonmagnetic tape manufacturing operations that 
take place using an affected source also are subject to the rule. The 
commenters argued (1) that by including nonmagnetic tape operations 
additional controls and solvent recovery equipment may be needed; (2) 
there may be conflicts with future MACT standards for the ``paper and 
other webs'' source category; (3) the nonmagnetic tape process was not 
considered in developing the MACT floor or impacts associated with the 
standard; and (4) the standard likely exceeds the MACT floor for 
nonmagnetic tape manufacturing. One of the commenters also suggested 
deleting ``leader tape'' from the definition of magnetic tape 
manufacturing operation for the same reasons. Upon review of the 
comments, the EPA has decided not to regulate HAP emissions from leader 
tape production and from nonmagnetic tape products manufactured using 
affected sources. Although there may be configurations for which 
controlling leader tape and nonmagnetic tape products is feasible, the 
EPA has chosen not to regulate either under subpart EE. There may be 
instances in which the solvents used to manufacture magnetic products 
and the solvents used to manufacture nonmagnetic and leader tape 
products are incompatible with respect to a solvent recovery device. 
The regulation of leader tape and nonmagnetic tape products 
manufacturing would be considered when the MACT standard for paper and 
other webs is promulgated; leader tape and nonmagnetic tape products 
should be covered by that standard. The EPA agrees that it did not 
adequately consider leader tape in the analysis of the floor for this 
source category. The comments brought to EPA's attention that leader 
tape manufacture is not necessarily as similar to magnetic tape 
manufacture as was originally anticipated.
3. Regulation of Research and Laboratory Facilities
    Four commenters stated that research and laboratory activities 
should be exempt from the standard, regardless of whether they are 
collocated at a production facility. One commenter cited section 
112(c)(7) of the Act as rationale, which states that EPA is directed to 
``* * * establish a separate category covering research or laboratory 
facilities to assure equitable treatment of such facilities.'' 
Commenters noted that traditional controls cannot reasonably be applied 
to research facilities because of the wide variety and small amounts of 
materials that are used, the batch nature of research operations, and 
the different methods of research operations. Commenters also noted 
that requiring control devices for research and laboratory facilities 
dramatically reduces the amount of research that can be conducted and 
impacts competition.
    The proposed rule used the definition of research and laboratory 
facilities from section 112 (c)(7) of the Act. This section provides 
that ``research or laboratory facility'' means any stationary source 
whose primary purpose is to conduct research and development into new 
processes and products, where such source is operated under the close 
supervision of technically trained personnel and is not engaged in the 
manufacture of products for commercial sale in commerce, except in a de 
minimis manner.
    Three commenters responded to EPA's request for information on the 
definition of de minimis manufacture of products for commercial sale 
from a research and laboratory coating line. One commenter recommended 
that the standard adopt the definition of research or laboratory 
facility as proposed and not try to further define de minimis, because 
de minimis may vary by the nature of product being produced or the 
concurrent level of research activities. Two commenters suggested 
defining the de minimis sale of products produced at research and 
laboratory facilities according to the percent of time the facility is 
used for commercial activities, and suggested less than 50 percent of 
total operating time as de minimis. One commenter suggested that de 
minimis be defined in terms of the HAP emission level; e.g., no more 
than 5 tons/yr of any one HAP or 10 tons/yr of any combination of HAP 
could be emitted from research and laboratory facilities.
    The EPA had proposed regulation of research and laboratory 
facilities collocated with production lines because the EPA believed 
that the primary control device used to control HAP emissions from 
coating operations could also be used to control HAP emissions from the 
research lines. The EPA agrees that under section 112(c)(7) of the Act, 
a separate category would need to be established to cover research and 
laboratory facilities to assure the equitable treatment of such 
facilities. Based on the information received at proposal, the EPA has 
concluded that in many instances control of HAP emissions from research 
and laboratory facilities is not technically feasible using the same 
pieces of control equipment used to control manufacturing lines. This 
is primarily due to the batch nature of operating the research and 
laboratory lines, the types of emission points (such as laboratory 
bench-scale equipment), and the fact that the solvents used in research 
could differ from those used in production. This latter problem is of 
specific concern when a solvent recovery device is used, because the 
solvent recovery device (and associated distillation operations) are 
designed for recovery of specific solvents. Therefore, in the final 
rule, research and laboratory facilities are not regulated.
    In the final rule, the definition of research or laboratory 
facility remains unchanged from the proposed definition, which is 
identical to the definition in section 112(c)(7) of the Act. The EPA 
disagrees with the two commenters who suggested that the phrase in the 
definition of research or laboratory facility ``not engaged in the 
manufacture of products for commercial sale in commerce, except in a de 
minimis manner'' be interpreted as not engaged in commercial 
manufacture for more than 50 percent of its operating time. The EPA 
does not believe that this is a reasonable interpretation of ``de 
minimis manner.'' However, the Agency did not receive sufficient 
information that ``de minimis manner'' could be defined for this source 
category.
    The EPA has evaluated the types of activities it considers to fit 
the Act's definition of a research facility for this source category. 
Research activities include those activities that are employed to 
develop a new coating, substrate, or end product, and may also include 
activities devoted to optimizing the manufacture of a new material. For 
example, a magnetic tape facility may have laboratory research 
operations directed to developing new coatings. Once a promising 
coating is developed, the research activity may move to a laboratory-
scale or pilot plant coating line to determine if it can be properly 
applied, dried, etc. Some marketing may take place at this stage to 
determine the viability of the product in the market place. For 
example, is there a demand for this type of product? Can it meet the 
customer's specifications? If the facility wishes to further pursue the 
coating, it may be moved to a line that operates the same as a 
production line to determine how the coating could be manufactured on a 
full-scale basis. The EPA believes that all of these activities are 
research because their intention is to develop new products or 
processes.
    Once a facility determines that the manufacture of this product is 
viable, however, the EPA believes that additional activities are likely 
to be beyond the research phase. For example, the adjustment and 
optimization of a process or product that is already operating on a 
production line should not be considered research. Likewise, if a 
product is being manufactured on a full-size production line and 
introduced in a retail environment, even on a limited basis, the 
product is likely to be fully developed. It could be argued that 
research is continuing even beyond this point in that the facility is 
testing to determine the correct market segment, price, advertising, 
etc. The EPA believes, however, that this type of ``research'' is 
beyond what was intended by the Act. The company is obviously planning 
eventual full-scale production; the development of the new product and 
process is over.
4. Overlap of Subpart EE With Future Standards
    One commenter stated that the broad definition of magnetic tape 
encompasses operations that should be considered as part of other 
source categories. For example, although the commenter's facility 
manufactures a product that contains magnetic particles, the actual 
content of magnetic particles in the product is small. The overwhelming 
majority of products manufactured at this facility, in terms of square 
footage, are products that would be considered paper and other webs. 
The commenter noted that only 1 percent of its annual production in 
square feet would meet the definition of magnetic tape. Thus, the 
commenter believes that it would be more appropriate to regulate this 
facility under a standard for paper and other webs than under the 
magnetic tape rule. The commenter suggested that EPA use primary 
product rationale to distinguish between magnetic tape facilities and 
facilities more appropriately classified as manufacturing paper and 
other webs. The commenter alternatively suggested that EPA change the 
definition of magnetic tape to be based on the percent of solids in the 
coating mix to distinguish between source categories.
    The Agency has considered the request made by the commenter and 
agrees that a primary product distinction should be made in some cases 
to avoid including coating lines under the magnetic tape NESHAP that 
have such a small amount of magnetic tape production that it is more 
appropriate to regulate them exclusively under paper and other web 
coatings, rather than subpart EE. Therefore, the final rule specifies 
that if, based on the annual square footage, 1 percent or less of all 
products manufactured on a coating line are magnetic tape products, 
then that coating line is not subject to subpart EE. A cutoff of 1 
percent, rather than a higher percentage number was selected to 
minimize potentially uncontrolled emissions from magnetic tape 
production on a coating line that would otherwise be regulated under 
the paper and other webs source category. The definition of magnetic 
tape was not changed due to the uncertain nature of product 
development. The percent composition of magnetic particles may change 
with the development of new magnetic tape products, and a change in the 
definition of magnetic tape might limit the effectiveness of subpart EE 
to control emissions from magnetic tape manufacturing in the future.

B. Selection of Compliance Dates

    Seven commenters stated that the compliance time of 1 year from the 
date of promulgation is too short. Three commenters stated that a 
minimum of approximately 2 years would be required to adequately plan, 
design, fund, purchase, and install the required new equipment. The 
commenters pointed out that some States require up to 10 months to 
issue construction permits alone. Two commenters also remarked that the 
1-year compliance period did not allow adequate time for sources to 
apply for extensions, which must be submitted 12 months in advance of 
the compliance date. One of the commenters suggested the regulation 
distinguish between sources currently subject to the new source 
performance standards (NSPS) for magnetic tape manufacturing (40 CFR 
part 60, subpart SSS) and sources not subject to the NSPS, and allow 
sources not subject to the NSPS 3 years to comply.
    After reviewing the comments received, the Agency recognizes that a 
1-year compliance period for affected sources may be inadequate for 
some facilities to install a new control device or expand existing 
controls. In addition, because this rule covers a wider range of 
emission points than the NSPS, some facilities that are subject to the 
NSPS also may need additional time to retrofit the emission controls 
necessary to comply with the MACT standard. Therefore, the Agency has 
increased the compliance period to 3 years for existing affected 
sources that will need to install a new control device to meet the 
requirements of Sec. 63.703(c) or (g). All other existing affected 
sources will have to comply with the standards within 2 years of the 
effective date. The Agency believes that these compliance timeframes 
will allow facilities sufficient time to bring affected sources into 
compliance with the rule while ensuring implementation of emission 
control in a timely fashion. In addition, the increase in the 
compliance time period allows additional time for State agencies to 
implement title V permitting programs, and allows owners and operators 
of affected sources at least 1 year to evaluate the need and apply for 
an extension in accordance with Sec. 63.6(i) of subpart A.

 C. Selection of Emission Limits and Equipment/Work Practice 
Specifications

1. Emission Limits When Coating Operations Are Down
    At proposal, the EPA noted that a 95 percent control efficiency may 
not be feasible when the inlet HAP concentration to the control device 
is low, such as when the coating operations are down. This is 
especially a problem for owners or operators using solvent recovery 
devices that continuously monitor percent efficiency or HAP outlet 
concentration to demonstrate compliance with the standards. The rule 
already contains an alternative HAP outlet concentration for owners or 
operators of incinerators. The EPA, therefore, requested comment on 
alternate continuous compliance requirements for solvent recovery 
devices operating under low-inlet loading situations. Commenters agreed 
this was a problem, but were not in agreement on the best way to 
address the problem. Several commenters suggested extending the 
averaging period to 30 days to account for low inlet conditions. 
Commenters did not support the option of an owner or operator 
establishing an alternate outlet concentration requirement for periods 
of low inlet conditions. Primarily, the reasons cited were that it 
would be costly to simulate all possible modes of operation during an 
initial performance test, and outlet conditions are source-specific and 
depend greatly on highly variable inlet conditions. The EPA recognizes 
that it could be costly to simulate all possible modes of operation 
during one performance test. Given the site-specific nature of outlet 
conditions, it would be unfounded for EPA to set such an outlet 
concentration to apply to the entire industry during periods of low 
inlet condition, as EPA currently has no data to support such a limit. 
The EPA does not believe that a 30-day averaging period is an 
acceptable alternative, and no data were submitted to support that this 
is the minimum averaging time that is technically feasible.
    The EPA believes that compliance with an alternate outlet 
concentration is the best way to establish compliance during those 
periods when the inlet HAP concentration to the control device is low. 
However, the Agency currently has no data to identify a limit. The EPA 
has chosen to address this problem in the final rule by allowing 
facilities to determine a site-specific outlet concentration during 
periods of low inlet conditions. Owners or operators may conduct a 
performance test during which the coating operations are not occurring, 
and the control device is operated according to good control practices 
and in the same manner as it was operated to achieve the emission 
limits for coating operations. Alternatively, to minimize the burden on 
affected facilities, the final rule also allows sources to establish 
this number using CEM data collected under such conditions as noted 
above. The final rule (Sec. 63.704(b)(11)(ii)) allows owners or 
operators 6 months after the compliance date to collect these data and 
submit a proposed limit to the Administrator or permitting authority, 
as appropriate. To support the alternate concentration limit, the owner 
or operator must also fulfill the reporting requirements in 
Sec. 63.707(k).
2. Standard for Particulate HAP
    One commenter recommended that EPA allow the use of manual charging 
of particulate HAP into kettles with the use of a 99 percent efficient 
dust collector as an equivalent method to enclosed transfer. The 
commenter estimates a 99.975 percent control efficiency for its own 
facilities. The commenter also claims that additional costs to convert 
to enclosed transfer would be excessive compared to the resulting 
emission reductions. The commenter noted that enclosed transfer systems 
all have some purge capability usually associated with a fabric filter 
that would vent to the atmosphere. Therefore, the ultimate difference 
between enclosed transfer and open transfer with control would be 
minimal.
    Another commenter agreed, recommending that the proposed rule be 
amended to require capture and control of at least 95 percent of 
particulate emissions or the use of an enclosed transfer method. The 
commenter stated that performance standards are almost always superior 
to design standards, which are used only as a last resort when 
performance standards are not possible. Their facility vents the 
particulate HAP unloading area to a baghouse with greater than 99 
percent control of particulate emission greater than 1 micron in 
diameter, which they believe is at least as efficient as the enclosed 
transfer method.
    The final rule allows owners or operators to control emissions of 
particulate HAP by venting the transfer operation to a baghouse or 
fabric filter that operates with no visible emissions. The owner or 
operator will also have to demonstrate that the ventilation rate is 
sufficient to capture the particulate HAP through engineering 
calculations (Sec. 63.707(h)). Guidance for determining a suitable 
ventilation rate may be found in the Industrial Ventilation Manual of 
Recommended Practice, published by the American Conference of 
Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). The final rule contains 
test methods and procedures for demonstrating that there are no visible 
emissions from the baghouse or dust collector (Sec. 63.705(g)), as well 
as monitoring provisions for demonstrating continuous compliance 
(Sec. 63.704(e)). In addition, the definition of an enclosed transfer 
device was left as a broad definition so as not to exclude equipment 
that could achieve enclosed transfer. Supersack containers described by 
one commenter appear to meet this definition as would mechanical 
systems such as augers and conveyors. The final rule references such 
equipment.
3. Low-HAP Coating Limit
    Three commenters recommended that EPA allow an equivalent 
compliance limit for reductions in HAP for facilities that use water-
based coatings or reduce the amount of HAP applied per unit of tape 
manufactured. The commenters stated that this would be consistent with 
the NSPS, and would encourage pollution prevention. One commenter also 
suggested that emissions be averaged on a monthly basis, not a 3-day 
rolling average, which it claims is not practical.
    The EPA recognizes the advantages of a low-HAP coating limit and 
has therefore included such a limit in the final rule as a means of 
encouraging pollution prevention. The final rule includes a HAP coating 
limit, whereby owners or operators are exempt from requirements for 
coating operations if a coating containing less than 0.18 kg of HAP per 
L of coating solids is used. This limit was calculated using the same 
methodology used to establish the alternate limit for the NSPS. The 
low-HAP coating limit in subpart EE was calculated by applying a 95 
percent efficiency to a typical coating containing 0.8 gallons of 
solvent per 0.2 gallons of solids, and that has a coating density of 
7.5 pounds of solvent per gallon of coating. Data collected from 
industry to support the NSPS found the typical magnetic tape coating to 
be 80 percent solvent and 20 percent solids, and these coating 
parameters were used in developing the low-VOC coating for the NSPS 
(0.25 kg solvent/L coating solids). In the case of subpart EE, all 
solvent is considered HAP; whereas in the NSPS, all solvent was 
considered VOC because VOC's are regulated by the NSPS.
    Owners or operators that opt to comply with the low-HAP limit must 
determine the HAP content of each batch of coating used, following the 
procedures of Sec. 63.705(c)(5) of the final rule. Thus, an averaging 
period is not necessary. If a coating with an identical formulation is 
subsequently used, the original calculations can be used to demonstrate 
compliance. Section 63.706(f) requires the owner or operator using a 
low-HAP coating to maintain records of the HAP content of each batch of 
coating applied, and records of the formulation data that support the 
HAP content calculations. In accordance with Sec. 63.707(i)(2), these 
calculated HAP contents for each batch of coating are reported as the 
monitored operating parameter value in the excess emissions and 
continuous monitoring system performance report and summary report 
required by Sec. 63.10(e) of subpart A.

D. Regulation of Wastewater

    One commenter stated that condensate from the carbon adsorption 
system should not be considered a wastewater stream because steam 
strippers are part of a solvent purification process, not a wastewater 
treatment system. The commenter further stated that only the water 
stream exiting the solvent purification stripping column should be 
considered wastewater, and because volatilization of HAP from this 
stream is negligible, this stream should not be considered an emission 
point.
    The commenter is correct in that the steam stripper may be 
considered a purification process to remove additional solvent from the 
water phase after a carbon adsorption system is steam desorbed. 
However, this interpretation of the process does not change the fact 
that the water phase from steam desorption of the carbon adsorption 
system is a potential HAP emission source. If a steam stripper or some 
other treatment is not used to remove solvent from this water phase, 
volatile HAP solvents could be emitted to the air. Based on EPA's data, 
of the three existing major sources that use steam to desorb their 
carbon beds, all three treat the resultant water with a steam stripper. 
The MACT floor for this emission source was, therefore, selected as 
treatment that achieves the same control level as a steam stripper.
    One commenter maintained that EPA does not have sufficient data to 
set the concentration limit for wastewater streams from the steam 
stripper at 50 parts per million by weight (ppmw) of volatile organic 
HAP. The commenter noted that the data to support the limit was not 
obtained by Method 305 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 63. However, the 
commenter did not supply any other data to support his comment. Another 
commenter noted that the removal efficiency and outlet concentration is 
highly dependent on the type of HAP compound present in the wastewater. 
Therefore, EPA should either (1) limit the rule only to methyl ethyl 
ketone (MEK), methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK), and toluene and make an 
adjustment for the removal efficiency for MEK described in the HON (95 
percent); or (2) conduct another MACT floor evaluation to include all 
HAP and repropose this portion of the rule.
    One commenter stated that facilities that do not use steam 
stripping should not have to seek EPA approval to use reliable 
technologies with demonstrated efficiencies in treating wastewater. The 
commenter noted that heated distillation columns reliably remove 
organics to less than 50 ppmw, and carbon adsorption is a reliable and 
common method to remove trace amounts of VOC from wastewater.
    The wastewater provisions in the final rule differ slightly from 
those at proposal. The EPA agrees the rule should not limit the 
treatment methods to steam stripping for removing HAP from wastewater. 
Therefore, the final standards are expressed in terms of performance 
limits, not technology; an owner or operator must achieve the reference 
control efficiency for a given HAP or must achieve a total volatile 
organic HAP outlet concentration of 50 ppmw. The standard is clear that 
an owner or operator is required to meet only one of these 
requirements; the outlet concentration or the removal efficiency. Any 
technology can be used to meet these limits as long as it is 
demonstrated to meet the standards in accordance with the test methods 
and procedures in the rule, and as long as continuous compliance 
monitoring is proposed, approved, and conducted.
    At proposal, the EPA explained that the removal efficiency and 
outlet HAP concentration limits were based on data gathered from this 
industry, and further supported by data gathered during development of 
the HON (40 CFR part 63, subpart G). In the proposed HON rule, the 
removal efficiency for all HAP solvents typically used in magnetic tape 
manufacturing was 99 percent. In the final HON, the value for MEK was 
changed to 95 percent. The EPA agrees that the percent removals in 
subpart EE should be the same as in the HON. Furthermore, the EPA does 
not mean to limit subpart EE to only MEK, MIBK and toluene. Therefore, 
Sec. 63.703(g) of subpart EE requires the removal efficiency specified 
in Table 9 of the 40 CFR part 63, subpart G of the HON for HAP 
compounds that may be present in wastewater. The final rule also 
specifies that the HAP that must be removed are only those that are 
from magnetic tape manufacturing operations. Thus, if methanol is in 
the wastewater stream due to magnetic tape manufacturing, it must be 
removed by 31 percent as specified in Table 9 in 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart G. If the methanol is not from magnetic tape manufacturing 
operations, subpart EE does not require a specific removal efficiency.
    The test method to be used to demonstrate compliance with the 
removal efficiency is unchanged from proposal. In the final rule, 
owners or operators may demonstrate compliance with the outlet 
concentration or removal efficiency by analyzing the wastewater for 
volatile organic HAP using Method 305. However, the proposed rule 
lacked specification regarding calculations related to Method 305. This 
specification, which is consistent with the HON, has been added to the 
final subpart EE. Also, alternate test methods may be used if they are 
validated through Method 301 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A.

E. Selection of Test Methods and Monitoring Requirements

    Section 114(a)(3) of the amended Act requires enhanced monitoring 
and compliance certifications of all major stationary sources. The 
annual compliance certifications certify whether compliance has been 
continuous or intermittent. Enhanced monitoring shall be capable of 
detecting deviations from each applicable emission limitation or 
standard with sufficient representativeness, accuracy, precision, 
reliability, frequency, and timeliness to determine if compliance is 
continuous during a reporting period. The monitoring in this regulation 
satisfies the requirements of enhanced monitoring.
    Four commenters submitted comments concerning the establishment of 
operating parameters for monitoring purposes. Commenters noted that the 
monitoring parameter values that correspond to compliance with the 
standard will vary based on varying inlet conditions, age of the 
device, or other factors. For example, two commenters stated that, in 
the case of catalytic incinerators, the temperature rise across the 
catalyst bed varies according to the VOC concentration of the inlet gas 
stream. Another commenter pointed out that the steam-to-feed ratio of a 
stripping column would differ greatly over the range of feed rates, 
depending on the age and performance of the activated carbon used in 
the carbon system.
    One commenter suggested that Sec. 63.704(c)(7) of the proposed 
rule, which requires installation and operation of equipment to measure 
the site-specific operating parameters of an enclosure for the capture 
of HAP emissions, include a provision for a 5 percent variation of the 
operating parameter used to determine compliance. The commenter claimed 
that a 5 percent variation would satisfy the requirements for 
maintaining a total enclosure, and, because the rule would then be 
consistent with the NSPS, redundant recordkeeping would be avoided and 
confusion between the two standards would be minimized.
    The final rule (Sec. 63.704(b)(11)(i)) allows owners or operators 
to conduct multiple tests to establish site-specific operating 
parameters. Thus, for example, when catalytic incinerator inlet 
conditions vary, the owner or operator will have a range of appropriate 
temperatures for compliance determinations. Similarly, the final rule 
allows owners or operators using a steam stripper the option of 
conducting multiple tests to determine the appropriate range of steam-
to-feed ratios that are appropriate for a variety of operating 
conditions. Because the final rule allows affected sources to conduct 
multiple tests to establish site-specific values for various operating 
parameters, the Agency does not believe that specifying a variance in 
operating parameter values is warranted.
    One commenter requested that EPA establish alternative monitoring 
other than the monitoring of steam-to-feed ratio because a stripper can 
operate at a wide range of steam-to-feed ratios and still be operating 
properly. As noted above, the owner or operator could develop different 
steam-to-feed ratios for different conditions. Furthermore, EPA has 
included alternative monitoring requirements in the final rule to 
demonstrate compliance with the wastewater standard. As an alternative 
to monitoring steam-to-feed ratio, the final rule allows monthly 
monitoring of the volatile organic HAP (VOHAP) concentration in the 
wastewater from the outlet of the control device to demonstrate 
continuous compliance with the 50 ppmw standard. Because the wastewater 
stream is not expected to be greatly variable, monthly monitoring of 
the concentration was determined to be an adequate frequency for 
determining continuous compliance.
    Two commenters suggested changing the material balance averaging 
period from 3 days to 30 days. The first commenter stated that a 30-day 
averaging period is consistent with the NSPS, and a 3-day averaging 
period would not be feasible for solvent recovery systems with long 
adsorption cycles. The solvent used in 1 day would not necessarily be 
recovered in the same day and may result in incomplete balances over a 
3-day averaging period. The second commenter stated that a 3-day 
rolling average is impractical and unreasonable, with overly burdensome 
recordkeeping requirements. The commenter further stated that any 
facility that approaches 95 percent control would probably not use a 
material balance mechanism to demonstrate compliance because of this 
burden.
    The EPA has increased the material balance averaging time period 
from 3 days to 7 days in the final rule. The EPA agrees that a 3-day 
average may not be able to adequately account for variability in 
recovered solvent due to changes in production and the adsorption cycle 
of the solvent recovery device as noted by the commenters. However, the 
EPA does not believe that 30 days is necessary to achieve this, and 
that 7 days is a reasonable averaging period for most facilities. Model 
VOC rules developed for reasonably available control technology (RACT) 
in State Implementation Plans require a 7-day rolling period for 
material balance calculation of the overall emission reduction 
efficiency of a solvent recovery control system (e.g., carbon 
adsorber). The EPA does not agree with the commenters that a 7-day 
averaging period will be more burdensome than a 30-day averaging period 
because the records necessary to compute a material balance are of an 
ongoing nature. The only significant difference is that the overall 
efficiency will be calculated on a 7-day cycle rather than a 30-day 
cycle. An owner or operator who does not believe that 7 days is an 
adequate averaging period given their specific solvent recovery 
circumstances, and who wishes to use alternate compliance techniques 
may provide their reasoning in a petition to the Administrator in 
accordance with Sec. 63.705(j) of subpart EE and Sec. 63.7(f) of 
subpart A. Also, the final rule offers other compliance provisions for 
users of solvent recovery devices.
    Three commenters requested that the rule include specific 
monitoring provisions for the use of innovative control technologies, 
such as biofiltration, which may perform better than traditional 
control technologies. One commenter stated that the proposed 
requirements requesting approval of monitoring techniques for 
innovative technologies discourage their use.
    At proposal, the Agency was not aware of any biofiltration units in 
place to control HAP or VOC emissions from magnetic tape manufacturing 
operations. Further research on this technology at this time could 
potentially delay promulgation of the final rule. However, 
Sec. 63.704(f) of the final rule allows owners or operators of affected 
sources to submit compliance monitoring provisions for alternate 
control technologies to the Administrator for approval. The EPA 
believes that an owner or operator of an affected source that is 
exploring the use of biofiltration or other innovative control 
techniques will be more informed and better able to propose appropriate 
testing and monitoring. Furthermore, the EPA believes that the extended 
compliance timeframe of 3 years in the final rule will allow owners or 
operators of existing affected sources adequate time to propose 
alternative testing and monitoring requirements.

F. Alternative Compliance Plans and Selection of the Affected Source

    At proposal, in discussing the selection of the affected source 
definition, the EPA noted that a broad definition of affected source 
would be needed if emissions averaging provisions were contained in the 
rule. The proposed rule did not contain emissions averaging provisions 
because the EPA believes that there is very little opportunity for 
emissions averaging in this source category. However, the EPA solicited 
comments and information on emissions averaging for this source 
category.
    Three commenters recommended that EPA allow emissions averaging. 
One commenter stated that controlling emissions from solvent storage 
tanks with the same primary control device used to control other 
emissions at a facility would not be cost effective. The commenter 
noted that storage tanks may be located a considerable distance from 
the main facility for safety and insurance reasons and controlling the 
low level of emissions from storage tanks would not be cost effective 
given the amount of ductwork that would be required to connect them to 
the primary control device. The commenter also stated that compliance 
with the regulation through control of storage tanks with a dedicated 
small carbon canister would be very difficult and extremely expensive 
particularly if installation of a CEM on the carbon canister is 
necessary. The commenter believes that allowing emissions averaging in 
the standard would alleviate these difficulties by not requiring 
emission control and CEM's on all emission units. This commenter 
suggested creating a simplified version of the emissions trading scheme 
included in the HON final rule (59 FR 19402). The commenter stated that 
EPA could disallow trading between HAP of varying risk factors and 
require a slight excess HAP reduction of 10 percent to overcompensate 
for any measurement inaccuracies. The commenter stated that the 
drawbacks of emissions averaging regarding weighting factors would not 
be an issue in this industry, because the solvent HAP used by this 
industry all have the same weighting factor. The EPA also could 
eliminate requirements for air emission monitoring, modeling, and risk 
assessment since no trades between HAP of different risk factors would 
be allowed.
    The commenter further suggested that EPA eliminate the restriction 
that excludes HAP emission reductions beyond the control device 
reference technology control level in emission trading. The commenter 
stated that a facility will normally operate its control device at a 
level above the compliance limit to ensure compliance, even though this 
practice results in higher operating costs; because this additional 
control is usually achieved solely for compliance reasons, the Agency 
should allow it to be included in emissions averaging calculations.
    The second commenter also pointed out that some emission points 
contribute more than others and suggested a prioritization scheme that 
evaluates the relative contribution of each individual source relative 
to the total emissions from the entire magnetic tape operation. 
According to the commenter, prioritization would allow cost effective 
control and could exempt from control emission points that in the 
aggregate contribute no more than 5 percent of the total emissions. For 
the remaining emissions, the commenter suggested 95 percent reduction. 
As an alternative to this prioritization scheme, the commenter 
suggested an emissions averaging scheme to achieve 95 percent control 
of emissions from the entire operation.
    The third commenter suggested averaging emissions from an entire 
mix/coat operation so that more efficient emissions control achieved 
from the coating line can offset less efficient control of the VOC-
dilute mix room exhaust. The commenter suggested that a group of 
emission points collocated and ducted to a common abatement device 
within a facility (e.g., all mix room equipment, or coating operations) 
be treated as a single affected source. The commenter argued that under 
this approach, environmental protection will be equal to, if not 
greater than that with the narrower definition of affected source, and 
domestic producers would not be further disadvantaged by the burden of 
regulatory costs.
    One commenter recommended that EPA not consider emissions averaging 
any further. The commenter stated that emissions averaging most often 
results in increased emissions of toxic chemicals that are more 
difficult to control and may include HAP. Also, emissions averaging 
programs have been difficult to administer, with burdensome compliance 
and recordkeeping requirements, and have been difficult to enforce.
    The prioritization scheme suggested by one of the commenters would 
achieve less control than the main standard because it would exempt 5 
percent of the uncontrolled emissions, and only require 95 percent 
control of the nonexempted emissions. Furthermore, this plan would not 
account for the fact that the underlying standard is not 95 percent 
control for all emission points. Therefore, it was not considered 
further by the EPA.
    Several of the comments on emissions averaging for magnetic tape 
manufacturing appear to involve concerns about compliance 
demonstrations, rather than a need for emissions averaging. For 
example, a commenter suggested that all emission sources vented to the 
same control device be allowed to be ``averaged'' so that only the 
common control device has to be monitored (such as the tanks in the mix 
room and the coating operations). It is the EPA's intent that when 
several sources are vented to a common control, the control device 
itself is monitored; each emission point does not have to be monitored 
separately. This point has been clarified in the final regulation.
    This commenter also alluded to the problem for the primary control 
device of achieving 95-percent control when the coating operations are 
down because the other streams vented to the device have low flow rates 
and low concentrations. The EPA has included in the final rule an 
alternative standard in which the owner or operator would determine, 
during a period when the control device is properly operated and 
maintained, a concentration level for the control device when the 
coating operations are not operating properly.
    Another commenter expressed concern that the proposed regulation 
would have required continuous emission monitors (CEM's) on carbon 
canisters, which might be used to control storage tanks far from the 
main control device. The EPA recognizes that the proposed rule had not 
adequately considered monitoring for such situations and is including 
alternative monitoring for nonregenerative carbon adsorbers in the 
final rule.
    One particular problem area that was mentioned in other comments as 
well as in those on emissions averaging was the control of storage 
tanks. Commenters noted that emissions from storage tanks are small and 
may be cost ineffective to control in comparison with other control 
costs imposed by this rule. This could be true particularly for those 
that are sited away from the main coating operation (and the primary 
control device) for safety or insurance reasons. As discussed in 
section 2.6.2 of the background information document, based on 
available information, there is no basis for subcategorizing among 
storage tanks based on size or distance from the control device. 
However, the EPA agrees that storage tanks could be cost ineffective to 
control if far from the main control device and that the emissions are 
small. The estimated uncontrolled HAP emissions from all the storage 
tanks at a small facility total 0.01 ton/yr and at a large facility 
total 1.2 tons/yr.
    To meet this concern, the EPA developed an alternative compliance 
option that would allow the owner or operator not to control certain 
storage tanks in return for achieving more control of the largest 
emissions source at magnetic tape manufacturing facilities. Under this 
option, in exchange for accepting a requirement of 97 percent reduction 
(instead of 95 percent as required by the basic standard) for all the 
coating operations, the owner or operator may leave uncontrolled up to 
10 storage tanks with a maximum individual capacity of 20,000 gallons. 
There are also two additional tiers: To control all coating operations 
by 98 percent in lieu of controlling 15 such storage tanks; or 99 
percent in lieu of controlling 20 such storage tanks. Available 
information indicates that this range of options is adequate to cover 
the range of plants.
    This alternative compliance option might appear at first to be 
inconsistent with provisions of the HON (which is the first MACT 
standard that provides for emissions averaging) in that the HON does 
not permit a plant operator to gain averaging credit for using 
reference control technology (the technology assumed in the development 
of the standard) at a higher-than-required percentage reduction. 
However, there are clear factual differences which distinguish the two 
situations.
    Emission limitations under the HON are applicable to emission 
points whose characteristics equal or exceed specified cut-offs and are 
based on the use of reference control technology. Emissions averaging 
under the HON responds to concern that it may be unusually expensive to 
apply reference controls to some of the covered emission points (such 
as emission points located far from a control device). The HON 
emissions averaging provisions allow a plant operator to avoid control 
of some covered emission points (a) by applying the reference control 
technology to exempt emission points (points whose characteristics are 
below the cut-offs) or (b) by applying controls that are inherently 
more effective than the reference control technology to other covered 
emission points. Except for reductions achieved by pollution prevention 
measures, the substituted controls must produce at least 110 percent of 
the emission reductions that would have been achieved at the emission 
points that will no longer be controlled. In addition, the permitting 
authority must conclude that risk or hazard is not increased by the 
averaging.
    As stated above, the HON does not permit the plant operator to gain 
averaging credit for using the reference technology at a higher-than-
required percentage reduction. Credits for operating a control 
technology better than its rated control efficiency are not allowed for 
two main reasons. One is the fact that in the development of the 
standard, the rated efficiency of the reference technology was set on a 
lowest-common-denominator basis. Due to the variable nature of the 
pollutant streams encountered among plants subject to the HON 
(variations from plant to plant in the mix of pollutants, operating 
rates, and other factors), the selection of a single percentage 
reduction applicable to each control technology in all circumstances 
required a lowest-common-denominator approach, and in many cases such 
equipment will achieve substantially higher percentage reductions under 
normal design and operating conditions. If credit were allowed for this 
differential, a plant operator would gain an undeserved windfall due to 
the manner in which the rated control efficiencies were derived.
    In the case of magnetic tape manufacturing, the EPA is considering 
a much simpler situation than in the HON. Magnetic tape facilities have 
generally smaller variability in the plant-to-plant mix of pollutants, 
operating rates, and other factors. Rather than including any emission 
point as in the HON, only two types of emissions points are eligible 
for the alternative compliance plan for magnetic tape operations: the 
coating operations and the storage tanks. Because of the simpler nature 
of magnetic tape processes and the magnitude of the additional 
emissions control, EPA concludes that the emissions from the 
uncontrolled storage tanks are adequately offset by additional control 
at the coating operations. The required two percent additional increase 
in control efficiency at the largest emission point at magnetic tape 
manufacturing plants creates additional emissions reductions of as much 
as 0.35 ton/yr at a small facility and 190 tons/yr at a large facility. 
Under the alternative compliance option, some storage tanks may remain 
uncontrolled. However, the emissions from these points are very small 
in comparison to the additional potential emission benefit accruing 
from the coating operations. At small plants, 0.01 ton/yr remain 
uncontrolled; at larger plants, 1.2 tons/yr. As in the HON, there is 
variability in operating conditions and pollutant streams. Thus, EPA is 
unable to quantify precisely how much additional emissions benefit can 
be attributed to the required increase in control efficiency. The EPA 
is confident that the emissions from the uncontrolled points are 
adequately offset by additional reductions.
    The other reason the HON does not allow credit for operating a 
device greater than its reference control efficiency is a concern over 
enforcement problems. The variable mix of pollutants and operating 
conditions seen at HON sources means that the amount by which emission 
reductions exceed rated levels is difficult to determine reliably. The 
data tracking for each point and device would be extremely complex. Use 
of a reference control efficiency for each reference control technology 
allows the implementing agency inspectors to check that the equipment 
is in place and operating as planned. Then the implementing agency can 
check records to examine the calculation of debits and credits on each 
of the emission points in order to make a compliance determination.
    The alternative compliance approach discussed above for magnetic 
tape manufacturing would not pose these same enforcement problems. The 
required control efficiency for the coating operations would be the 
same for all plants taking advantage of this approach. Continuous 
monitoring is required to determine ongoing compliance with the 
emission standard. For carbon adsorbers, the most common control device 
in the industry, CEM's are required. (Note that CEM's are not required 
for nonregenerative carbon adsorbers, as discussed above. Such 
adsorbers would not be used on coating operations.) For incinerators 
and condensers, the owner or operator would be required to determine 
during the initial performance test a temperature that corresponds to 
at least 97 percent control (instead of the 95 percent control of 
coating operations required by the basic standard). Therefore, the 
additional emission reduction would be ensured.
    In summary, the EPA believes that it can address the commenters' 
main concerns without a general emissions averaging scheme, such as in 
the HON. The clarifications and changes in compliance determinations 
discussed above and the alternative compliance option for storage tanks 
and coating operations are sufficient. Under these circumstances, the 
EPA believes that permitting credit for operating a control device 
better than its rated control efficiency for the alternative compliance 
option for the magnetic tape industry is distinguishable from the HON 
and justifiable.
    Four parties commented on the proposed definition of the affected 
source, which was each emission point. One agreed with the proposed 
narrow definition, stating that it makes the rule easily enforceable. 
Three commented that a broad definition is more appropriate. Several 
reasons related to arguments discussed above on emissions averaging. An 
additional reason was the interaction with the General Provisions, 40 
CFR part 63 subpart A. For example, for the startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan required by subpart A, it would be burdensome to have 
a separate plan for each emission point, rather than the entire 
facility.
    The EPA has changed the definition of the affected source to the 
entire magnetic tape manufacturing operation. It agrees that one 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan for the operation would be 
reasonable. Furthermore, more flexibility would be offered to the 
States in requesting alternative requirements under 40 CFR part 63 
subpart E, since that subpart requires the alternative requirements be 
equivalent in stringency for each affected source. The comments related 
to emissions averaging have been addressed above.

G. Performance Specifications

    The enhanced monitoring rule, proposed as 40 CFR part 64 (58 FR 
54648, October 22, 1993), included two proposed performance 
specifications (PS's) for CEM's in appendix A. They were PS 101 for VOC 
CEM's and PS 102 for gas chromatographic CEM's. The proposed NESHAP for 
magnetic tape manufacturing operations included a proposed requirement 
for CEM's to follow PS 101 and 102. The EPA has decided to promulgate 
these two performance specifications in 40 CFR part 60 with revised 
title numbers, rather than in part 64, at the same time as promulgating 
the magnetic tape NESHAP. The proposed PS 101 and 102 from part 64 are 
being promulgated as PS 8 and PS 9 in appendix B of part 60, 
respectively. Comment letters that included comments on these 
performance specifications are in Docket No. A-91-52, the docket for 
the enhanced monitoring rule. This docket is located in the Air and 
Radiation Docket and Information Center described in the Addresses 
section of this notice. Pages of the comment letters that specifically 
address these performance specifications have been placed in Docket No. 
A-91-31, which is the docket for the magnetic tape NESHAP. Summaries of 
these comments and EPA's responses are located in the BID (EPA-453/R-
94-074b) described in the Addresses section. Comments originally 
addressed to the docket for PS 101 and PS 102 are hereafter discussed 
in terms of PS 8 and PS 9, for the sake of clarity.
    Comments received on PS 8 indicated a general need to revise it to 
eliminate confusion between its content and that of the existing 
performance specifications in appendix B to 40 CFR part 60. Also, 
certain specifications in PS 8 were inconsistent with the previously 
accepted approach of judging the merit of a CEM based on a comparison 
with a reference test method. Therefore, PS 8 has been revised to 
insure consistency with the existing performance specifications in 
appendix B. The PS definitions, installation and measurement location 
specifications, test procedures, data reduction procedures, and 
reporting requirements are all now the same as those in PS 2, and will 
be familiar to those persons who have applied the existing performance 
specifications.
    Most of the comments on PS 9 dealt with issues of clarity in terms 
of the wording. These comments have been addressed, and many of the 
sections have been rewritten for clarity. More equations have been 
added to make the specification easier to use. Some commenters were 
confused when certain sections of PS 9 referred to other appendices of 
the proposed enhanced monitoring rule. Any references to the other 
appendices of the enhanced monitoring rule have been deleted and PS 9 
is now all-inclusive; portions of other appendices have been 
incorporated into PS 9. These changes should make PS 9 easier to use.
    One commenter objected to the high temperature requirement of 150 
deg.C for the sampling system. The purpose of the heated sampling 
system is to prevent moisture condensation. The temperature requirement 
has been changed to a more workable 120  deg.C, which should still 
prevent condensation. Several commenters noted that the calibration 
requirements for the analyzer should be clarified. The calibration 
requirements have been rewritten for clarity, and an allowance for gas 
dilution systems has also been added.

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

    The docket for this rulemaking is A-91-31. The docket is an 
organized and complete file of all the information submitted to or 
otherwise considered by the EPA in the development of this rulemaking. 
The principal purposes of the docket are: (1) To allow interested 
parties a means to identify and locate documents so that they can 
effectively participate in the rulemaking process; and (2) to serve as 
the record in case of judicial review (except for interagency review 
materials) (section 307(d)(7)(A) of the Act). The docket is available 
for public inspection at the EPA's Air and Radiation Docket and 
Information Center, the location of which is given in the ADDRESSES 
section of this notice.

B. Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order 12866 [58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)], the 
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review 
and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines 
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a 
rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, 
or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.''
    It has been determined that this rule is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is 
therefore not subject to OMB review.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Information collection requirements associated with this rule have 
been approved by OMB under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and have been assigned OMB control 
number 2060-0326. An Information Collection Request (ICR) document has 
been prepared by EPA (ICR No. 1678.02), and a copy may be obtained from 
Sandy Farmer, Information Policy Branch, EPA 2136, Washington, DC 
20460, or by calling (202) 260-2740.
    The public reporting burden for this collection of information is 
estimated to average 5 hours per respondent in the first year, 1,620 
hours per respondent in the second year and 729 hours per respondent in 
the third year. This includes the time required for reviewing 
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the 
collection of information.
    Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of 
this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this 
burden, to Chief, Information Policy Branch, 2136, U. S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460; and to the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and 
Budget, Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for 
EPA.''

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) 
requires that a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis be performed for all 
rules that have ``significant impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.'' If a preliminary analysis indicates that a proposed 
regulation would have a significant economic impact on 20 percent or 
more of small entities, then a regulatory flexibility analysis must be 
prepared.
    Present Regulatory Flexibility Act guidelines define an economic 
impact as significant if it meets one of the following criteria:
    (1) Compliance increases annual production costs by more than 5 
percent, assuming costs are passed on to consumers;
    (2) Compliance costs as a percentage of sales for small entities 
are at least 10 percent more than compliance costs as a percentage of 
sales for large entities;
    (3) Capital costs of compliance represent a ``significant'' portion 
of capital available to small entities, considering internal cash flow 
plus external financial capabilities; or
    (4) Regulatory requirements are likely to result in closures of 
small entities.
    The results of the economic impact analysis (EIA) indicate that the 
first and fourth criteria are satisfied for one of the three small 
businesses in the regulated portion of the magnetic tape industry.
    The EIA calculated facility and product-specific price increases 
based on the assumption that each facility would need to recoup fully 
its control costs through a price increase. The results indicated that 
one facility (a small business) would require a price increase of 
approximately 5 percent. In addition, an evaluation of postregulation 
facility earnings indicated that the same facility would experience a 
decline of approximately 36 percent in earnings if it is required to 
comply with the regulation.
    The combination of satisfying the significant price increase 
criterion as well as satisfying the significant impact on 
postregulation earnings criterion indicate that one small entity is 
expected to experience a significant economic impact due to 
implementation of the regulation.
    The small business administration's size standards were used to 
identify 3 facilities out of the 14 regulated facilities as being small 
businesses. Due to the significant impacts expected to be experienced 
by one of the small facilities, a regulatory flexibility analysis was 
conducted to assess the feasibility of providing additional flexibility 
to small businesses complying with the regulation.
    For small businesses in general, one mechanism that was identified 
as potentially helpful was the HAP usage cutoff described earlier in 
this document. However, any small business whose HAP usage exceeds the 
cutoff level will have operations similar to those located at large 
businesses, and therefore will have the same potential to emit HAP as 
the large businesses. All three small businesses identified as being 
subject to the regulation have HAP usage levels above the cutoff level. 
Due to the above reasoning, there are no technical reasons for 
examining different requirements for small businesses as opposed to 
large businesses.
    For the small business with significant economic impacts, 
monitoring is the least costly activity that would achieve the 
requirements of the Clean Air Act. The recommended recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements of the rule are also the minimum contained in 
the General Provisions for the NESHAP program. The facility could 
minimize its recordkeeping and reporting burden by continuing to stay 
in compliance with the regulation. More detailed reporting is necessary 
for deviations from compliance.

E. Miscellaneous

    In accordance with section 117 of the Act, publication of this 
promulgated rule was preceded by consultation with appropriate advisory 
committees, independent experts, and Federal departments and agencies.
    This regulation will be reviewed 8 years from the date of 
promulgation. This review will include an assessment of such factors as 
evaluation of the residual health risks, any overlap with other 
programs, the existence of alternative methods, enforceability, 
improvements in emission control technology and health data, and the 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 9

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 60

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Volatile organic 
compounds.

40 CFR Part 63

    Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by 
reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: November 22, 1994.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the 
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as set forth below.

PART 9--[AMENDED]

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

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 135-136y; 15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003, 
2005, 2006, 2601-2671; 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33 
U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1321, 1326, 1330, 1344, 1345 
(d) and (e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, 1971-1975; Comp. 
p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g, 300g-1, 300g-2, 
300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-1, 300j-2, 300j-3, 300j-4, 
300j-9, 1857 et seq., 6901-6992k, 7401-7671q, 7542, 9601-9657, 
11023, 11048.

    2. Section 9.1 is amended by adding a new entry to the table under 
the indicated heading in numerical order to read as follows:


Sec. 9.1  OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             OMB control
                      40 CFR citation                            No.    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  *****                                 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants                
 for Source Categories:                                                 
                                                                        
                                  *****                                 
  63.703-63.707............................................    2060-0326
                                                                        
                                  *****                                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 60--[AMENDED]

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

    Authority: Sections 101, 111, 114, 116, and 301 of the Clean Air 
Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401, 7411, 7414, 7416, 7601).

Appendix B--[Amended]

    2. Part 60 is amended by adding performance specifications 8 and 9 
to appendix B to read as follows:

Appendix B--Performance Specifications

* * * * *

Performance Specification 8

Performance Specifications for Volatile Organic Compound Continuous 
Emission Monitoring Systems in Stationary Sources

1. Applicability and Principle

    1.1  Applicability.
    1.1.1  This specification is to be used for evaluating a 
continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) that measures a mixture 
of volatile organic compounds (VOC's) and generates a single 
combined response value. The VOC detection principle may be flame 
ionization (FI), photoionization (PI), nondispersive infrared 
absorption (NDIR), or any other detection principle that is 
appropriate for the VOC species present in the emission gases and 
that meets this performance specification. The performance 
specification includes procedures to evaluate the acceptability of 
the CEMS at the time of or soon after its installation and whenever 
specified in emission regulations or permits. This specification is 
not designed to evaluate the installed CEMS performance over an 
extended period of time, nor does it identify specific calibration 
techniques and other auxiliary procedures to assess the CEMS 
performance. However, it is the responsibility of the source owner 
or operator, to calibrate, maintain, and operate the CEMS properly. 
Under section 114 of the Act, the Administrator may require the 
operator to evaluate the CEMS performance by conducting CEMS 
performance evaluations in addition to the initial test. See section 
60.13(c).
    The definitions, installation and measurement location 
specifications, test procedures, data reduction procedures, 
reporting requirements, and bibliography are the same as in PS 2, 
sections 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10, and also apply to VOC CEMS's 
under this specification. The performance and equipment 
specifications and the relative accuracy (RA) test procedures for 
VOC CEMS do not differ from those for SO2 and NOx CEMS, 
except as noted below.
    1.1.2  In most emission circumstances, most VOC monitors can 
provide only a relative measure of the total mass or volume 
concentration of a mixture of organic gases, rather than an accurate 
quantification. This problem is removed when an emission standard is 
based on a total VOC measurement as obtained with a particular 
detection principle. In those situations where a true mass or volume 
VOC concentration is needed, the problem can be mitigated by using 
the VOC CEMS as a relative indicator of total VOC concentration if 
statistical analysis indicates that a sufficient margin of 
compliance exists for this approach to be acceptable. Otherwise, 
consideration can be given to calibrating the CEMS with a mixture of 
the same VOC's in the same proportions as they actually occur in the 
measured source. In those circumstances where only one organic 
species is present in the source, or where equal incremental amounts 
of each of the organic species present generate equal CEMS 
responses, the latter choice can be more easily achieved.
    1.2  Principle. Calibration drift and relative accuracy tests 
are conducted to determine the adherence of the CEMS to 
specifications given for those items. The performance specifications 
include criteria for installation and measurement location, 
equipment and performance, and procedures for testing and data 
reduction.

2.  Performance and Equipment Specifications

    2.1  VOC CEMS Selection. When possible, select a VOC CEMS with 
the detection principle of the reference method specified in the 
regulation or permit (usually either FI, NDIR, or PI). Otherwise, 
use knowledge of the source process chemistry, previous emission 
studies, or gas chromatographic analysis of the source gas to select 
an appropriate VOC CEMS. Exercise extreme caution in choosing and 
installing any CEMS in an area with the potential for explosive 
hazards.
    2.2  Data Recorder Scale. Same as section 4.1 of PS 2.
    2.3  Calibration Drift. The CEMS calibration must not drift by 
more than 2.5 percent of the span value.
    2.4  CEMS Relative Accuracy. Unless stated otherwise in the 
regulation or permit, the RA of the CEMS must be no greater than 20 
percent of the mean value of the reference method (RM) test data in 
terms of the units of the emission standard, or 10 percent of the 
applicable standard, whichever is greater.

3. Relative Accuracy Test Procedure

    3.1  Sampling Strategy for RM Tests, Correlation of RM and CEMS 
Data, Number of RM Tests, and Calculations. Follow PS 2, sections 
7.1, 7.2, 7.3, and 7.5, respectively.
    3.2  Reference Method. Use the method specified in the 
applicable regulation or permit, or any approved alternative, as the 
RM.

Performance Specification 9

Specifications and Test Procedures for Gas Chromatographic Continuous 
Emission Monitoring Systems in Stationary Sources

1. Applicability and Principle

    1.1  Applicability. These requirements apply to continuous 
emission monitoring systems (CEMS) that use gas chromatography (GC) 
to measure gaseous organic compound emissions. The requirements 
include procedures intended to evaluate the acceptability of the 
CEMS at the time of its installation and whenever specified in 
regulations or permits. Quality assurance procedures for 
calibrating, maintaining, and operating the CEMS properly at all 
times are also given in this procedure.
    1.2  Principle. Calibration precision, calibration error, and 
performance audit tests are conducted to determine conformance of 
the CEMS with these specifications. Daily calibration and 
maintenance requirements are also specified.

2. Definitions

    2.1  Gas Chromatograph (GC). That portion of the system that 
separates and detects organic analytes and generates an output 
proportional to the gas concentration. The GC must be temperature 
controlled.

    Note: The term ``temperature controlled'' refers to the ability 
to maintain a certain temperature around the column. Temperature-
programmable GC is not required for this performance specification, 
as long as all other requirements for precision, linearity, and 
accuracy listed in this performance specification are met. It should 
be noted that temperature programming a GC will speed up peak 
elution, thus allowing increased sampling frequency.

    2.1.1  Column. An analytical column capable of separating the 
analytes of interest.
    2.1.2  Detector. A detection system capable of detecting and 
quantifying all analytes of interest.
    2.1.3  Integrator. That portion of the system that quantifies 
the area under a particular sample peak generated by the GC.
    2.1.4  Data Recorder. A strip chart recorder, computer, or 
digital recorder capable of recording all readings within the 
instrument's calibration range.
    2.2  Calibration Precision. The error between triplicate 
injections of each calibration standard.

3. Installation and Measurement Location Specifications

    Install the CEMS in a location where the measurements are 
representative of the source emissions. Consider other factors, such 
as ease of access for calibration and maintenance purposes. The 
location should not be close to air in-leakages. The sampling 
location should be at least two equivalent duct diameters downstream 
from the nearest control device, point of pollutant generation, or 
other point at which a change in the pollutant concentration or 
emission rate occurs. The location should be at least 0.5 diameter 
upstream from the exhaust or control device. To calculate equivalent 
duct diameter, see section 2.1 of Method 1 (40 CFR part 60, appendix 
A). Sampling locations not conforming to the requirements in this 
section may be used if necessary upon approval of the Administrator.

4. CEMS Performance and Equipment Specifications

    4.1 Presurvey Sample Analysis and GC Selection. Determine the 
pollutants to be monitored from the applicable regulation or permit 
and determine the approximate concentration of each pollutant (this 
information can be based on past compliance test results). Select an 
appropriate GC configuration to measure the organic compounds. The 
GC components should include a heated sample injection loop (or 
other sample introduction systems), separatory column, temperature-
controlled oven, and detector. If the source chooses dual column 
and/or dual detector configurations, each column/detector is 
considered a separate instrument for the purpose of this performance 
specification and thus the procedures in this performance 
specification shall be carried out on each system. If this method is 
applied in highly explosive areas, caution should be exercised in 
selecting the equipment and method of installation.
    4.2  Sampling System. The sampling system shall be heat traced 
and maintained at a minimum of 120  deg.C with no cold spots. All 
system components shall be heated, including the probe, calibration 
valve, sample lines, sampling loop (or sample introduction system), 
GC oven, and the detector block (when appropriate for the type of 
detector being utilized, e.g., flame ionization detector).
    4.3  Calibration Gases. Obtain three concentrations of 
calibration gases certified by the manufacturer to be accurate to 
within 2 percent of the value on the label. A gas dilution system 
may be used to prepare the calibration gases from a high 
concentration certified standard if the gas dilution system meets 
the requirements specified in Test Method 205, 40 CFR part 51, 
appendix M. The performance test specified in Test Method 205 shall 
be repeated quarterly, and the results of the Method 205 test shall 
be included in the report. The calibration gas concentration of each 
target analyte shall be as follows (measured concentration is based 
on the presurvey concentration determined in section 4.1).

     Note: If the low level calibration gas concentration falls at 
or below the limit of detection for the instrument for any target 
pollutant, a calibration gas with a concentration at 4 to 5 times 
the limit of detection for the instrument may be substituted for the 
low-level calibration gas listed in section 4.3.1

    4.3.1  Low-level. 40-60 percent of measured concentration.
    4.3.2  Mid-level. 90-110 percent of measured concentration.
    4.3.3  High-level. 140-160 percent of measured concentration, or 
select highest expected concentration.
    4.4  Performance Audit Gas. A certified EPA audit gas shall be 
used, when possible. A Protocol 1 gas mixture containing all the 
target compounds within the calibration range may be used when EPA 
performance audit materials are not available. The instrument 
relative error shall be 10 percent of the certified value 
of the audit gas.
    4.5  Calibration Error (CE). The CEMS must allow the 
determination of CE at all three calibration levels. The average 
CEMS calibration response must not differ by more than 10 percent of 
calibration gas value at each level after each 24-hour period of the 
initial test.
    4.6  Calibration Precision and Linearity. For each triplicate 
injection at each concentration level for each target analyte, any 
one injection shall not deviate more than 5 percent from the average 
concentration measured at that level. The linear regression curve 
for each organic compound at all three levels shall have an r\2\ 
0.995 (using Equation 1).
    4.7  Measurement Frequency. The sample to be analyzed shall flow 
continuously through the sampling system. The sampling system time 
constant (T) shall be 5 minutes or the sampling frequency 
specified in the applicable regulation, whichever is less. Use 
Equation 3 to determine T. The analytical system shall be capable of 
measuring the effluent stream at the frequency specified in the 
appropriate regulation or permit.

5. Performance Specification Test (PST) Periods

    5.1  Pretest Preparation Period. Using the procedures described 
in Method 18 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A), perform initial tests to 
determine GC conditions that provide good resolution and minimum 
analysis time for compounds of interest. Resolution interferences 
that may occur can be eliminated by appropriate GC column and 
detector choice or by shifting the retention times through changes 
in the column flow rate and the use of temperature programming.
    5.2  7-Day CE Test Period. At the beginning of each 24-hour 
period, set the initial instrument setpoints by conducting a 
multipoint calibration for each compound. The multipoint calibration 
shall meet the requirements in section 4.7. Throughout the 24-hour 
period, sample and analyze the stack gas at the sampling intervals 
prescribed in the regulation or permit. At the end of the 24-hour 
period, inject the three calibration gases for each compound in 
triplicate and determine the average instrument response. Determine 
the CE for each pollutant at each level using the equation in 
section 6.2. Each CE shall be 10 percent. Repeat this 
procedure six more times for a total of 7 consecutive days.
    5.3  Performance Audit Test Periods. Conduct the performance 
audit once during the initial 7-day CE test and quarterly 
thereafter. Sample and analyze the EPA audit gas(es) (or the 
Protocol 1 gas mixture if an EPA audit gas is not available) three 
times. Calculate the average instrument response. Report the audit 
results as part of the reporting requirements in the appropriate 
regulation or permit (if using a Protocol 1 gas mixture, report the 
certified cylinder concentration of each pollutant).

6. Equations

    6.1  Coefficient of Determination. Calculate r2 using 
linear regression analysis and the average concentrations obtained 
at three calibration points as shown in Equation 1.

TR15DE94.000

Where:

r2=Coefficient of determination.
n=Number of measurement points.
x=CEMS response.
y=Actual value of calibration standard.

    6.2  Calibration Error Determination. Determine the percent 
calibration error (CE) at each concentration for each pollutant 
using the following equation.

TR15DE94.001

where:

Cm=average instrument response, ppm.
Ca=cylinder gas value, ppm.

    6.3  Sampling System Time Constant (T).

TR15DE94.002

where:

F=Flow rate of stack gas through sampling system, in liters/min.
V=Sample system volume, in Liters, which is the volume inside the 
sample probe and tubing leading from the stack to the sampling loop.

7. Daily Calibration

    7.1  Initial Multipoint Calibration. After initial startup of 
the GC, after routine maintenance or repair, or at least once per 
month, conduct a multipoint calibration of the GC for each target 
analyte. The multipoint calibration for each analyte shall meet the 
requirements in section 4.7.
    7.2  Daily Calibration. Once every 24 hours, analyze the mid-
level calibration standard for each analyte in triplicate. Calculate 
the average instrument response for each analyte. The average 
instrument response shall not vary more than 10 percent from the 
certified concentration value of the cylinder for each analyte. If 
the difference between the analyzer response and the cylinder 
concentration for any target compound is greater than 10 percent, 
immediately take corrective action on the instrument if necessary, 
and conduct an initial multipoint calibration as described in 
section 7.1.

8. Reporting

    Follow the reporting requirements of the applicable regulation 
or permit. If the reporting requirements include the results of this 
performance specification, summarize in tabular form the results of 
the CE tests. Include all data sheets, calculations, CEMS data 
records, performance audit results, and calibration gas 
concentrations and certifications.

PART 63--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart EE to read as follows:
Subpart EE--National Emission Standards for Magnetic Tape Manufacturing 
Operations
63.701  Applicability.
63.702  Definitions.
63.703  Standards.
63.704  Compliance and monitoring requirements.
63.705  Performance test methods and procedures to determine initial 
compliance.
63.706  Recordkeeping requirements.
63.707  Reporting requirements.
63.708  Delegation of authority.

Subpart EE--National Emission Standards For Magnetic Tape 
Manufacturing Operations


Sec. 63.701  Applicability.

    (a) Except as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, the 
provisions of this subpart apply to:
    (1) Each new and existing magnetic tape manufacturing operation 
located at a major source of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions; 
and
    (2) A magnetic tape manufacturing operation for which the owner or 
operator chooses to use the provisions of Sec. 63.703(b) and (h) to 
obtain a Federally enforceable limit on its potential to emit HAP.

    Explanatory Note: A reason the owner or operator would make the 
choice described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section is if the plant 
site, without this limit, would be a major source. The owner or 
operator could use this limit, which would establish the potential 
to emit from magnetic tape manufacturing operations, in conjunction 
with the potential to emit from the other HAP emission points at the 
stationary source, to be an area source. Note, however, that an 
owner or operator is not required to use the provisions in 
Sec. 63.703(b) and (h) to determine the potential to emit HAP from 
magnetic tape manufacturing operations.

    (b) This subpart does not apply to the following:
    (1) Research or laboratory facilities; and
    (2) Any coating operation that produces a quantity of magnetic tape 
that is 1 percent or less of total production (in terms of total square 
footage coated) from that coating operation in any 12-month period.
    (c) The affected source subject to this standard is the magnetic 
tape manufacturing operation, as defined in Sec. 63.702.
    (d) An owner or operator of an existing affected source subject to 
the provisions of this subpart shall comply according to the following 
schedule:
    (1) Within 3 years after the effective date of the standard, if the 
owner or operator is required to install a new add-on air pollution 
control device to meet the requirements of Sec. 63.703(c) or (g); or
    (2) Within 2 years after the effective date of the standard, if a 
new add-on air pollution control device is not needed to comply with 
Sec. 63.703(c) or (g) of these standards.
    (e) The compliance date for an owner or operator of a new affected 
source subject to the provisions of this subpart is immediately upon 
startup of the affected source.
    (f) The provisions of this subpart apply during periods of startup 
and shutdown, and whenever magnetic tape manufacturing operations are 
taking place.
    (g) Owners or operators of affected sources subject to the 
provisions of this subpart shall also comply with the requirements of 
subpart A as identified in Table 1, according to the applicability of 
subpart A to such sources.
    (h) In any title V permit for an affected source, all research or 
laboratory facilities that are exempt from the requirements of this 
subpart shall be clearly identified.


Sec. 63.702  Definitions.

    (a) All terms used in this subpart that are not defined below have 
the meaning given to them in the Clean Air Act and in subpart A of this 
part.
    Add-on air pollution control device means equipment installed at 
the end of a process vent exhaust stack or stacks that reduces the 
quantity of a pollutant that is emitted to the air. The device may 
destroy or secure the pollutant for subsequent recovery. Examples are 
incinerators, condensers, carbon adsorbers, and biofiltration units. 
Transfer equipment and ductwork are not considered in and of themselves 
add-on air pollution control devices.
    Bag slitter means a device for enclosed transfer of particulates. A 
bag of raw materials is placed in a hopper, the hopper is closed, and 
an internal mechanism slits the bag, releasing the particulates into 
either a closed conveyor that feeds the mix preparation equipment or 
into the mix preparation equipment itself.
    Base substrate means the surface, such as plastic or paper, to 
which a coating is applied.
    Capture efficiency means the fraction of all organic vapors or 
other pollutants generated by a process that are directed to an add-on 
air pollution control device.
    Capture device means a hood, enclosed room, or other means of 
collecting HAP vapors or other pollutants into a duct that exhausts to 
an add-on air pollution control device.
    Carbon adsorber vessel means one vessel in a series of vessels in a 
carbon adsorption system that contains carbon and is used to remove 
gaseous pollutants from a gaseous emission source.
    Car seal means a seal that is placed on a device that is used 
either to open a closed valve or close an opened valve so that the 
position of the valve cannot be changed without breaking the seal.
    Closed system for flushing fixed lines means a system in which the 
line to be flushed is disconnected from its original position and 
connected to two closed containers, one that contains cleaning solvent 
and one that is empty. Solvent is flushed from the container with 
cleaning solvent, through the line, and into the empty containers.
    Coater or coating applicator means the apparatus used to apply a 
coating to a continuous base substrate.
    Coating application means the process by which the coating mix is 
applied to the base substrate.
    Coating operation means any coater, flashoff area, and drying oven 
located between a base substrate unwind station and a base substrate 
rewind station that coats a continuous base substrate.
    Control device efficiency means the ratio of the emissions 
collected or destroyed by an add-on air pollution control device to the 
total emissions that are introduced to the control device, expressed as 
a percentage.
    Day means a 24-consecutive-hour period.
    Drying oven means a chamber that uses heat to bake, cure, 
polymerize, or dry a surface coating; if the coating contains volatile 
solvents, the volatile portion is evaporated in the oven.
    Enclosed transfer method means a particulate HAP transfer method 
that uses an enclosed system to prevent particulate HAP from entering 
the atmosphere as dust. Equipment used for this purpose may include 
vacuum injection systems or other mechanical transfer systems, bag 
slitters, or supersacks.
    Equivalent diameter means four times the area of an opening divided 
by its perimeter.
    Facility means all contiguous or adjoining property that is under 
common ownership or control in which magnetic tape manufacturing is 
performed. The definition includes properties that are separated only 
by a road or other public right-of-way.
    Flashoff area means the portion of a coating operation between the 
coater and the drying oven where solvent begins to evaporate from the 
coated base substrate.
    Flushing of fixed lines means the flushing of solvent through lines 
that are typically fixed and are not associated with the cleaning of a 
tank, such as the line from the mix room to the coater.
    Freeboard ratio means the vertical distance from the surface of the 
liquid to the top of the sink or tank (freeboard height) divided by the 
smaller of the length or width of the sink or tank evaporative area.
    Magnetic coatings means coatings applied to base substrates to make 
magnetic tape. Components of magnetic coatings may include: Magnetic 
particles, binders, dispersants, conductive pigments, lubricants, 
solvents, and other additives.
    Magnetic particles means particles in the coating mix that have 
magnetic properties. Examples of magnetic particles used in magnetic 
tape manufacturing are: y-oxide, doped iron oxides, chromium dioxide, 
barium ferrite, and metallic particles that usually consist of 
elemental iron, cobalt, and/or nickel.
    Magnetic tape means any flexible base substrate that is covered on 
one or both sides with a coating containing magnetic particles and that 
is used for audio recording, video recording, or any type of 
information storage.
    Magnetic tape manufacturing operation means all of the emission 
points within a magnetic tape manufacturing facility that are 
specifically associated with the manufacture of magnetic tape. These 
include, but are not limited to:
    (1) Solvent storage tanks;
    (2) Mix preparation equipment;
    (3) Coating operations;
    (4) Waste handling devices;
    (5) Particulate transfer operations;
    (6) Wash sinks for cleaning removable parts;
    (7) Cleaning involving the flushing of fixed lines;
    (8) Wastewater treatment systems; and
    (9) Condenser vents associated with distillation and stripping 
columns in the solvent recovery area, but not including the vent on a 
condenser that is used as the add-on air pollution control device.
    Mill means the pressurized equipment that uses the dispersing 
action of beads, combined with the high shearing forces of the 
centrifugal mixing action, to disperse the aggregates of magnetic 
particles thoroughly without reducing particle size.
    Mix preparation equipment means the vessels, except for mills, used 
to prepare the magnetic coating.
    Natural draft opening means any opening in a room, building, or 
total enclosure that remains open during operation of the facility and 
that is not connected to a duct in which a fan is installed. The rate 
and direction of the natural draft through such an opening is a 
consequence of the difference in pressures on either side of the wall 
containing the opening.
    Nonregenerative carbon adsorber means a carbon adsorber vessel in 
which the spent carbon bed does not undergo carbon regeneration in the 
adsorption vessel.
    Operating parameter value means a minimum or maximum value 
established for a control device or process parameter that, if achieved 
by itself or in combination with one or more other operating parameter 
values, determines that an owner or operator has complied with an 
applicable emission limitation or standard.
    Overall HAP control efficiency means the total efficiency of the 
control system, determined by the product of the capture efficiency and 
the control device efficiency.
    Particulate means any material, except uncombined water, that 
exists as liquid or solid particles such as dust, smoke, mist, or fumes 
at standard conditions (760 millimeters of mercury, 0 degrees celsius).
    Particulate HAP transfer means the introduction of a particulate 
HAP into other dry ingredients or a liquid solution.
    Removable parts cleaning means cleaning of parts that have been 
moved from their normal position to a wash tank or sink containing 
solvent for the purpose of cleaning.
    Research or laboratory facility means any stationary source whose 
primary purpose is to conduct research and development to develop new 
processes and products, where such source is operated under the close 
supervision of technically trained personnel and is not engaged in the 
manufacture of products for commercial sale in commerce, except in a de 
minimis manner.
    Separator means a device in the wastewater treatment system in 
which immiscible solvent is physically separated from the water with 
which it is mixed.
    Solvent storage tanks means the stationary tanks that are 
associated with magnetic tape operations and that store virgin solvent, 
spent solvent, cleaning solvent, solvent at any stage of the solvent 
recovery process, or any volatile compound. They do not serve a process 
function.
    Solvent recovery area means the collection of devices used to 
remove HAP emissions from process air, to recover the HAP, and to 
purify the HAP. Typically, this area contains a control device such as 
a carbon adsorber or condenser, the wastewater treatment system, and 
the distillation columns.
    Solvent recovery device means, for the purposes of this subpart, an 
add-on air pollution control device in which HAP is captured rather 
than destroyed. Examples include carbon adsorption systems and 
condensers.
    Supersack means a container of particulate from the manufacturer or 
supplier with attached feed tubes and that is used to transfer 
particulate under the following conditions: the feed tubes are attached 
directly to the mix preparation equipment, the attachment interface is 
sealed, and all openings on the mix transfer equipment are closed to 
the atmosphere.
    Temporary total enclosure means a total enclosure that is 
constructed for the sole purpose of measuring the fugitive emissions 
from an affected source. A temporary total enclosure must be 
constructed and ventilated (through stacks suitable for testing) so 
that it has minimal impact on the performance of the permanent capture 
system. A temporary total enclosure will be assumed to achieve total 
capture of fugitive emissions if it conforms to the requirements found 
in Sec. 63.705(c)(4)(i) and if all natural draft openings are at least 
four duct or hood equivalent diameters away from each exhaust duct or 
hood. Alternatively, the owner or operator may apply to the 
Administrator for approval of a temporary enclosure on a case-by-case 
basis.
    Total enclosure means a structure that is constructed around a 
gaseous emission source so that all gaseous pollutants emitted from the 
source are collected and ducted through a control device, such that 100 
percent capture efficiency is achieved. There are no fugitive emissions 
from a total enclosure. The only openings in a total enclosure are 
forced makeup air and exhaust ducts and any natural draft openings such 
as those that allow raw materials to enter and exit the enclosure for 
processing. All access doors or windows are closed during routine 
operation of the enclosed source. Brief, occasional openings of such 
doors or windows to accommodate process equipment adjustments are 
acceptable, but if such openings are routine or if an access door 
remains open during the entire operation, the access door must be 
considered a natural draft opening. The average inward face velocity 
across the natural draft openings of the enclosure must be calculated 
including the area of such access doors. The drying oven itself may be 
part of the total enclosure. A permanent enclosure that meets the 
requirements found in Sec. 63.705(c)(4)(i) is a total enclosure.
    Utilize means the use of HAP that is delivered to mix preparation 
equipment for the purpose of formulating coatings, the use of any other 
HAP (e.g., dilution solvent) that is added at any point in the 
manufacturing process, and the use of any HAP for cleaning activities. 
Alternatively, annual HAP utilization can be determined as net usage; 
that is, the HAP inventory at the beginning of a 12-month period, plus 
the amount of HAP purchased during the 12-month period, minus the 
amount of HAP in inventory at the end of a 12-month period.
    Vacuum injection system means a system in which a vacuum draws 
particulate from a storage container into a closed system that 
transfers particulates into the mix preparation equipment.
    Volatile organic compound (VOC) means any organic compound that 
participates in atmospheric photochemical reactions or that is measured 
by EPA Test Methods 18, 24, or 25A in appendix A of part 60 or an 
alternative test method as defined in Sec. 63.2.
    Volatile organic hazardous air pollutant (VOHAP) concentration 
means the concentration of an individually-speciated organic HAP in a 
wastewater discharge that is measured by Method 305 of appendix A to 40 
CFR part 63.
    Waste handling means processing or treatment of waste (liquid or 
solid) that is generated as a by-product of either the magnetic tape 
production process or cleaning operations.
    Waste handling device means equipment that is used to separate 
solvent from solid waste (e.g., filter dryers) or liquid waste (e.g., 
pot stills and thin film evaporators). The solvents are recovered by 
heating, condensing, and collection.
    Wastewater discharge means the water phase that is discharged from 
the separator in a wastewater treatment system.
    Wastewater treatment system means the assortment of devices in 
which the solvent/water mixture, generated when the carbon bed in the 
carbon adsorber is desorbed by steam, is treated to remove residual 
organics in the water.
    (b) The nomenclature used in this subpart is defined when presented 
or has the meaning given below:
    (1) Ak = the area of each natural draft opening (k) in a total 
enclosure, in square meters.
    (2) Caj = the concentration of HAP or VOC in each gas stream 
(j) exiting the emission control device, in parts per million by 
volume.
    (3) Cbi = the concentration of HAP or VOC in each gas stream 
(i) entering the emission control device, in parts per million by 
volume.
    (4) Cdi = the concentration of HAP or VOC in each gas stream 
(i) entering the emission control device from the affected source, in 
parts per million by volume.
    (5) Cfk = the concentration of HAP or VOC in each uncontrolled 
gas stream (k) emitted directly to the atmosphere from the affected 
source, in parts per million by volume.
    (6) Cgv = the concentration of HAP or VOC in each uncontrolled 
gas stream entering each individual carbon adsorber vessel (v), in 
parts per million by volume. For the purposes of calculating the 
efficiency of the individual carbon adsorber vessel, Cgv may be 
measured in the carbon adsorption system's common inlet duct prior to 
the branching of individual inlet ducts to the individual carbon 
adsorber vessels.
    (7) Chv = the concentration of HAP or VOC in the gas stream 
exiting each individual carbon adsorber vessel (v), in parts per 
million by volume.
    (8) E = the control device efficiency achieved for the duration of 
the emission test (expressed as a fraction).
    (9) F = the HAP or VOC emission capture efficiency of the HAP or 
VOC capture system achieved for the duration of the emission test 
(expressed as a fraction).
    (10) FV = the average inward face velocity across all natural draft 
openings in a total enclosure, in meters per hour.
    (11) G = the calculated mass of HAP per volume of coating solids 
(in kilograms per liter) contained in a batch of coating.
    (12) Hv = the individual carbon adsorber vessel (v) efficiency 
achieved for the duration of the emission test (expressed as a 
fraction).
    (13) Hsys = the efficiency of the carbon adsorption system 
calculated when each carbon adsorber vessel has an individual exhaust 
stack (expressed as a fraction).
    (14) Lsi = the volume fraction of solids in each batch of 
coating (i) applied as determined from the formulation records at the 
affected source.
    (15) Mci = the total mass in kilograms of each batch of 
coating (i) applied, or of each coating applied at an affected coating 
operation during a 7-day period, as appropriate, as determined from 
records at the affected source. This quantity shall be determined at a 
time and location in the process after all ingredients (including any 
dilution solvent) have been added to the coating, or if ingredients are 
added after the mass of the coating has been determined, appropriate 
adjustments shall be made to account for them.
    (16) Mr = the total mass in kilograms of HAP or VOC recovered 
for a 7-day period.
    (17) Qaj = the volumetric flow rate of each gas stream (j) 
exiting the emission control device in either dry standard cubic meters 
per hour when EPA Method 18 in appendix A of part 60 is used to measure 
HAP or VOC concentration or in standard cubic meters per hour (wet 
basis) when EPA Method 25A is used to measure HAP or VOC concentration.
    (18) Qbi = the volumetric flow rate of each gas stream (i) 
entering the emission control device, in dry standard cubic meters per 
hour when EPA Method 18 is used to measure HAP or VOC concentration or 
in standard cubic meters per hour (wet basis) when EPA Method 25A is 
used to measure HAP or VOC concentration.
    (19) Qdi = the volumetric flow rate of each gas stream (i) 
entering the emission control device from the affected source in either 
dry standard cubic meters per hour when EPA Method 18 is used to 
measure HAP or VOC concentration or in standard cubic meters per hour 
(wet basis) when EPA Method 25A is used to measure HAP or VOC 
concentration.
    (20) Qfk = the volumetric flow rate of each uncontrolled gas 
stream (k) emitted directly to the atmosphere from the affected source 
in either dry standard cubic meters per hour when EPA Method 18 is used 
to measure HAP or VOC concentration or in standard cubic meters per 
hour (wet basis) when EPA Method 25A is used to measure HAP or VOC 
concentration.
    (21) Qgv = the volumetric flow rate of each gas stream 
entering each individual carbon adsorber vessel (v) in either dry 
standard cubic meters per hour when EPA Method 18 is used to measure 
HAP or VOC concentration or in standard cubic meters per hour (wet 
basis) when EPA Method 25A is used to measure HAP or VOC concentration. 
For purposes of calculating the efficiency of the individual carbon 
adsorber vessel, the value of Qgv can be assumed to equal the 
value of Qhv measured for that carbon adsorber vessel.
    (22) Qhv = the volumetric flow rate of each gas stream exiting 
each individual carbon adsorber vessel (v) in either dry standard cubic 
meters per hour when EPA Method 18 is used to measure HAP or VOC 
concentration or in standard cubic meters per hour (wet basis) when EPA 
Method 25A is used to measure HAP or VOC concentration.
    (23) Qin i = the volumetric flow rate of each gas stream (i) 
entering the total enclosure through a forced makeup air duct in 
standard cubic meters per hour (wet basis).
    (24) Qout j = the volumetric flow rate of each gas stream (j) 
exiting the total enclosure through an exhaust duct or hood in standard 
cubic meters per hour (wet basis).
    (25) R = the overall HAP or VOC emission reduction achieved for the 
duration of the emission test (expressed as a percentage).
    (26) RSi = the total mass in kilograms of HAP or VOC retained 
in the coated substrate after oven drying for a given magnetic tape 
product.
    (27) Vci = the total volume in liters of each batch of coating 
(i) applied as determined from records at the affected source.
    (28) Woi = the weight fraction of HAP or VOC in each batch of 
coating (i) applied, or of each coating applied at an affected coating 
operation during a 7-day period, as appropriate, as determined by EPA 
Method 24 or formulation data. This value shall be determined at a time 
and location in the process after all ingredients (including any 
dilution solvent) have been added to the coating, or if ingredients are 
added after the weight fraction of HAP or VOC in the coating has been 
determined, appropriate adjustments shall be made to account for them.


Sec. 63.703  Standards.

    (a) Each owner or operator of any affected source that is subject 
to the requirements of this subpart shall comply with the requirements 
of this subpart on and after the compliance dates specified in 
Sec. 63.701.
    (b)(1) The owner or operator subject to Sec. 63.701(a)(2) shall 
determine limits on the amount of HAP utilized (see definition) in the 
magnetic tape manufacturing operation as the values for the potential 
to emit HAP from the magnetic tape manufacturing operation.
    (2) The limits on the amount of HAP utilized in the magnetic tape 
manufacturing operations shall be determined in the following manner.
    (i) The potential to emit each HAP from each emission point at the 
stationary source, other than those from magnetic tape manufacturing 
operations, shall be calculated and converted to the units of Mg/yr (or 
tons/yr).
    (ii) The limits on the HAP utilized in the magnetic tape 
manufacturing operation shall be determined as the values that, when 
summed with the values in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, are less 
than 9.1 Mg/yr (10 tons/yr) for each individual HAP and 22.7 Mg/yr (25 
tons/yr) for the combination of HAP.
    (3) The limits on the HAP utilized determined in paragraph (b)(2) 
of this section shall be in terms of Mg/yr (or tons/yr), calculated 
monthly on a rolling 12-month average. The owner or operator shall not 
exceed these limits.
    (4) An owner or operator subject to paragraph (b) of this section 
shall meet the requirements in paragraph (h) of this section.
    (5) A magnetic tape manufacturing operation that is subject to 
paragraph (b) of this section and is located at an area source is not 
subject to paragraphs (c) through (g) of this section.
    (c) Except as provided by Sec. 63.703(b), each owner or operator of 
an affected source subject to this subpart shall limit gaseous HAP 
emitted from each solvent storage tank, piece of mix preparation 
equipment, coating operation, waste handling device, and condenser vent 
in solvent recovery as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(5) of 
this section:
    (1) Except as otherwise allowed in paragraphs (c)(2), (3), (4), and 
(5) of this section, each owner or operator shall limit gaseous HAP 
emitted from each solvent storage tank, piece of mix preparation 
equipment, coating operation, waste handling device, and condenser vent 
in solvent recovery by an overall HAP control efficiency of at least 95 
percent.
    (2) An owner or operator that uses an incinerator to control 
emission points listed in paragraph (c)(1) of this section may choose 
to meet the overall HAP control efficiency requirement of paragraph 
(c)(1) of this section, or may operate the incinerator such that an 
outlet HAP concentration of no greater than 20 parts per million by 
volume (ppmv) by compound on a dry basis is achieved, as long as the 
efficiency of the capture system is 100 percent.
    (3) An owner or operator may choose to meet the requirements of 
paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this section by venting the room, building, 
or enclosure in which the HAP emission point is located to an add-on 
air pollution control device, as long as the required overall HAP 
control efficiency of this method is sufficient to meet the 
requirements of paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this section.
    (4) In lieu of controlling HAP emissions from each solvent storage 
tank to the level required by paragraph (c)(1) of this section, an 
owner or operator of an affected source may:
    (i) Control HAP emissions from all coating operations by an overall 
HAP control efficiency of at least 97 percent in lieu of controlling 10 
HAP solvent storage tanks that do not exceed 20,000 gallons each in 
capacity; or
    (ii) Control HAP emissions from all coating operations by an over 
HAP control efficiency of at least 98 percent in lieu of controlling 15 
HAP solvent storage tanks that do not exceed 20,000 gallons each in 
capacity; or
    (iii) Control HAP emissions from all coating operations by an 
overall HAP control efficiency of at least 99 percent in lieu of 
controlling 20 HAP solvent storage tanks that do not exceed 20,000 
gallons each in capacity.
    (iv) Owners or operators choosing to meet the requirements of 
paragraphs (c)(4)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this section are also subject 
to the reporting requirement of Sec. 63.707(k).
    (5) In lieu of controlling HAP emissions from a coating operation 
to the level required by paragraph (c)(1) of this section, owners or 
operators may use magnetic coatings that contain no greater than 0.18 
kilograms of HAP per liter of coating solids for that coating 
operation. For the requirements of this paragraph, Secs. 63.6(e)(3), 
63.6(f) (1) and (2), 63.8(b) (2) and (3), 63.8(c), 63.8(d), 63.8(e), 
63.8(g), 63.9 (e) and (g), 63.10(c), 63.10(d) (2), (3), and (5), 
63.10(e) (1) and (2), and 63.11 of subpart A do not apply.
    (d) Particulate transfer operations. Except as stipulated by 
Sec. 63.703(b), each owner or operator of an affected source subject to 
this subpart shall:
    (1) Use an enclosed transfer method to perform particulate HAP 
transfer; or
    (2) Direct emissions from particulate HAP transfer through a hood 
or enclosure to a baghouse or fabric filter that exhibits no visible 
emissions while controlling HAP emissions from particulate HAP 
transfer.
    (e) Wash sinks for cleaning removable parts. (1) Except as 
stipulated by Sec. 63.703(b), each owner or operator of an affected 
source subject to this subpart shall limit gaseous HAP emissions from 
each wash sink containing HAP:
    (i) So that the overall HAP control efficiency is no less than 88 
percent; or
    (ii) By maintaining a minimum freeboard ratio of 75 percent in the 
wash sink at all times when the sink contains HAP.
    (2) Owners or operators may meet the requirements of paragraph 
(e)(1)(i) of this section by venting the room, building, or enclosure 
in which the sink is located, as long as the overall HAP control 
efficiency of this method is demonstrated to be at least 88 percent 
using the test methods in Sec. 63.705(e).
    (3) Wash sinks subject to the control provisions of subpart T of 
this part are not subject to paragraph (e)(1) or (e)(2) of this 
section.
    (f) Equipment for flushing fixed lines. (1) Except as stipulated by 
Sec. 63.703(b), each owner or operator of an affected source subject to 
this subpart shall limit gaseous HAP emissions from each affected set 
of equipment for flushing fixed lines:
    (i) So that the overall HAP control efficiency is at least 95 
percent; or
    (ii) By using a closed system for flushing fixed lines.
    (2) Owners or operators may meet the requirements of paragraph 
(f)(1)(i) of this section by venting the room, building, or enclosure 
in which the fixed lines are located, as long as the overall HAP 
control efficiency of this method is demonstrated to be at least 95 
percent using the test methods in Sec. 63.705(f).
    (g) Wastewater treatment systems. (1) Except as stipulated by 
Sec. 63.703(b), each owner or operator of an affected source subject to 
this subpart shall:
    (i) Treat the wastewater discharge to remove each HAP from magnetic 
tape manufacturing operations that is present in the wastewater 
discharge by at least the fraction removed (FR) specified in Table 
9 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart G; or
    (ii) Treat (other than by dilution) the HAP from magnetic tape 
manufacturing operations that are present in the wastewater discharge 
such that the exit concentration is less than 50 ppmw of total VOHAP.
    (2) The treatment method used to meet the requirements of paragraph 
(g)(1) of this section shall not transfer emissions from the water to 
the atmosphere in an uncontrolled manner.
    (h)(1) Magnetic tape manufacturing operations that are subject to 
Sec. 63.703(b) and are not at major sources are not subject to 
Secs. 63.6(e), 63.6(f), 63.6(g), 63.6(i)(4), 63.7, 63.8, 63.9 (c) 
through (h), 63.10(b)(2), 63.10(c), 63.10(d) (2) through (5), 63.10(e), 
and 63.11 of subpart A.
    (2) Magnetic tape manufacturing operations subject to 
Sec. 63.703(b) shall fulfill the recordkeeping requirements of 
Sec. 63.706(e) and the reporting requirements of Sec. 63.707 (b), (c), 
and (j).
    (3) An owner or operator of a magnetic tape manufacturing operation 
subject to Sec. 63.703(b) who chooses to no longer be subject to 
Sec. 63.703(b) shall notify the Administrator or delegated State of 
such change. If by no longer being subject to Sec. 63.703(b), the 
source at which the magnetic tape manufacturing operation is located 
would become a major source, the owner or operator shall meet the 
following requirements, starting from the date of such notification:
    (i) Comply with paragraphs (c) through (g) of this section, and 
other provisions of this subpart within the timeframe specified in 
Sec. 63.6(c)(5); and
    (ii) Comply with the HAP utilization limits in Sec. 63.703(b) until 
the requirements of paragraph (h)(3)(i) of this section are met.
    (i) For any solvent storage tank, piece of mix preparation 
equipment, waste handling device, condenser vent in solvent recovery, 
wash sink for cleaning removable parts, and set of equipment for 
flushing of fixed lines, the owner or operator may, instead of meeting 
the requirements of paragraphs (c)(1), (e)(1)(i), or (f)(1)(i) of this 
section, vent the gaseous HAP emissions to an add-on air pollution 
control device other than an incinerator that, in conjunction with 
capture equipment or ductwork, is designed to achieve an overall HAP 
control efficiency of at least 95 percent for the emissions from the 
coating operation, and achieve an alternate outlet concentration limit 
when coating operations are not occurring, as determined in 
Sec. 63.704(b)(11)(ii).
    (j) The requirements of this subpart do not preclude the use of 
pressure relief valves and vacuum relief valves for safety purposes.


Sec. 63.704  Compliance and monitoring requirements.

    (a) For owners or operators of an affected source that are using 
add-on air pollution control equipment or a steam stripper to comply 
with Sec. 63.703, paragraph (b) of this section identifies the 
operating parameter to be monitored to demonstrate continuous 
compliance. For all owners or operators subject to Sec. 63.703, except 
Sec. 63.703(b) and (h), regardless of the type of control technique 
used, paragraph (c) of this section identifies the procedures that must 
be followed to demonstrate continuous compliance with Sec. 63.703.
    (b) Establishing a limit under Sec. 63.703(i) and operating 
parameter values. The owner or operator of an affected source subject 
to Sec. 63.703 except Sec. 63.703(b) and (h), shall establish the 
operating parameter value to be monitored for compliance as required by 
paragraph (c) of this section, in accordance with paragraphs (b)(1) 
through (b)(11) of this section. An owner or operator subject to 
Sec. 63.703(i) shall establish a limit as required in paragraph 
(b)(11)(ii) of this section.
    (1) Except as allowed by paragraphs (b)(2), (3), (4), (5), or (9) 
of this section, for each add-on air pollution control device used to 
control solvent HAP emissions, the owner or operator shall fulfill the 
requirements of paragraph (b)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section.
    (i) The owner or operator shall establish as a site-specific 
operating parameter the outlet total HAP or VOC concentration that 
demonstrates compliance with Sec. 63.703(c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(4), 
(e)(1)(i), (f)(1)(i), or (i) as appropriate; or
    (ii) The owner or operator shall establish as the site-specific 
operating parameter the control device efficiency that demonstrates 
compliance with Sec. 63.703(c)(1), (c)(4), (e)(1)(i), and (f)(1)(i).
    (iii) When a nonregenerative carbon adsorber is used to comply with 
Sec. 63.703(c)(1), the site-specific operating parameter value may be 
established as part of the design evaluation used to demonstrate 
initial compliance (Sec. 63.705(c)(6)). Otherwise, the site-specific 
operating parameter value shall be established during the initial 
performance test conducted according to the procedures of 
Sec. 63.705(c)(1), (2), (3), or (4).
    (2) For each condenser used as the add-on air pollution control 
device to comply with Sec. 63.703(c), (e)(1)(i), (f)(1)(i) or (i), in 
lieu of meeting the requirements of Sec. 63.704(b)(1), during the 
initial performance test conducted according to the procedures of 
Sec. 63.705(c)(1), (2), or (4), the owner or operator may establish as 
a site-specific operating parameter the maximum temperature of the 
condenser vapor exhaust stream and shall set the operating parameter 
value that demonstrates compliance with Sec. 63.703(c), (e)(1)(i), 
(f)(1)(i) or (i) as appropriate;
    (3) For each thermal incinerator, in lieu of meeting the 
requirements of Sec. 63.704(b)(1), during the initial performance test 
conducted according to the procedures of Sec. 63.705(c)(1), (2), or 
(4), the owner or operator may establish as a site-specific operating 
parameter the minimum combustion temperature and set the operating 
parameter value that demonstrates compliance with Sec. 63.703(c), 
(e)(1)(i), or (f)(1)(i), as appropriate.
    (4) For each catalytic incinerator, in lieu of meeting the 
requirements of Sec. 63.704(b)(1), during the initial performance test 
conducted according to the procedures of Sec. 63.705(c)(1), (2), or 
(4), the owner or operator may establish as site-specific operating 
parameters the minimum gas temperature upstream of the catalyst bed and 
the minimum gas temperature difference across the catalyst bed, and set 
the operating parameter values that demonstrate compliance with 
Sec. 63.703(c), (e)(1)(i), or (f)(1)(i), as appropriate.
    (5) For each nonregenerative carbon adsorber, in lieu of meeting 
the requirements of Sec. 63.704(b)(1), the owner or operator may 
establish as the site-specific operating parameter the carbon 
replacement time interval, as determined by the maximum design flow 
rate and organic concentration in the gas stream vented to the carbon 
adsorption system. The carbon replacement time interval shall be 
established either as part of the design evaluation to demonstrate 
initial compliance (Sec. 63.705(c)(6)), or during the initial 
performance test conducted according to the procedures of 
Sec. 63.705(c)(1), (2), (3), or (4).
    (6) Each owner or operator venting solvent HAP emissions from a 
source through a room, enclosure, or hood, to a control device to 
comply with Sec. 63.703(c), (e)(1)(i), (f)(1)(i), or (i) shall:
    (i) Submit to the Administrator with the compliance status report 
required by Sec. 63.9(h) of the General Provisions a plan that:
    (A) Identifies the operating parameter to be monitored to ensure 
that the capture efficiency measured during the initial compliance test 
is maintained;
    (B) Discusses why this parameter is appropriate for demonstrating 
ongoing compliance; and
    (C) Identifies the specific monitoring procedures;
    (ii) Set the operating parameter value, or range of values, that 
demonstrate compliance with Sec. 63.703(c), (e)(1)(i), (f)(1)(i), or 
(i), as appropriate; and
    (iii) Conduct monitoring in accordance with the plan submitted to 
the Administrator unless comments received from the Administrator 
require an alternate monitoring scheme.
    (7) For each baghouse or fabric filter used to control particulate 
HAP emissions in accordance with Sec. 63.703(d)(2), the owner or 
operator shall establish as the site-specific operating parameter the 
minimum ventilation air flow rate through the inlet duct to the 
baghouse or fabric filter that ensures that particulate HAP are being 
captured and delivered to the control device. The minimum ventilation 
air flow rate is to be supported by the engineering calculations that 
are considered part of the initial performance test, as required by 
Sec. 63.705(g)(2).
    (8) Owners or operators subject to Sec. 63.704(b)(1), (2), (3), 
(4), (5), (6), or (7) shall calculate the site-specific operating 
parameter value, or range of values, as the arithmetic average of the 
maximum and/or minimum operating parameter values, as appropriate, that 
demonstrate compliance with Sec. 63.703(c), (d), (e), (f) or (i) during 
the multiple test runs required by Sec. 63.705(b)(2) and (b)(1), or 
during the multiple runs of other tests conducted as allowed by 
paragraph Sec. 63.704(b)(11).
    (9) For each solvent recovery device used to comply with 
Sec. 63.703(c), in lieu of meeting the requirements of paragraph (b)(1) 
of this section, the results of the material balance calculation 
conducted in accordance with Sec. 63.705(c)(1) may serve as the site-
specific operating parameter that demonstrates compliance with 
Sec. 63.703(c).
    (10) Owners or operators complying with the provisions of 
Sec. 63.703(g) shall establish the site-specific operating parameter 
according to paragraph (b)(10)(i) or (ii) of this section.
    (i) Owners or operators using a steam stripper shall establish the 
steam-to-feed ratio as the site-specific operating parameter, except as 
allowed in paragraph (b)(10)(ii) of this section, according to the 
following criteria:
    (A) The minimum operating parameter value shall correspond to at 
least the fraction removed specified in Sec. 63.703(g)(1)(i) and be 
submitted to the permitting authority for approval with the design 
specifications required by Sec. 63.705(h)(1); or
    (B) The minimum operating parameter value shall be that value that 
corresponds to a total VOHAP outlet concentration in the wastewater of 
less than 50 ppmw as determined through tests conducted in accordance 
with Sec. 63.705(b)(9) and (h)(2); or
    (C) The minimum operating parameter value shall be the value that 
corresponds to at least the fraction removed specified in 
Sec. 63.705(g)(1)(i), as demonstrated through tests conducted in 
accordance with Sec. 63.705(b)(9) and (h)(3).
    (ii) Owners or operators complying with Sec. 63.703(g) through the 
use of a steam stripper or any other control technique may establish as 
a site-specific operating parameter the outlet total VOHAP 
concentration according to the following criteria:
    (A) The minimum operating parameter value shall correspond to at 
least the fraction removed specified in Sec. 63.703(g)(1)(i) and be 
submitted to the permitting authority for approval with the design 
specifications required by Sec. 63.705(h)(1); or
    (B) The minimum operating parameter value shall be a total VOHAP 
outlet concentration in the wastewater of less than 50 ppmw, as 
required by Sec. 63.703(g)(1)(ii), and as determined through tests 
conducted in accordance with Sec. 63.705 (b)(9) and (h)(2); or
    (C) The minimum operating parameter value shall be the value that 
corresponds to at least the fraction removed specified in 
Sec. 63.705(g)(1)(i), as demonstrated through tests conducted in 
accordance with Sec. 63.705 (b)(9) and (h)(3).
    (11) Compliance provisions for nonrepresentative operating 
conditions. (i) The owner or operator of an affected source may conduct 
multiple performance tests to establish the operating parameter value, 
or range of values, that demonstrates compliance with the standards in 
Sec. 63.703 during various operating conditions.
    (ii) To establish an alternate outlet concentration limit as 
provided in Sec. 63.703(i), the owner or operator, when the coating 
operation is not occurring, shall conduct a performance test using the 
methods in Sec. 63.705 for determining initial compliance with 
Sec. 63.703 (c)(1), (e)(1)(i) or (f)(1)(i), or shall collect data from 
continuous emission monitors used to determine continuous compliance as 
specified in Sec. 63.704 (b) and (c). During the period in which this 
limit is being established, the control device shall be operated in 
accordance with good air pollution control practices and in the same 
manner as it was operated to achieve the emission limitation for 
coating operations. Owners or operators choosing to establish such an 
alternative shall also comply with paragraphs (b)(11)(ii) (A) and (B) 
of this section.
    (A) The owner or operator shall submit the alternate outlet HAP 
concentration limit within 180 days after the compliance demonstration 
required by Sec. 63.7 of subpart A, to the Administrator, as required 
by Sec. 63.707(k)(1).
    (B) The Administrator will approve or disapprove the limit proposed 
in accordance with paragraph (b)(11)(ii)(A) of this section within 60 
days of receipt of the report required by Sec. 63.707(k)(1), and any 
other supplemental information requested by the Administrator to 
support the alternate limit.
    (c) Continuous compliance monitoring. Following the date on which 
the initial compliance demonstration is completed, continuous 
compliance with the standards shall be demonstrated as outlined in 
paragraphs (c), (d), (e), or (f) of this section.
    (1)(i) Each owner or operator of an affected source subject to 
Sec. 63.703 (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4), (e)(1)(i), (f)(1)(i), or 
(i) of this subpart shall monitor the applicable parameters specified 
in paragraphs (c)(3), (4), (5), (6), (7), or (9) of this section 
depending on the type of control technique used, and shall monitor the 
parameters specified in paragraph (c)(10) of this section.
    (ii) Each owner or operator of an affected source subject to 
Sec. 63.703(c)(5) of this subpart shall demonstrate continuous 
compliance as required by paragraph (c)(8) of this section.
    (iii) Each owner or operator of an affected source subject to 
Sec. 63.703(d)(2) of this subpart shall demonstrate continuous 
compliance as required by paragraph (e) of this section.
    (iv) Each owner or operator of an affected source subject to 
Sec. 63.703(g) of this subpart shall demonstrate continuous compliance 
as required by paragraph (d) of this section.
    (2) Compliance monitoring shall be subject to the following 
provisions.
    (i) Except as allowed by paragraph (c)(3)(i)(C) of this section, 
all continuous emission monitors shall comply with performance 
specification (PS) 8 or 9 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, as appropriate 
depending on whether volatile organic compound (VOC) or HAP 
concentration is being measured. The requirements in appendix F of 40 
CFR part 60 shall also be followed. In conducting the quarterly audits 
required by appendix F, owners or operators must challenge the monitors 
with compounds representative of the gaseous emission stream being 
controlled.
    (ii) All temperature monitoring equipment shall be installed, 
calibrated, maintained, and operated according to the manufacturer's 
specifications. The thermocouple calibration shall be verified or 
replaced every 3 months. The replacement shall be done either if the 
owner or operator chooses not to calibrate the thermocouple, or if the 
thermocouple cannot be properly calibrated.
    (iii) If the effluent from multiple emission points are combined 
prior to being channeled to a common control device, the owner or 
operator is required only to monitor the common control device, not 
each emission point.
    (3) Owners or operators complying with Sec. 63.703(c), (e)(1)(i), 
(f)(1)(i), or (i) through the use of a control device and establishing 
a site-specific operating parameter in accordance with 
Sec. 63.704(b)(1) shall fulfill the requirements of paragraphs 
(c)(3)(i) of this section and paragraph (c)(3)(ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) 
of this section, as appropriate.
    (i) The owner or operator shall install, calibrate, operate, and 
maintain a continuous emission monitor.
    (A) The continuous emission monitor shall be used to measure 
continuously the total HAP or VOC concentration at both the inlet and 
the outlet whenever HAP from magnetic tape manufacturing operations are 
vented to the control device, if continuous compliance is demonstrated 
through a percent efficiency calculation (Sec. 63.704(b)(1)(ii)); or
    (B) The continuous emission monitor shall be used to measure 
continuously the total outlet HAP or VOC concentration whenever HAP 
from magnetic tape manufacturing operations are vented to the control 
device, if the provisions of Sec. 63.704(b)(1)(i) are being used to 
determine continuous compliance.
    (C) For owners or operators using a nonregenerative carbon 
adsorber, in lieu of using continuous emission monitors as specified in 
paragraph (c)(3)(i) (A) or (B) of this section, the owner or operator 
may use a portable monitoring device to monitor total HAP or VOC 
concentration at the inlet and outlet, or outlet of the carbon 
adsorber, as appropriate.
    (1) The monitoring device shall be calibrated, operated, and 
maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications.
    (2) The monitoring device shall meet the requirements of part 60, 
appendix A, method 21, sections 2, 3, 4.1, 4.2, and 4.4. For the 
purposes of paragraph (c)(3)(i)(C) of this section, the words ``leak 
definition'' in method 21 shall be the outlet concentration determined 
in accordance with Sec. 63.704(b)(1). The calibration gas shall either 
be representative of the compounds to be measured or shall be methane, 
and shall be at a concentration associated with 125 percent of the 
expected organic compound concentration level for the carbon adsorber 
outlet vent.
    (3) The probe inlet of the monitoring device shall be placed at 
approximately the center of the carbon adsorber outlet vent. The probe 
shall be held there for at least 5 minutes during which flow into the 
carbon adsorber is expected to occur. The maximum reading during that 
period shall be used as the measurement.
    (ii) If complying with Sec. 63.703 (c)(1), (c)(3), (c)(4), 
(e)(1)(i), (f)(1)(i), or (i) through the use of a carbon adsorption 
system with a common exhaust stack for all of the carbon vessels, the 
owner or operator shall not operate the control device at an average 
control efficiency less than that required by Sec. 63.703 (c)(1), 
(c)(3), (c)(4), (e)(1)(i), or (f)(1)(i) or at an average outlet 
concentration exceeding the site-specific operating parameter value or 
that required by Sec. 63.703(i), for three consecutive adsorption 
cycles. Operation in this manner shall constitute a violation of 
Sec. 63.703 (c)(1), (c)(3), (c)(4), (e)(1)(i), (f)(1)(i), or (i).
    (iii) If complying with Sec. 63.703 (c)(1), (c)(3), (c)(4), 
(e)(1)(i), (f)(1)(i), or (i) through the use of a carbon adsorption 
system with individual exhaust stacks for each of the multiple carbon 
adsorber vessels, the owner or operator shall not operate any carbon 
adsorber vessel at an average control efficiency less than that 
required by Sec. 63.703 (c)(1), (c)(3), (c)(4), (e)(1)(i), or 
(f)(1)(i), or at an average outlet concentration exceeding the site-
specific operating parameter value or that required by Sec. 63.703(i), 
as calculated daily using a 3-day rolling average. Operation in this 
manner shall constitute a violation of Sec. 63.703 (c)(1), (c)(3), 
(c)(4), (e)(1)(i), (f)(1)(i), or (i).
    (iv) If complying with Sec. 63.703 (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4), 
(e)(1)(i), (f)(1)(i), or (i) through the use of any control device 
other than a carbon adsorber, the owner or operator shall not operate 
the control device at an average control efficiency less than that 
required by Sec. 63.703 (c)(1), (c)(3), (c)(4), (e)(1)(i), or 
(f)(1)(i), or at an average outlet concentration exceeding the site-
specific operating parameter value or that required by 
Sec. 63.703(c)(2) or (i), as calculated for any 3-hour period. 
Operation in this manner shall constitute a violation of Sec. 63.703 
(c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4), (e)(1)(i), (f)(1)(i), or (i).
    (v) If complying with Sec. 63.703(c)(1) through the use of a 
nonregenerative carbon adsorber, in lieu of the requirements of 
paragraphs (c)(3) (ii) or (iii) of this section, the owner or operator 
may:
    (A) monitor the VOC or HAP concentration of the adsorber exhaust 
daily or at intervals no greater than 20 percent of the design carbon 
replacement interval, whichever is greater; operation of the control 
device at a HAP or VOC concentration greater than that determined in 
accordance with Sec. 63.704(b)(1)(iii) shall constitute a violation of 
Sec. 63.703 (c)(1), (e)(1)(i), or (f)(1)(i); or
    (B) replace the carbon in the carbon adsorber system with fresh 
carbon at a regular predetermined time interval as determined in 
accordance with Sec. 63.704(b)(5); failure to replace the carbon at 
this predetermined time interval shall constitute a violation of 
Sec. 63.703 (c)(1), (e)(1)(i), or (f)(1)(i).
    (4) Owners or operators complying with Sec. 63.703 (c)(1), (c)(3), 
(c)(4), (e)(1)(i), (f)(1)(i), or (i) through the use of a condenser as 
the add-on air pollution control device, and demonstrating compliance 
in accordance with Sec. 63.704(b)(2), shall install, calibrate, 
operate, and maintain a thermocouple to measure continuously the 
temperature of the condenser vapor exhaust stream whenever HAP from 
magnetic tape manufacturing operations are vented to the control 
device. Operation of the control device at an average vapor exhaust 
temperature greater than the site-specific operating parameter value or 
values established in accordance with Sec. 63.704(b)(2) for any 3-hour 
period shall constitute a violation of Sec. 63.703 (c)(1), (c)(3), 
(c)(4), (e)(1)(i), (f)(1)(i) or (i).
    (5) Owners or operators complying with Sec. 63.703 (c)(1), (c)(2), 
(c)(3), (c)(4), (e)(1)(i), or (f)(1)(i) through the use of a thermal 
incinerator and demonstrating compliance in accordance with 
Sec. 63.704(b)(3) shall install, calibrate, operate, and maintain a 
thermocouple to measure continuously the combustion temperature 
whenever HAP from magnetic tape manufacturing operations are vented to 
the control device. Operation of the control device at an average 
combustion temperature less than the operating parameter value or 
values established in accordance with Sec. 63.704(b)(3) for any 3-hour 
period shall constitute a violation of Sec. 63.703 (c)(1), (c)(2), 
(c)(3), (c)(4), (e)(1)(i), or (f)(1)(i).
    (6) Owners or operators complying with Sec. 63.703 (c)(1), (c)(2), 
(c)(3), (c)(4), (e)(1)(i), or (f)(1)(i) through the use of a catalytic 
incinerator and demonstrating compliance in accordance with 
Sec. 63.704(b)(4) shall install, calibrate, operate, and maintain a 
thermocouple to measure continuously the gas temperature both upstream 
and downstream of the catalyst bed whenever HAP from magnetic tape 
manufacturing operations are vented to the control device. Operation of 
the control device at an average upstream gas temperature, or at an 
average gas temperature difference across the catalyst bed, less than 
the operating parameter values established in accordance with 
Sec. 63.704(b)(4) for any 3-hour period shall constitute a violation of 
Sec. 63.703 (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4), (e)(1)(i), or (f)(1)(i).
    (7) Owners or operators complying with Sec. 63.703 (c)(1), (c)(2), 
(c)(3), (c)(4), (e)(1)(i), (f)(1)(i), or (i) by capturing emissions 
through a room, enclosure, or hood shall install, calibrate, operate, 
and maintain the instrumentation necessary to measure continuously the 
site-specific operating parameter established in accordance with 
Sec. 63.704(b)(6) whenever HAP from magnetic tape manufacturing 
operations are vented through the capture device. Operation of the 
capture device at an average value greater than or less than (as 
appropriate) the operating parameter value established in accordance 
with Sec. 63.704(b)(6) for any 3-hour period shall constitute a 
violation of Sec. 63.703 (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4), (e)(1)(i), 
(f)(1)(i), or (i).
    (8) The owner or operator of an affected source complying with 
Sec. 63.703(c)(5) shall demonstrate continuous compliance by using a 
coating that has a HAP content of no greater than 0.18 kilograms of HAP 
per liter of coating solids, as measured in accordance with 
Sec. 63.705(c)(5), and by maintaining and reporting the records 
required by Secs. 63.706(f) and 63.707(e) and (i)(2).
    (9) For owners or operators complying with Sec. 63.703 (c)(1), 
(c)(3), or (c)(4) through the use of a solvent recovery device and 
demonstrating initial compliance in accordance with the provisions of 
Sec. 63.705(c)(1), continuous compliance shall be demonstrated using 
procedures in Sec. 63.705(c)(1) and through the recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements of Secs. 63.706(d), 63.707(d), and 63.707(i)(5). 
The provisions of Sec. 63.8(b) (2) and (3), (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g) 
(1), and (2) of subpart A do not apply.
    (10) The owner or operator of an affected emission point using a 
vent system that contains bypass lines (not including equipment such as 
low leg drains, high point bleeds, analyzer vents, open-ended valves or 
lines, and pressure relief valves needed for safety purposes) that 
could potentially divert a vent stream away from the control device 
used to comply with Sec. 63.703 (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4), 
(e)(1)(i), (f)(1)(i), or (i) shall:
    (i) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a flow indicator that 
provides a record of vent stream flow at least once every 15 minutes; 
records shall be generated as specified in Sec. 63.706(c)(1); and the 
flow indicator shall be installed at the entrance to any bypass line 
that could divert the vent stream away from the control device to the 
atmosphere; or
    (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 is maintained in the closed position and 
the vent stream is not diverted through the bypass line; or
    (iii) Ensure that any bypass line valve 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; or
    (iv) Use an automatic shutdown system in which any HAP-emitting 
operations are ceased when flow from these operations 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.
    (d) Owners or operators complying with Sec. 63.703(g) shall 
demonstrate continuous compliance in accordance with paragraph (d)(1) 
or (d)(2) of this section.
    (1) An owner or operator that established the steam-to-feed ratio 
as the site-specific operating parameter in accordance with 
Sec. 63.704(b)(10)(i) shall continuously measure the steam-to-feed 
ratio whenever HAP-containing wastewater from magnetic tape 
manufacturing operations is being fed to the steam stripper. Operation 
of the steam stripper at a steam-to-feed ratio less than the operating 
parameter value or values established in accordance with 
Sec. 63.704(b)(10)(i) for any 3-hour period shall constitute a 
violation of Sec. 63.703(g).
    (2) An owner or operator that established the total outlet VOHAP 
concentration of the wastewater discharge as the site-specific 
operating parameter in accordance with Sec. 63.704(b)(10)(ii) shall 
measure the total VOHAP concentration of the wastewater discharge once 
per month. Operation of the control device at an outlet VOHAP 
concentration greater than the operating parameter value or values 
established in accordance with Sec. 63.704(b)(10)(ii) for any month 
shall constitute a violation of Sec. 63.703(g).
    (e) Owners or operators complying with Sec. 63.703(d)(2) of this 
subpart through the use of a baghouse or fabric filter shall perform 
visible emission testing each day that particulate HAP transfer occurs, 
using the procedures in Sec. 63.705(b)(10). Owners or operators shall 
also install, calibrate, and operate the instrumentation necessary to 
continuously monitor the ventilation air flow rate in the inlet duct to 
the baghouse or fabric filter whenever particulate HAP transfer occurs. 
The occurrence of visible emissions shall constitute a violation of 
Sec. 63.703(d)(2), and the operation of the baghouse or fabric filter 
at a flow rate less than the value or values established in accordance 
with Sec. 63.704(b)(7) for any 3-hour period shall constitute a 
violation of Sec. 63.703(d)(2).
    (f) An owner or operator who uses an air pollution control device 
not listed in Sec. 63.704 to comply with Sec. 63.703(c), (e)(1)(i), 
(f)(1)(i), or (i), or a device other than a steam stripper to comply 
with Sec. 63.703(g) shall submit to the Administrator a description of 
the device, test data verifying the performance of the device, and 
appropriate site-specific operating parameters that will be monitored 
to demonstrate continuous compliance with the standard. The monitoring 
plan submitted by an owner or operator in accordance with this 
paragraph is subject to approval by the Administrator.


Sec. 63.705  Performance test methods and procedures to determine 
initial compliance.

    (a) Except as specified in Sec. 63.705(a) (1) through (3), to 
determine initial compliance with the emission limits under Sec. 63.703 
(c), (d)(2), (e)(1), (f)(1), and (g), the owner or operator shall 
conduct an initial performance demonstration as required under 
Sec. 63.7 using the procedures and test methods listed in Sec. 63.7 and 
Sec. 63.705. If multiple emission points are vented to one common 
control device to meet the requirements of Sec. 63.703 (c), (d)(2), 
(e)(1), and (f)(1), only one performance test is required to 
demonstrate initial compliance for that group of emission points. This 
section also contains initial compliance demonstration procedures 
(other than testing) for owners or operators subject to Sec. 63.703 
(c), (d)(1), (e)(1)(ii), (f)(1)(ii), and (g).
    (1) A control device (not enclosure) used to comply with 
Sec. 63.703 (c), (e), or (f) does not need to be tested if each of the 
following criteria are met:
    (i) It is used to control gaseous HAP emissions from an existing 
affected source;
    (ii) It is operating prior to March 11, 1994;
    (iii) It is equipped with continuous emission monitors for 
determining inlet and outlet total HAP or VOC concentration, such that 
a percent efficiency can be calculated; and
    (iv) The continuous emission monitors are used to demonstrate 
continuous compliance in accordance with Sec. 63.704(c)(3)(i).
    (2) The owner or operator is not required to conduct an initial 
performance test if the requirements of Sec. 63.7(e)(2)(iv) or 
Sec. 63.7(h) are met.
    (3) An owner or operator is not required to conduct an initial 
performance test for a capture device when:
    (i) The room, enclosure, or vent was previously tested to 
demonstrate compliance with subpart SSS of part 60; and
    (ii) Sufficient data were gathered during the test to establish 
operating parameter values in accordance with Sec. 63.704(b)(6) (i), 
(ii), and (iii).
    (b) When an initial compliance demonstration is required by this 
subpart, the procedures in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(10) of this 
section shall be used in determining initial compliance with the 
provisions of this subpart.
    (1) EPA Method 24 of appendix A of part 60 is used to determine the 
VOC content in coatings. If it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of 
the Administrator that plant coating formulation data are equivalent to 
EPA Method 24 results, formulation data may be used. In the event of 
any inconsistency between an EPA Method 24 test and an affected 
source's formulation data, the EPA Method 24 test will govern. For EPA 
Method 24, the coating sample must be a 1-liter sample taken into a 1-
liter container at a location and time such that the sample will be 
representative of the coating applied to the base substrate (i.e., the 
sample shall include any dilution solvent or other VOC added during the 
manufacturing process). The container must be tightly sealed 
immediately after the sample is taken. Any solvent or other VOC added 
after the sample is taken must be measured and accounted for in the 
calculations that use EPA Method 24 results.
    (2) Formulation data is used to determine the HAP content of 
coatings.
    (3) Either EPA Method 18 or EPA Method 25A of appendix A of part 
60, as appropriate to the conditions at the site, shall be used to 
determine HAP or VOC concentration of air exhaust streams as required 
by Sec. 63.705(c). The owner or operator shall submit notice of the 
intended test method to the Administrator for approval along with the 
notification of the performance test required under Sec. 63.7(b). 
Method selection shall be based on consideration of the diversity of 
organic species present and their total concentration and on 
consideration of the potential presence of interfering gases. Except as 
indicated in paragraphs (b)(3) (i) and (ii) of this section, the test 
shall consist of three separate runs, each lasting a minimum of 30 
minutes.
    (i) When either EPA Method 18 or EPA Method 25A is to be used in 
the determination of the efficiency of a fixed-bed carbon adsorption 
system with a common exhaust stack for all the individual carbon 
adsorber vessels pursuant to Sec. 63.705(c) (2) or (4), the test shall 
consist of three separate runs, each coinciding with one or more 
complete sequences through the adsorption cycles of all of the 
individual carbon adsorber vessels.
    (ii) When either EPA Method 18 or EPA Method 25A is to be used in 
the determination of the efficiency of a fixed-bed carbon adsorption 
system with individual exhaust stacks for each carbon adsorber vessel 
pursuant to Sec. 63.705(c) (3) or (4), each carbon adsorber vessel 
shall be tested individually. The test for each carbon adsorber vessel 
shall consist of three separate runs. Each run shall coincide with one 
or more complete adsorption cycles.
    (4) EPA Method 1 or 1A of appendix A of part 60 is used for sample 
and velocity traverses.
    (5) EPA Method 2, 2A, 2C, or 2D of appendix A of part 60 is used 
for velocity and volumetric flow rates.
    (6) EPA Method 3 of appendix A of part 60 is used for gas analysis.
    (7) EPA Method 4 of appendix A of part 60 is used for stack gas 
moisture.
    (8) EPA Methods 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 3, and 4 shall be performed, as 
applicable, at least twice during each test period.
    (9) Wastewater analysis shall be conducted in accordance with 
paragraph (b)(9)(i) or (b)(9)(ii) of this section.
    (i) Use Method 305 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A and the equations 
in paragraphs (b)(9)(i) (A) and (B) of this section to determine the 
total VOHAP concentration of a wastewater stream.
    (A) The following equation shall be used to calculate the VOHAP 
concentration of an individually speciated HAP.


TR15DE94.003

where:

Ci = VOHAP concentration of the individually-speciated organic HAP 
in the wastewater, parts per million by weight.
Cc = Concentration of the organic HAP (i) in the gas stream, as 
measured by Method 305 of appendix A of this part, parts per million by 
volume on a dry basis.
Ms = Mass of sample, from Method 305 of appendix A of this part, 
milligrams.
MW = Molecular weight of the organic HAP (i), grams per gram-mole.
24.055 = Ideal gas molar volume at 293 deg. Kelvin and 760 millimeters 
of mercury, liters per gram-mole.
Pi = Barometric pressure at the time of sample analysis, 
millimeters mercury absolute.
760 = Reference or standard pressure, millimeters mercury absolute.
293 = Reference or standard temperature,  deg.Kelvin.
Ti = Sample gas temperature at the time of sample analysis, 
deg.Kelvin.
t = Actual purge time, from Method 305 of appendix A of this part, 
minutes.
L = Actual purge rate, from Method 305 of appendix A of this part, 
liters per minute.
103 = Conversion factor, milligrams per gram.

    (B) Total VOHAP concentration (stream) can be determined by summing 
the VOHAP concentrations of all individually speciated organic HAP in 
the wastewater.

TR15DE94.004

where:

Cstream=Total VOHAP concentration of wastewater stream.
n=Number of individual organic HAP (i) in the wastewater stream.
Ci=VOHAP concentration of individual organic HAP (i) calculated 
according to the procedures in paragraph (b)(9)(i)(A) of this section.

    (ii) Use a test method or results from a test method that measures 
organic HAP concentrations in the wastewater, and that has been 
validated according to section 5.1 or 5.3 of Method 301 of appendix A 
of this part. The specific requirement of Method 305 of appendix A of 
this part to collect the sample into polyethylene glycol would not be 
applicable.
    (A) If measuring the total VOHAP concentration of the exit stream 
in accordance with Secs. 63.703(g)(1)(ii) and 63.705(h)(2), the 
concentrations of the individual organic HAP measured in the water 
shall be corrected to their concentrations had they been measured by 
Method 305 of appendix A of this part. This is done by multiplying each 
concentration by the compound-specific fraction measured factor 
(FM) listed in table 34 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart G.
    (B) If measuring the total HAP concentration of an inlet and outlet 
wastewater stream to demonstrate compliance with Sec. 63.703(g)(1)(i) 
and following the procedures of Sec. 63.705(h)(3), the concentrations 
of the individual organic HAP measured in the water do not need to be 
corrected.
    (10) EPA Method 22 of appendix A of part 60 is used to determine 
visible emissions. Visible emissions testing shall be conducted for a 
minimum of 6 minutes during a time when particulate HAP transfer, as 
defined in this subpart, is occurring.
    (c) Initial compliance demonstrations. Except as stipulated in 
Sec. 63.705(a), each owner or operator subject to the requirements of 
Sec. 63.703(c) must demonstrate initial compliance with the 
requirements of this subpart by following the procedures of paragraphs 
(c)(1), (2), (3), (4), (5), or (6) and paragraph (d) of this section, 
as applicable. Each owner or operator subject to Sec. 63.703(d), (e), 
(f), and (g) must demonstrate initial compliance with the requirements 
of this subpart by following the procedures of paragraphs (e), (f), 
(g), and (h) of this section, as appropriate.
    (1) To demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with 
Sec. 63.703(c)(1), (c)(3), or (c)(4) when emissions from only the 
affected coating operations are controlled by a dedicated solvent 
recovery device, each owner or operator of the affected coating 
operation may perform a liquid-liquid HAP or VOC material balance over 
rolling 7-day periods in lieu of demonstrating compliance through the 
methods in paragraphs (c)(2), (c)(3), or (c)(4) of this section. 
Results of the material balances calculation performed to demonstrate 
initial compliance shall be submitted to the Administrator with the 
notification of compliance status required by Sec. 63.9(h) and 
Sec. 63.707(d). When demonstrating compliance by this procedure, 
Sec. 63.7(e)(3) of subpart A does not apply. The amount of liquid HAP 
or VOC applied and recovered shall be determined as discussed in 
paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of this section. The overall HAP or VOC emission 
reduction (R) is calculated using equation 1:

TR15DE94.005

    (i) The value of RSi is zero unless the owner or operator 
submits the following information to the Administrator for approval of 
a measured RSi value that is greater than zero:
    (A) Measurement techniques; and
    (B) Documentation that the measured value of RSi exceeds zero.
    (ii) The measurement techniques of paragraph (c)(1)(i)(A) of this 
section shall be submitted to the Administrator for approval with the 
notification of performance test required under Sec. 63.7(b).
    (iii) Each owner or operator demonstrating compliance by the test 
method described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section shall:
    (A) Measure the amount of coating applied at the coater;
    (B) Determine the VOC or HAP content of all coating applied using 
the test method specified in Sec. 63.705(b) (1) or (2);
    (C) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate, according to the 
manufacturer's specifications, a device that indicates the amount of 
HAP or VOC recovered by the solvent recovery device over rolling 7-day 
periods; the device shall be certified by the manufacturer to be 
accurate to within  2.0 percent, and this certification 
shall be kept on record;
    (D) Measure the amount of HAP or VOC recovered; and
    (E) Calculate the overall HAP or VOC emission reduction (R) for 
rolling 7-day periods using Equation 1.
    (iv) Compliance is demonstrated if the value of R is equal to or 
greater than the overall HAP control efficiency required by Sec. 63.703 
(c)(1), (c)(3), or (c)(4).
    (2) To demonstrate initial compliance with Sec. 63.703 (c)(1), 
(c)(2), (c)(3), or (c)(4) when affected HAP emission points are 
controlled by an emission control device other than a fixed-bed carbon 
adsorption system with individual exhaust stacks for each carbon 
adsorber vessel, each owner or operator of an affected source shall 
perform a gaseous emission test using the following procedures.
    (i) Construct the overall HAP emission reduction system so that all 
volumetric flow rates and total HAP or VOC emissions can be accurately 
determined by the applicable test methods and procedures specified in 
Sec. 63.705(b) (3) through (8).
    (ii) Determine capture efficiency from the HAP emission points by 
capturing, venting, and measuring all HAP emissions from the HAP 
emission points. During a performance test, the owner or operator of 
affected HAP emission points located in an area with other gaseous 
emission sources not affected by this subpart shall isolate the 
affected HAP emission points from all other gaseous emission points by 
one of the following methods:
    (A) Build a temporary total enclosure (see Sec. 63.702) around the 
affected HAP emission point(s); or
    (B) Shut down all gaseous emission points not affected by this 
subpart and continue to exhaust fugitive emissions from the affected 
HAP emission points through any building ventilation system and other 
room exhausts such as drying ovens.
    All ventilation air must be vented through stacks suitable for 
testing.
    (iii) Operate the emission control device with all affected HAP 
emission points connected and operating.
    (iv) Determine the efficiency (E) of the control device using 
equation 2:

TR15DE94.006

    (v) Determine the efficiency (F) of the capture system using 
equation 3:

TR15DE94.007

    (vi) For each HAP emission point subject to Sec. 63.703, compliance 
is demonstrated if either of the following conditions are met:
    (A) The product of (E) x (F) is equal to or greater than the 
overall HAP control efficiency required by Sec. 63.703(c)(1), (c)(3), 
or (c)(4); or
    (B) When the owner or operator is subject to Sec. 63.703(c)(2), the 
value of F is equal to 1 and the value of Caj at the outlet of the 
incinerator is demonstrated to be no greater than 20 ppmv by compound, 
on a dry basis.
    (3) To demonstrate compliance with Sec. 63.703(c)(1), (c)(3), or 
(c)(4) when affected HAP emission points are controlled by a fixed-bed 
carbon adsorption system with individual exhaust stacks for each carbon 
adsorber vessel, each owner or operator of an affected source shall 
perform a gaseous emission test using the following procedures:
    (i) Construct the overall HAP emission reduction system so that 
each volumetric flow rate and the total HAP emissions can be accurately 
determined by the applicable test methods and procedures specified in 
Sec. 63.705(b) (3) through (8);
    (ii) Assure that all HAP emissions from the affected HAP emission 
point(s) are segregated from gaseous emission points not affected by 
this subpart and that the emissions can be captured for measurement, as 
described in Sec. 63.705(c)(2)(ii) (A) and (B);
    (iii) Operate the emission control device with all affected HAP 
emission points connected and operating;
    (iv) Determine the efficiency (Hv) of each individual carbon 
adsorber vessel (v) using equation 4:

TR15DE94.008

    (v) Determine the efficiency of the carbon adsorption system 
(Hsys) by computing the average efficiency of the individual 
carbon adsorber vessels as weighted by the volumetric flow rate 
(Qhv) of each individual carbon adsorber vessel (v) using equation 
5:

TR15DE94.009

    (vi) Determine the efficiency (F) of the capture system using 
equation (3).
    (vii) For each HAP emission point subject to Sec. 63.703(c), 
compliance is demonstrated if the product of (Hsys) x (F) is equal 
to or greater than the overall HAP control efficiency required by 
Sec. 63.703(c)(1), (c)(3), or (c)(4).
    (4) An alternative method of demonstrating compliance with 
Sec. 63.703(c)(1) through (c)(4) is the installation of a total 
enclosure around the affected HAP emission point(s) and the ventilation 
of all HAP emissions from the total enclosure to a control device with 
the efficiency or outlet concentration specified in paragraph 
(c)(4)(iii) of this section. If this method is selected, the compliance 
test methods described in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this 
section are not required. Instead, each owner or operator of an 
affected source shall:
    (i) Demonstrate that a total enclosure is installed. An enclosure 
that meets the requirements in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) (A) through (D) of 
this section shall be considered a total enclosure. The owner or 
operator of an enclosure that does not meet these requirements may 
apply to the Administrator for approval of the enclosure as a total 
enclosure on a case-by-case basis. The enclosure shall be considered a 
total enclosure if it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the 
Administrator that all HAP emissions from the affected HAP emission 
point(s) are contained and vented to the control device. The 
requirements for automatic approval are as follows:
    (A) Total area of all natural draft openings shall not exceed 5 
percent of the total surface area of the total enclosure's walls, 
floor, and ceiling;
    (B) All sources of emissions within the enclosure shall be a 
minimum of four equivalent diameters away from each natural draft 
opening;
    (C) Average inward face velocity (FV) across all natural draft 
openings shall be a minimum of 3,600 meters per hour as determined by 
the following procedures:
    (1) All forced makeup air ducts and all exhaust ducts are 
constructed so that the volumetric flow rate in each can be accurately 
determined by the test methods and procedures specified in 
Sec. 63.705(b) (4) and (5); volumetric flow rates shall be calculated 
without the adjustment normally made for moisture content; and
    (2) determine FV by equation 6:

TR15DE94.010

    (D) the air passing through all natural draft openings shall flow 
into the enclosure continuously. If FV is less than or equal to 9,000 
meters per hour, the continuous inward flow of air shall be verified by 
continuous observation using smoke tubes, streamers, tracer gases, or 
other means approved by the Administrator over the period that the 
volumetric flow rate tests required to determine FV are carried out. If 
FV is greater than 9,000 meters per hour, the direction of airflow 
through the natural draft openings shall be presumed to be inward at 
all times without verification.
    (ii) Determine the control device efficiency using equation (2) or 
equations (4) and (5), as applicable, and the test methods and 
procedures specified in Sec. 63.705(b) (3) through (8).
    (iii) Be in compliance if either of the following criteria are met:
    (A) The installation of a total enclosure is demonstrated and the 
value of E determined from equation (2) (or the value of Hsys 
determined from equations (4) and (5), as applicable) is equal to or 
greater than the overall HAP control efficiency required by Sec. 63.703 
(c)(1), (c)(3), or (c)(4); or
    (B) When the owner or operator is subject to Sec. 63.703(c)(2), the 
installation of a total enclosure is demonstrated and the value of 
Caj at the outlet of the incinerator is demonstrated to be no 
greater than 20 ppmv by compound, on a dry basis.
    (5) To demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with 
Sec. 63.703(c)(5), each owner or operator of an affected source shall 
determine the mass of HAP contained in the coating per volume of 
coating solids applied for each batch of coating applied, according to 
the procedures of paragraphs (c)(5) (i) through (iii) of this section. 
If a batch of coating is identical to a previous batch of coating 
applied, the original calculations can be used to demonstrate the 
compliance of subsequent identical batches. The calculation of the HAP 
content of the coating used to demonstrate initial compliance with 
Sec. 63.703(c)(5) shall be submitted to the Administrator with the 
notification of compliance status required by Sec. 63.9(h) and 
Sec. 63.707(e). When demonstrating compliance by this procedure, 
Sec. 63.7(e)(3) of subpart A does not apply.
    (i) Determine the weight fraction of HAP in each coating applied 
using formulation data as specified in Sec. 63.705(b)(2);
    (ii) Determine the volume of coating solids in each coating applied 
from the facility records; and
    (iii) Compute the mass of HAP per volume of coating solids by 
equation 7:

TR15DE94.011

    (iv) The owner or operator of an affected source is in compliance 
with Sec. 63.703(c)(5) if the value of G is less than or equal to 0.18 
kilogram of HAP per liter of coating solids applied.
    (6) When nonregenerative carbon adsorbers are used to comply with 
Sec. 63.703(c)(1), the owner or operator may conduct a design 
evaluation to demonstrate initial compliance in lieu of following the 
compliance test procedures of paragraph (c) (1), (2), (3), or (4) of 
this section. The design evaluation shall consider the vent stream 
composition, constituent concentrations, flow rate, relative humidity, 
and temperature, and shall establish the design exhaust vent stream 
organic compound concentration level, capacity of the carbon bed, type 
and working capacity of activated carbon used for the carbon bed, and 
design carbon replacement interval based on the total carbon working 
capacity of the control device and the emission point operating 
schedule.
    (d)(1) To demonstrate initial compliance with Sec. 63.703(c) when 
hard piping or ductwork is used to direct HAP emissions from a HAP 
source to the control device, each owner or operator shall demonstrate 
upon inspection that the criteria of paragraph (d)(1)(i) and paragraph 
(d)(1) (ii) or (iii) are met.
    (i) The equipment must be vented to a control device.
    (ii) The control device efficiency (E or Hsys, as applicable) 
determined using equation (2) or equations (4) and (5), respectively, 
and the test methods and procedures specified in Sec. 63.705(b) (3) 
through (8), must be equal to or greater than the overall HAP control 
efficiency required by Sec. 63.703 (c)(1), (c)(3), or (c)(4), or the 
outlet concentration must be no greater than 20 ppmv by compound, on a 
dry basis, as required by Sec. 63.703(c)(2).
    (iii) When a nonregenerative carbon adsorber is used, the ductwork 
from the affected emission point(s) must be vented to the control 
device and the carbon adsorber must be demonstrated, through the 
procedures of Sec. 63.705(c) (1), (2), (3), (4), or (6) to meet the 
requirements of Sec. 63.703(c)(1).
    (2) To demonstrate initial compliance with provisions for mix 
preparation equipment, owners or operators shall, in addition to 
paragraph (d)(1) of this section, ensure that covers are closed at all 
times except when adding ingredients, withdrawing samples, transferring 
the contents, or making visual inspection when such activities cannot 
be carried out with the cover in place. Such activities shall be 
carried out through ports of the minimum practical size.
    (e) To demonstrate initial compliance with Sec. 63.703(e), the 
owner or operator of a wash sink subject to the provisions of this 
standard shall:
    (1) If complying with Sec. 63.703(e)(1)(ii), maintain at least the 
required minimum freeboard ratio at all times; or
    (2) If complying with Sec. 63.703(e)(1)(i), the owner or operator 
of an existing wash sink that vents emissions from the wash sink to a 
control device prior to March 11, 1994 must demonstrate that the 
control device is at least 95-percent efficient in accordance with 
Sec. 63.705(c) (2), (3), (4), or (6); or
    (3) If complying with Sec. 63.703(e)(1)(i), each owner or operator 
that vents emissions from the wash sink, through a capture device, and 
to a control device starting on or after March 11, 1994, must 
demonstrate that the overall HAP control efficiency is at least 88 
percent using the test methods and procedures in Sec. 63.705(c) (2), 
(3), (4), or (6).
    (f) To demonstrate initial compliance with Sec. 63.703(f), the 
owner or operator shall:
    (1) If complying with Sec. 63.703(f)(1)(ii), install and use a 
closed system for flushing fixed lines; or
    (2) If complying with Sec. 63.703(f)(1)(i), each owner or operator 
that vents emissions from the flushing operation, through a capture 
device, and to a control device must demonstrate that the overall HAP 
control efficiency is at least 95 percent using the test methods and 
procedures in Sec. 63.705(c) (2), (3), (4), or (6).
    (g) To demonstrate initial compliance with Sec. 63.703(d), the 
owner or operator shall:
    (1) If complying with Sec. 63.703(d)(1), install an enclosed 
transfer device for conveying particulate HAP, and use this device, 
following manufacturer's specifications or other written procedures 
developed for the device; or
    (2) If complying with Sec. 63.703(d)(2):
    (i) Test the baghouse or fabric filter to demonstrate that there 
are no visible emissions using the test method in Sec. 63.705(b)(10); 
and
    (ii) provide engineering calculations in accordance with 
Sec. 63.707(h) of this subpart with the performance test results 
required by Sec. 63.7(g)(1) and Sec. 63.9(h) of subpart A, to 
demonstrate that the ventilation rate from the particulate transfer 
activity to the control device is sufficient for capturing the 
particulate HAP.
    (h) To demonstrate initial compliance with Sec. 63.703(g), the 
owner or operator of an affected source shall follow the compliance 
procedures of either paragraph (h)(1), paragraph (h)(2), or paragraph 
(h)(3) of this section.
    (1) The owner or operator shall submit to the permitting authority 
with the notification of compliance status required by Sec. 63.9(h) and 
Sec. 63.707(f) the design specifications demonstrating that the control 
technique meets the required efficiency for each HAP compound. For 
steam strippers, these specifications shall include at a minimum: feed 
rate, steam rate, number of theoretical trays, number of actual trays, 
feed composition, bottoms composition, overheads composition, and inlet 
feed temperature.
    (2) The owner or operator shall demonstrate the compliance of a 
treatment process with the parts per million by weight (ppmw) 
wastewater stream concentration limits specified in 
Sec. 63.703(g)(1)(ii) by measuring the concentration of total VOHAP at 
the outlet of the treatment process using the method specified in 
Sec. 63.705(b)(9) (i) or (ii). A minimum of three representative 
samples of the wastewater stream exiting the treatment process, which 
are representative of normal flow and concentration conditions, shall 
be collected and analyzed. Wastewater samples shall be collected using 
the sampling procedures specified in Method 25D of appendix A of part 
60. Where feasible, samples shall be taken from an enclosed pipe prior 
to the wastewater being exposed to the atmosphere. When sampling from 
an enclosed pipe is not feasible, a minimum of three representative 
samples shall be collected in a manner that minimizes exposure of the 
sample to the atmosphere and loss of organic HAP prior to analysis.
    (3) The owner or operator shall demonstrate the compliance of a 
treatment process with the HAP fraction removed requirement specified 
in Sec. 63.703(g)(1)(i) by measuring the concentration of each HAP at 
the inlet and outlet of the treatment process using the method 
specified in Sec. 63.705(b)(9) (i) or (ii) and the procedures of 
paragraphs (h)(3) (i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) The same test method shall be used to analyze the wastewater 
samples from both the inlet and outlet of the treatment process.
    (ii) The HAP mass flow rate of each individually speciated HAP 
compound entering the treatment process (Eb) and exiting the 
treatment process (Ea) shall be determined by computing the 
product of the flow rate of the wastewater stream entering or exiting 
the treatment process, and the HAP concentration of each individual HAP 
compound of the entering or exiting wastewater streams, respectively.
    (A) The flow rate of the entering and exiting wastewater streams 
shall be determined using inlet and outlet flow meters, respectively.
    (B) The average HAP concentration of each individual HAP of the 
entering and exiting wastewater streams shall be determined according 
to the procedures specified in either paragraph (b)(9)(i)(A) or 
(b)(9)(ii)(B) of this section. If measuring the VOHAP concentration of 
an individual HAP in accordance with Sec. 63.705(b)(9)(i)(A), the 
concentrations of the individual organic VOHAP measured in the water 
shall be corrected to a HAP concentration by dividing each VOHAP 
concentration by the compound-specific fraction measured factor 
(FM) listed in table 34 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart G.
    (C) Three grab samples of the entering wastewater stream shall be 
taken at equally spaced time intervals over a 1-hour period. Each 1-
hour period constitutes a run, and the performance test shall consist 
of a minimum of three runs.
    (D) Three grab samples of the exiting wastewater stream shall be 
taken at equally spaced time intervals over a 1-hour period. Each 1-
hour period constitutes a run, and the performance test shall consist 
of a minimum of three runs conducted over the same 3-hour period at 
which the total HAP mass flow rate entering the treatment process is 
determined.
    (E) The HAP mass flow rates of each individual HAP compound 
entering and exiting the treatment process are calculated as follows:

TR15DE94.012

where:

Eb = HAP mass flow rate of an individually speciated HAP compound 
entering the treatment process, kilograms per hour.
Ea = HAP mass flow rate of an individually speciated HAP compound 
exiting the treatment process, kilograms per hour.
K = Density of the wastewater stream, kilograms per cubic meter.
Vbp = Average volumetric flow rate of wastewater entering the 
treatment process during each run p, cubic meters per hour.
Vap = Average volumetric flow rate of wastewater exiting the 
treatment process during each run p, cubic meters per hour.
Cbp = Average HAP concentration of an individually speciated HAP 
in the wastewater stream entering the treatment process during each run 
p, parts per million by weight.
Cap = Average HAP concentration of an individually speciated HAP 
in the wastewater stream exiting the treatment process during each run 
p, parts per million by weight.
n = Number of runs.

    (iii) The fraction removed across the treatment process for each 
individually speciated HAP compound shall be calculated as follows:

TR15DE94.013

where:

FR = Fraction removed for an individually speciated HAP compound 
of the treatment process.
Eb = HAP mass flow rate of an individually speciated HAP compound 
entering the treatment process, kilogram per hour.
Ea = HAP mass flow rate of an individually speciated HAP compound 
exiting the treatment process, kilograms per hour.

    (i) Startups and shutdowns are normal operation for this source 
category. Emissions from these activities are to be included when 
determining if the standards specified in Sec. 63.703 are being 
attained.
    (j) An owner or operator who uses compliance techniques other than 
those specified in this subpart shall submit a description of those 
compliance procedures, subject to the Administrator's approval, in 
accordance with Sec. 63.7(f) of subpart A.


Sec. 63.706  Recordkeeping requirements.

    (a) Except as stipulated in Sec. 63.703 (b), (c)(5), and (h), the 
owner or operator of a magnetic tape manufacturing operation subject to 
this subpart shall fulfill all applicable recordkeeping requirements in 
Sec. 63.10 of subpart A, as outlined in Table 1.
    (b) The owner or operator of an affected source subject to this 
subpart that is also subject to the requirements of 
Sec. 63.703(e)(1)(ii) (a minimum freeboard ratio of 75 percent), shall 
record whether or not the minimum freeboard ratio has been achieved 
every time that HAP solvent is added to the wash sink. A measurement of 
the actual ratio is not necessary for each record as long as the owner 
or operator has a reliable method for making the required 
determination. For example, the record may be made by comparing the HAP 
solvent level to a permanent mark on the sink that corresponds to a 75 
percent freeboard ratio. A HAP solvent level in the sink higher than 
the mark would indicate the minimum ratio has not been achieved.
    (c) The owner or operator of an affected source subject to this 
subpart that is subject to the requirements of Sec. 63.704(c)(10) 
shall:
    (1) If complying with Sec. 63.704(c)(10)(i), maintain hourly 
records of whether the flow indicator was operating and whether flow 
was detected at any time during the hour, as well as records of the 
times and durations of all periods when the vent stream is diverted 
from the control device or the monitor is not operating;
    (2) If complying with Sec. 63.704(c)(10) (ii), (iii), or (iv), 
maintain a record of monthly inspections, and the records of the times 
and durations of all periods when:
    (i) Flow was diverted through any bypass line such that the seal 
mechanism was broken;
    (ii) The key for a lock-and-key type lock had been checked out;
    (iii) The valve position on any bypass line changed to the open 
position; or
    (iv) The diversion of flow through any bypass line caused a 
shutdown of HAP-emitting operations.
    (d) The owner or operator of an affected source that is complying 
with Sec. 63.703(c) by performing a material balance in accordance with 
Sec. 63.705(c)(1) shall:
    (1) Maintain a record of each 7-day rolling average calculation; 
and
    (2) Maintain a record of the certification of the accuracy of the 
device that measures the amount of HAP or VOC recovered.
    (e) The owner or operator of a magnetic tape manufacturing 
operation subject to the provisions of Sec. 63.703 (b) and (h) shall 
maintain records of the calculations used to determine the limits on 
the amount of HAP utilized as specified in Sec. 63.703(b)(2), and of 
the HAP utilized in each month and the sum over each 12-month period.
    (f) The owner or operator of an affected source subject to the 
provisions of Sec. 63.703(c)(5) shall keep records of the HAP content 
of each batch of coating applied as calculated according to 
Sec. 63.705(c)(5), and records of the formulation data that support the 
calculations. When a batch of coating applied is identical to a 
previous batch applied, only one set of records is required to be kept.
    (g) The owner or operator of an affected source that is complying 
with Sec. 63.703(c)(1) through the use of a nonregenerative carbon 
adsorber and demonstrating initial compliance in accordance with 
Sec. 63.705(c)(6) shall maintain records to support the outlet VOC or 
HAP concentration value or the carbon replacement time established as 
the site-specific operating parameter to demonstrate compliance.
    (h) In accordance with Sec. 63.10(b)(1) of subpart A, the owner or 
operator of an affected source subject to the provisions of this 
subpart shall retain all records required by this subpart and subpart A 
for at least 5 years following their collection.


Sec. 63.707  Reporting requirements.

    (a) Except as stipulated in Sec. 63.703(b), (c)(5), and (h), the 
owner or operator of a magnetic tape manufacturing operation subject to 
this subpart shall fulfill all applicable reporting requirements in 
Sec. 63.7 through Sec. 63.10, as outlined in Table 1 to this subpart. 
These reports shall be submitted to the Administrator or delegated 
State.
    (b) The owner or operator of an existing magnetic tape 
manufacturing operation subject to Sec. 63.703(b) and (h) shall include 
the values of the limits on the amount of HAP utilized as determined in 
Sec. 63.703(b)(2), along with supporting calculations, in the initial 
notification report required by Sec. 63.9(b).
    (c) The owner or operator of a new magnetic tape manufacturing 
operation subject to Sec. 63.703(h) shall include the values of the 
limits on the amount of HAP utilized as determined in 
Sec. 63.703(b)(2), along with supporting calculations, and the amount 
of HAP expected to be utilized during the first consecutive 12-month 
period of operation in the initial notification report required by 
Sec. 63.9(b).
    (d) The owner or operator subject to Sec. 63.703(c) and following 
the compliance provisions of Sec. 63.705(c)(1) (material balance 
calculation) shall include with the notification of compliance status 
required by Sec. 63.9(h) the results of the initial material balance 
calculation.
    (e) The owner or operator subject to Sec. 63.703(c)(5) and 
following the compliance provisions of Sec. 63.705(c)(5) (low-HAP 
coating) shall include with the notification of compliance status 
required by Sec. 63.9(h) the results of the initial low-HAP coating 
demonstration.
    (f) The owner or operator subject to the provisions of 
Sec. 63.703(g) and demonstrating compliance in accordance with 
Sec. 63.705(h)(1) shall submit to the permitting authority with the 
notification of compliance status required by Sec. 63.9(h) the design 
specifications demonstrating that the control technique meets the 
required efficiency. For steam strippers, these specifications shall 
include at a minimum: feed rate, steam rate, number of theoretical 
trays, number of actual trays, feed composition, bottoms composition, 
overheads composition, and inlet feed temperature.
    (g) The owner or operator of an affected source that is complying 
with Sec. 63.703(c)(1) through the use of a nonregenerative carbon 
adsorber and demonstrating initial compliance in accordance with 
Sec. 63.705(c)(6) shall submit to the permitting authority with the 
notification of compliance status required by Sec. 63.9(h) the design 
evaluation.
    (h) The owner or operator of an affected source that is complying 
with Sec. 63.703(d) through the use of a baghouse or fabric filter and 
demonstrating initial compliance in accordance with Sec. 63.705(g)(2) 
shall submit to the permitting authority with the notification of 
compliance status required by Sec. 63.9(h) the engineering calculations 
that support the minimum ventilation rate needed to capture HAP 
particulates for delivery to the control device.
    (i) Excess emissions and continuous monitoring system performance 
report and summary reports shall be submitted as required by 
Sec. 63.10(e).
    (1) The owner or operator of an affected source subject to 
Sec. 63.704 shall include deviations of monitored values from the 
operating parameter values required by Sec. 63.704(c) in the reports. 
In the case of exceedances, the report must also contain a description 
and timing of the steps taken to address the cause of the exceedance.
    (2) The owner or operator of an affected source subject to 
Sec. 63.703(c)(5) shall report the HAP content of each batch of coating 
applied as the monitored operating parameter value in the reports.
    (3) The owner or operator of an affected source subject to 
Sec. 63.703(e)(1)(ii) and maintaining a minimum freeboard ratio of 75 
percent shall report violations of the standard (freeboard ratio is 
less than 75 percent) in the reports.
    (4) The owner or operator of an affected source subject to 
Sec. 63.704(c)(10) of this subpart shall include records of any time 
period and duration of time that flow was diverted from the control 
device, as well as the results of monthly inspections required by 
Sec. 63.704(c)(10)(ii), (iii), and (iv) in the reports.
    (5) The owner or operator of an affected source complying with 
Sec. 63.703(c) by performing a material balance calculation in 
accordance with Sec. 63.705(c)(1) shall report any exceedances of the 
standard, as demonstrated through the calculation, in the reports.
    (j) The owner or operator of a magnetic tape manufacturing 
operation subject to the provisions of Sec. 63.703(h) shall report the 
amount of HAP utilized in each 12-month period in an annual report to 
the Administrator according to the following schedule:
    (1) For existing sources, the first report shall cover the 12-month 
period prior to the source's compliance date and shall be submitted to 
the Administrator no later than 30 days after the compliance date; and
    (2) For new sources, the first report shall include the quantity of 
HAP that is expected to be utilized during the first 12 months of 
operation and shall be submitted to the Administrator no later than 30 
days after the compliance date;
    (3) Annual reports shall be submitted to the Administrator no later 
than 30 days after the last 12-month period included in the report; and
    (4) A report shall also be submitted no later than 30 days after 
monthly records required to be maintained by Sec. 63.706(e) indicate 
that any limit on the amount of HAP utilized has been exceeded. The 
report shall indicate the amount by which the limit has been exceeded.
    (k) The owner or operator establishing an alternate HAP outlet 
concentration limit in accordance with Secs. 63.703(i) and 
63.704(b)(11)(ii) shall:
    (1) To support the proposed limit, submit the following within 180 
days following completion of the performance test required by 
Sec. 63.7:
    (i) The performance test or CEM data collected to establish the 
limit;
    (ii) Records of when coating operations were down;
    (iii) The rationale for the alternate proposed limit; and
    (iv) A statement signed by a responsible official of the company 
that the control device was operated in accordance with good air 
pollution control practices and in the same manner it was operated to 
achieve compliance with the emission limitation for coating operations; 
and
    (2) In the excess emissions and continuous monitoring system 
performance report and summary report required by Sec. 63.10(e)(3), 
include parameter or CEM data to demonstrate compliance or 
noncompliance with the alternate outlet HAP concentration established 
in accordance with Secs. 63.703(i) and 63.704(b)(11)(ii) once the limit 
is approved.


Sec. 63.708  Delegation of authority.

    (a) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority to a 
State under section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act, the authorities 
contained in paragraph (b) of this section shall be retained by the 
Administrator and not transferred to a State.
    (b) Authorities which will not be delegated to States: no 
restrictions.

 Table 1 to Subpart EE.--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart 
                                   EE                                   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Applies to                                       
      Reference        subpart EE                  Comment              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1(a)(1)..........  Yes.........  Additional terms defined in Sec.    
                                     63.702(a); when overlap between    
                                     subparts A and EE occurs, subpart  
                                     EE takes precedence.               
63.1(a)(2)-(14).....  Yes.                                              
63.1(b)(1)-(3)......  Yes.                                              
63.1(c)(1)..........  Yes.........  Subpart EE specifies the            
                                     applicability of each paragraph in 
                                     subpart A to sources subject to    
                                     subpart EE.                        
63.1(c)(2)..........  No..........  The applicability of Secs.          
                                     63.701(a)(2) and 63.703 (b) and (h)
                                     to a source does not in and of     
                                     itself make a source subject to    
                                     part 70.                           
63.1(c)(4)-(5)......  Yes.                                              
63.1(e).............  Yes.                                              
63.2................  Yes.........  Additional terms defined in Sec.    
                                     63.702(a); when overlap between    
                                     subparts A and EE occurs, subpart  
                                     EE takes precedence.               
63.3................  Yes.........  Units specific to subpart EE are    
                                     defined in subpart EE.             
63.4(a)(1)-(3)......  Yes.                                              
63.4(a)(5)..........  Yes.                                              
63.4(b).............  Yes.                                              
63.4(c).............  Yes.                                              
63.5(a).............  Yes.                                              
63.5(b)(1)..........  Yes.                                              
63.5(b)(3)-(6)......  Yes.                                              
63.5(d).............  Yes.                                              
63.5(e).............  Yes.                                              
63.5(f).............  Yes.                                              
63.6(a).............  Yes.                                              
63.6(b)(1)-(5)......  Yes.                                              
63.6(b)(7)..........  Yes.                                              
63.6(c)(1)-(2)......  Yes.                                              
63.6(c)(5)..........  Yes.                                              
63.6(e)(1)-(2)......  Yes.                                              
63.6(e)(3)..........  Yes.........  Owners or operators of affected     
                                     sources subject to subpart EE do   
                                     not need to address startups and   
                                     shutdowns because the emission     
                                     limitations apply during these     
                                     times.                             
63.6(f)(1)..........  No..........  Sec. 63.701(f) of subpart EE        
                                     specifies when the standards apply.
63.6(f)(2)(i)-(ii)..  Yes.                                              
63.6(f)(2)(iii).....  Yes.........  Sec. 63.705(a)(3) of subpart EE     
                                     includes additional circumstances  
                                     under which previous capture device
                                     demonstrations are acceptable to   
                                     show compliance.                   
63.6(f)(2)(iv)-(v)..  Yes.                                              
63.6(f)(3)..........  Yes.                                              
63.6(g).............  Yes.                                              
63.6(h)(1)..........  No..........  Sec. 63.701(f) of subpart EE        
                                     specifies when the standards apply.
63.6(h)(2)(i).......  Yes.                                              
63.6(h)(2)(iii).....  Yes.                                              
63.6(h)(4)..........  Yes.........  This requirement applies only for   
                                     the visible emission test required 
                                     under Sec. 63.705(g)(2).           
63.6(h)(5)(i)-(iii).  Yes.                                              
63.6(h)(5)(v).......  No.                                               
63.6(h)(6)..........  Yes.                                              
63.6(h)(7)..........  No.                                               
63.6(h)(8)..........  Yes.                                              
63.6(h)(9)..........  No.                                               
63.6(i)(1)-(14).....  Yes.........  Sec. 63.703(c)(4) of subpart EE     
                                     shall not be considered emissions  
                                     averaging for the purposes of Sec. 
                                     63.6(i)(4)(i)(B).                  
63.6(i)(16).........  Yes.                                              
63.6(j).............  Yes.                                              
63.7(a)(1)..........  Yes.                                              
63.7(a)(2)(i)-(vi)..  Yes.                                              
63.7(a)(2)(ix)......  Yes.                                              
63.7(a)(3)..........  Yes.                                              
63.7(b).............  Yes.                                              
63.7(c).............  Yes.                                              
63.7(d).............  Yes.                                              
63.7(e).............  Yes.........  Sec. 63.7(e) establishes the minimum
                                     performance test requirements. This
                                     section does not preclude owners or
                                     operators from conducting multiple 
                                     test runs under alternate operating
                                     conditions to establish an         
                                     appropriate range of compliance    
                                     operating parameter values in      
                                     accordance with Sec.               
                                     63.704(b)(11)(i) of subpart EE.    
                                     Also as required in Sec. 63.701(f) 
                                     of subpart EE, the emissions       
                                     standards apply during startup and 
                                     shutdown.                          
63.7(f).............  Yes.                                              
63.7(g)(1)..........  Yes.                                              
63.7(g)(3)..........  Yes.                                              
63.7(h).............  Yes.                                              
63.8(a)(1)-(2)......  Yes.                                              
63.8(a)(4)..........  Yes.                                              
63.8(b)(1)..........  Yes.                                              
63.8(b)(2)..........  No..........  Sec. 63.704 of subpart EE specifies 
                                     monitoring locations; when multiple
                                     emission points are tied to one    
                                     central control device, the        
                                     monitors are located at the central
                                     control device.                    
63.8(b)(3)..........  Yes.                                              
63.8(c)(1)-(3)......  Yes.                                              
63.8(c)(4)..........  Yes.........  Provisions related to COMS, however,
                                     do not apply.                      
63.8(c)(5)..........  No.                                               
63.8(c)(6)-(8)......  Yes.                                              
63.8(d).............  Yes.                                              
63.8(e).............  Yes.                                              
63.8(f)(1)-(6)......  Yes.                                              
63.8(g)(1)-(5)......  Yes.                                              
63.9(a).............  Yes.                                              
63.9(b).............  Yes.                                              
63.9(c).............  Yes.                                              
63.9(d).............  Yes.                                              
63.9(e).............  Yes.                                              
63.9(f).............  Yes.                                              
63.9(g)(1)..........  Yes.                                              
63.9(g)(2)..........  No.                                               
63.9(g)(3)..........  Yes.                                              
63.9(h)(1)-(3)......  Yes.                                              
63.9(h)(5)-(6)......  Yes.                                              
63.9(i).............  Yes.                                              
63.9(j).............  Yes.                                              
63.10(a)............  Yes.                                              
63.10(b)(1).........  Yes.                                              
63.10(b)(2).........  Yes.........  Except information on startup and   
                                     shutdown periods is not necessary  
                                     because the standards apply during 
                                     these time periods.                
63.10(b)(3).........  Yes.                                              
63.10(c)(1).........  Yes.                                              
63.10(c)(5)-(8).....  Yes.........  Except information on startup and   
                                     shutdown periods is not necessary  
                                     because the standards apply during 
                                     these times.                       
63.10(c)(10)-(15)...  Yes.........  Except information on startup and   
                                     shutdown periods is not necessary  
                                     because the standards apply during 
                                     these times.                       
63.10(d)(1)-(2).....  Yes.                                              
63.10(d)(3).........  Yes.........  This requirement applies only for   
                                     the visible emissions test required
                                     under Sec. 63.705(g)(2). The       
                                     results of visible emissions tests 
                                     under Sec. 63.704(e) shall be      
                                     reported as required in Sec.       
                                     63.10(e)(3).                       
63.10(d)(4).........  Yes.                                              
63.10(d)(5).........  Yes.........  Except information on startup and   
                                     shutdown periods is not necessary  
                                     because the standards apply during 
                                     these times.                       
63.(10)(e)(1).......  Yes.                                              
63.10(e)(2)(i)......  Yes.                                              
63.10(e)(2)(ii).....  No.                                               
63.10(e)(3)(i)-(v)..  Yes.                                              
63.10(e)(3)(vi)-(vii  Yes.........  Except emissions/CMS performance    
 i).                                 during startup and shutdown do not 
                                     need to be specified because the   
                                     standards apply during startup and 
                                     shutdown.                          
63.10(e)(4).........  No.                                               
63.10(f)............  Yes.                                              
63.11-63.15.........  Yes.                                              
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 94-30502 Filed 12-14-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P