25138 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 85 / Thursday, May 3, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0009; FRL–8303–6] 

RIN 2060–AK22 

National Air Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Halogenated 

Solvent Cleaning 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is promulgating revised 

standards to limit emissions of 

methylene chloride (MC), 

trichloroethylene (TCE) and 

perchloroethylene (PCE) from facilities 

engaged in halogenated solvent 

cleaning. On December 2, 1994, EPA 

promulgated technology-based emission 

standards to control HAP emissions of 

halogenated solvents from halogenated 

solvent cleaning. Pursuant to the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) section 112(f), EPA has 

evaluated the remaining risk to public 

health and the environment following 

implementation of the technology-based 

rule and is promulgating more stringent 

standards in order to provide an ample 

margin of safety to protect public health. 

These final standards will provide 

further reductions of MC, PCE, and TCE 

beyond the 1994 national emission 

standards for hazardous air pollutants 

(NESHAP), through application of a 

facility-wide total MC, PCE, and TCE 

emission standard. In addition, EPA has 

reviewed the standards as required by 

section 112(d)(6) of the CAA and has 

determined that, taking into account 

developments in practices, processes, 

and control technologies, no further 

action beyond what is required under 

CAA section 112(f) is necessary at this 

time. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is 

effective May 3, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0009. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available 

(e.g., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute). 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center, Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0009, EPA West 

Building, Room B–102, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC. This Docket Facility is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

Docket telephone number is (202) 566– 

1744, and the telephone number for the 

Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566– 

1742. EPA visitors are required to show 

photographic identification and sign the 

EPA visitor log. After processing 

through the X-ray and magnetometer 

machines, visitors will be given an EPA/ 

DC badge that must be visible at all 

times. 

Informational updates will be 

provided via the EPA Web site at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm as 

they are available. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions about the final rule 

amendments, contact Mr. H. Lynn Dail, 

EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, Sector Policies and Programs 

Division, Natural Resources and 

Commerce Group (E143–03), Research 

Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone 

number (919) 541–2363; fax number 

(919) 541–3470; e-mail address: 

dail.lynn@epa.gov. For questions on the 

residual risk analysis, contact Mr. 

Dennis Pagano, EPA, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, Health 

and Environmental Impacts Division, 

Sector Based Assessment Group (C539– 

02), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; 

telephone number (919) 541–0502; fax 

number (919) 541–0840; e-mail address: 

pagano.dennis@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated 

Entities. Categories and entities 

potentially regulated by the final rule 

include: 

Category NAICS 1 code Examples of potentially regulated entities 

Industry ................................ Any of numerous industries using halogenated solvent 

cleaning, primary affected industries include those in 

NAICS Codes beginning with: 331 (primary metal 

man.), 332 (fabricated metal man.), 333 (machinery 

man.), 334 (computer and electronic product man.), 

335 (electrical equipment, appliance, and component 

man.); 336 (transportation equipment man.); 337 (furniture and related products man.); and 339 (misc. 

man.).

Operations at sources that are engaged in solvent 

cleaning using MC, PCE, or TCE. 

Federal, State, local, and 

tribal government.

.......................................................................................... Operations at sources that are engaged in solvent 

cleaning using MC, PCE, or TCE. 

1 North American Industry Classification System. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by the final rule. This final rule 

directs an owner or operator of a facility 

that is subject to the 1994 NESHAP for 

Halogenated Solvent Cleaning (40 CFR 

63.460 of subpart T), to determine 

whether today’s final standards require 

the facility additionally to operate under 

the certain specific emission limits. If 

you have any questions regarding the 

applicability of the final rule to a 

particular entity, consult the person 

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

Docket. The docket number for the 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Halogenated 

Solvent Cleaning (40 CFR part 63, 

subpart T) is Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2002–0009. 

Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition 

to being available in the docket, an 

electronic copy of the final rule is also 

available on the WWW. Following the 

Administrator’s signature, a copy of the 

final rule will be posted on EPA’s 

Technology Transfer Network (TTN) 

policy and guidance page for newly 

proposed or promulgated rules at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN 

provides information and technology 

exchange in various areas of air 

pollution control. 

Judicial Review. Under section 

307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 

judicial review of the final rule is 

available only by filing a petition for 

review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit by July 

2, 2007. Under CAA section 

307(d)(7)(B), only an objection to the 

final rule that was raised with 

mmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOB

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 85 / Thursday, May 3, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 25139 

reasonable specificity during the period 

for public comment can be raised during 

judicial review. Moreover, under CAA 

section 307(b)(2), the requirements 

established by this final action may not 

be challenged separately in any civil or 

criminal proceedings brought by EPA to 

enforce these requirements. 

Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA 

further provides a mechanism for EPA 

to convene a proceeding for 

reconsideration, ‘‘if the person raising 

the objection can demonstrate to the 

EPA that it was impracticable to raise 

such an objection [within the period for 

public comment] or if the grounds for 

such objection arose after the period for 

public comment (but within the time 

specified for judicial review) and if such 

objection is of central relevance to the 

outcome of the rule.’’ Any person 

seeking to make such a demonstration to 

the EPA should submit a Petition for 

Reconsideration to the Office of the 

Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, 

Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, with 

a copy to both the person(s) listed in the 

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section, and the Associate 

General Counsel, Air and Radiation Law 

Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail 

Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20004. 

Outline. The information presented in 

this Preamble is organized as follows: 

I. Background 

A. What is the statutory authority for this 

action? 

B. What is halogenated solvent cleaning? 

C. What are the health effects of 

halogenated solvent cleaning? 

D. What does the 1994 halogenated solvent 

cleaning NESHAP require? 

II. Summary of the Proposed Rule 

A. Issuance of the Notice of Data 

Availability (NODA) 

III. Summary of the Final Rule 

A. What does the final rule require? 

1. What are the requirements for 

halogenated solvent cleaning machines? 

2. What are the requirements for 

halogenated solvent cleaning machines 

at military depot maintenance facilities? 

3. What are the requirements for 

continuous web cleaners and 

halogenated solvent cleaning machines 

at narrow tube manufacturing and 

aerospace industries? 

B. What is the rationale for the final rule? 

1. Revision of the Baseline Risk Estimate 

2. Rationale for the 60,000 kg/yr MC 

Equivalent Emission Limit 

3. Rationale for the Requirements for 

Halogenated Solvent Cleaning Machines 

at Military Depot Maintenance Facilities. 

4. Rationale for Our Decisions Regarding 

Continuous Web Cleaners and 

Halogenated Solvent Cleaning Machines 

at Narrow Tube Manufacturing and 

Aerospace Facilities 

C. What is the compliance schedule? 

D. What is the final decision on the 

applicable unit risk value? 

E. What is EPA’s finding on the Section 

112(d)(6) review requirements? 

IV. Responses to Significant Comments 

A. Significant Comments on the Proposal 

1. Emission Limit Option 1 or Option 2 

2. Equation for MC Equivalents 

3. Use of CalEPA or OPPTS URE for 

Implementation of the Emission Limit 

4. Compliance Deadline 

5. Applicability of Control Requirements 

6. Costs Associated With Compliance 

7. General Comments 

V. Responses to Significant Comments on 

EPA’s December 14, 2006, Notice of Data 

Availability (NODA) 

A. Emission Limits 

B. Cost Impacts 

C. Compliance Schedule 

VI. Impacts 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

J. Congressional Review Act 

I. Background 

A. What is the statutory authority for 

this action? 

Section 112 of the CAA establishes a 

comprehensive regulatory process to 

address emissions of hazardous air 

pollutants (HAP) from stationary 

sources. In accordance with CAA 

section 112(c), EPA identifies categories 

and subcategories of sources emitting 

one or more of the HAP listed in CAA 

section 112(b). CAA section 112(d) then 

requires us to promulgate national 

technology-based emission standards for 

each category of sources that emits or 

has the potential to emit any single HAP 

at a rate of ten tons or more per year or 

any combination of HAP at a rate of 25 

tons or more per year (known as ‘‘major 

sources’’), as well as for certain area 

sources emitting less than those 

amounts. For major sources, these 

technology-based standards must reflect 

the maximum reductions of HAP 

achievable (after considering cost, 

energy requirements, and non-air health 

and environmental impacts) and are 

commonly referred to as maximum 

achievable control technology (MACT) 

standards. For area sources, CAA 

section 112(d)(5) provides that the 

standards may reflect generally 

available control technology or 

management practices in lieu of MACT, 

and are commonly referred to as 

generally available control technology 

(GACT) standards. 

In what we refer to as the ‘‘technology 

review’’, CAA section 112(d)(6) then 

requires EPA to review the CAA section 

112(d) standards and to revise them ‘‘as 

necessary, taking into account 

developments in practices, processes 

and control technologies,’’ no less 

frequently than every 8 years. 

The residual risk review is described 

in section 112(f) of the CAA. EPA 

prepared a Report to Congress 

discussing (among other things) 

methods of calculating risk posed (or 

potentially posed) by sources after 

implementation of the MACT standards, 

the public health significance of those 

risks, the means and costs of controlling 

them, actual health effects to persons in 

proximity to emitting sources, and 

recommendations as to legislation 

regarding such remaining risk. The EPA 

prepared and submitted this report 

(‘‘Residual Risk Report to Congress,’’ 

EPA–453/R–99–001) in March 1999. 

The Congress did not act on any of the 

recommendations in the report; thereby, 

triggering the second stage of the 

standard-setting process, the residual 

risk phase. 

CAA section 112(f)(2) requires us to 

determine whether additional standards 

are ‘‘required in order to provide an 

ample margin of safety to protect public 

health.’’ If the MACT standards for a 

HAP ‘‘classified as a known, probable, 

or possible human carcinogen do not 

reduce lifetime excess cancer risks to 

the individual most exposed to 

emissions from a source in the category 

or subcategory to less than 1-in-amillion,’’ EPA must promulgate residual 

risk standards for the source category (or 

subcategory) as necessary to provide an 

ample margin of safety. EPA’s 

framework for making ample margin of 

safety determinations under CAA 

section 112(f)(2) is provided in the 

Benzene NESHAP (54 FR 38044, 

September 14, 1989) which was codified 

by Congress in CAA section 112(f)(2)(B). 

The EPA also must promulgate more 

stringent standards to prevent an 

adverse environmental effect (defined in 

CAA section 112(a)(7) as ‘‘any 

significant and widespread adverse 

effect * * * to wildlife, aquatic life, or 

other natural resources, including 

adverse impacts on populations of 

endangered or threatened species or 

significant degradation of 

environmental quality over broad 

mmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOB

25140 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 85 / Thursday, May 3, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

areas.’’), but must consider costs, 

energy, safety, and other relevant factors 

in doing so. 

B. What is halogenated solvent 

cleaning? 

Halogenated solvent cleaning 

machines use the halogenated solvents 

methylene chloride (MC), 

perchloroethylene (PCE), 

trichloroethylene (TCE), or 1,1,1,- 

trichloroethane (TCA) and halogenated 

solvent blends or their vapors to remove 

soils such as grease, oils, waxes, carbon 

deposits, fluxes, and tars from metal, 

plastic, fiberglass, printed circuit 

boards, and other surfaces. Halogenated 

solvent cleaning is typically performed 

prior to processes such as painting, 

plating, inspection, repair, assembly, 

heat treatment, and machining. Types of 

solvent cleaning machines include, but 

are not limited to, batch vapor, in-line 

vapor, in-line cold, and batch cold 

solvent cleaning machines. Buckets, 

pails, and beakers with capacities of 7.6 

liters (2 gallons) or less are not 

considered solvent cleaning machines. 

Halogenated solvent cleaning does not 

constitute a distinct industrial category, 

but is an integral part of many major 

industries. The five 3-digit NAICS 

Codes that use the largest quantities of 

halogenated solvents for cleaning are 

NAICS 337 (furniture and related 

products manufacturing), NAICS 332 

(fabricated metal manufacturing), 

NAICS 335 (electrical equipment, 

appliance, and component 

manufacturing), NAICS 336 

(transportation equipment 

manufacturing), and NAICS 339 

(miscellaneous manufacturing). 

Additional industries that use 

halogenated solvents for cleaning 

include NAICS 331 (primary metals), 

NAICS 333 (machinery), and NAICS 334 

(electronic equipment manufacturing). 

Non-manufacturing industries such as 

railroad (NAICS 482), bus (NAICS 485), 

aircraft (NAICS 481), and truck (NAICS 

484) maintenance facilities; automotive 

and electric tool repair shops (NAICS 

811); and automobile dealers (NAICS 

411) also use halogenated solvent 

cleaning machines. We estimated that 

there were approximately 16,400 batch 

vapor, 8,100 in-line, and perhaps as 

many as 100,000 batch cold cleaning 

machines in the U.S. prior to 

promulgation of the MACT standards. 

More recent information shows that the 

current number of cleaning machines is 

much lower than these pre-MACT 

estimates. We currently estimate the 

number of sources in this source 

category to be about 3,800 cleaning 

machines located at 1,900 facilities in 

the U.S. This estimate is based on 

information we collected in 1998 and 

reflects the decreases in HAP emissions 

and demand that were expected due to 

implementation of MACT control 

technologies and work practice 

standards. Information suggesting that 

further decreases in solvent usage and 

therefore, solvent emissions, have 

occurred in the post-MACT 

implementation years may reflect that 

either the number of sources in the 

source category have declined or that 

sources are implementing methods to 

recycle more solvent, resulting in 

reduced emissions and some cost 

savings. 

‘‘Solvent cleaning machine’’ is 

defined in the Federal Register, 40 Code 

of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 63.461. 

Solvent cleaning machine types such as 

batch cleaners and in-line cleaners are 

also described. Both cleaner types can 

be designed to use either solvent at 

room temperature (cold cleaners) or 

solvent vapor (vapor cleaners). 

Continuous web cleaners are a subset 

of in-line cleaners that are used to clean 

products such as films, sheet metal, and 

wire in rolls or coils. The workload is 

uncoiled and conveyorized throughout 

the cleaning machine at speeds in 

excess of 11 feet per minute and 

recoiled or cut as it exits the machine. 

Emission points from continuous 

cleaners are similar to emission points 

from other inline cleaners. Continuous 

cleaners are semi-enclosed, with 

emission points where the workload 

enters and exits the machine. Squeegee 

rollers reduce carry out emissions by 

removing excess solvent from the 

exiting workload. Some continuous 

machines have exhaust systems similar 

to those used with some other in-line 

cleaners. 

C. What are the health effects of 

halogenated solvent cleaning? 

MC, PCE, TCA, and TCE are the 

primary halogenated solvents used for 

solvent cleaning. The health effects of 

these four solvents were described in 

the proposed rule of August 17, 2006 

(71 FR 47680), which is available for 

review in docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2002– 

0009. All four produce acute and/or 

chronic non-cancer health effects at 

sufficient concentrations; three of the 

four have been classified as probable or 

possible human carcinogens by either 

EPA or other governmental or 

international agencies. Carbon 

tetrachloride and chloroform are no 

longer used as degreasing solvents; 

therefore, their health effects were not 

discussed in the proposed rule. 

The Agency’s Integrated Risk 

Information System’s (IRIS) 

toxicological reviews of PCE, TCE and 

MC are currently being developed or 

revised. The current schedule indicates 

that the new or final IRIS toxicological 

reviews of the carcinogens PCE, TCE 

and MC are not expected until late 2008 

for PCE, mid 2009 for MC, and late 2010 

for TCE. A publicly available draft 

revised toxicological review of the noncarcinogenic HAP TCA, has been 

released for external peer review. A 

final revised IRIS toxicological review of 

TCA is not expected until late 2007. The 

National Research Council (NRC) 

released a report in 2006 that described 

their findings after a comprehensive 

review of the health effects of TCE, 

focusing on critical issues in developing 

an objective, realistic, and scientifically 

based health risk assessment for TCE. 

This report is available at http:// 

www.nas.edu/catalog/11707.html. 

Toxicity or status information for the 

four HAPs may be obtained from the 

following Web sites: EPA’s Toxicity 

database at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/ 

toxsource/table1.pdf shows the 

benchmarks for the four HAPs used in 

the risk assessment. Specific 

information underlying the values used 

may be found at the following locations: 

California EPA’s Web site at http:// 

www.oehha.ca.gov/air/hot—spots/ 

index.html has the background 

information on PCE and TCE used to 

develop the cancer potency values. 

The Agency for Toxic Substances and 

Disease Registry’s Web site at http:// 

www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxpro2.html has the 

background information used to develop 

the non-cancer values for MC and PCE. 

EPA’s IRIS Web site at http:// 

www.epa.gov/iris/index.html provides 

the information supporting the cancer 

potency value for MC. 

Status reports for IRIS chemical 

reassessments, (i.e., TCA) are available 

at http://cfpub.epa.gov/iristrac/ 

index.cfm. 

D. What does the 1994 halogenated 

solvent cleaning NESHAP require? 

On December 2, 1994, we 

promulgated national emission 

standards for halogenated solvent 

cleaning (59 FR 61801, (December 2, 

1994)) and required existing sources to 

comply with the national emission 

standards by December 2, 1996. 

The promulgated standards in 40 CFR 

Subpart T include multiple alternatives 

to allow owners or operators maximum 

compliance flexibility. The final rules 

for the halogenated solvent cleaning 

source category are available in the 

docket, EPA–HA–OAR–2002–0009. 

II. Summary of the Proposed Rule 

The August 17, 2006 proposed rule 

would have required all owners and 

mmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOB

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 85 / Thursday, May 3, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 25141 

operators of halogenated solvent 

cleaning machines that are subject to the 

1994 NESHAP (40 CFR Part 63, subpart 

T), except for cold batch area source 

cleaning machines subject to GACT, to 

comply with a facility-wide solvent 

emission limit, summarized in Table 1 

of this Preamble. As proposed, the 

standards would be in addition to the 

requirements of the 1994 NESHAP. 

Specifically, we co-proposed two 

facility-wide emission limits for 

facilities that use multiple HAP 

solvents, 25,000 kg/yr and 40,000 kg/yr 

of MC equivalent emissions, and 

solicited comments on which of these 

two options would be the most 

appropriate. We developed a method for 

facilities using multiple HAP solvents to 

determine their emission limit by 

calculating their MC-equivalent 

emissions using the toxicity-weighting 

equation, which is shown as equation 1, 

below. We proposed that where more 

than one halogenated solvent is used at 

a facility, the owner or operator would 

be required to calculate the facility’s 

weighted halogenated solvent cleaning 

emissions using equation 1 and to 

comply with the limit in the last row of 

Table 1 of this Preamble. For owners or 

operators of facilities that use a single 

halogenated solvent (MC, TCE or PCE), 

we proposed that the owner or operator 

of each affected facility would be 

required to ensure that its emissions of 

the single halogenated solvent would 

not exceed the single-solvent limits 

specified in Table 1 of this Preamble. 

TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED FACILITY-WIDE ANNUAL EMISSION LIMITS

Solvents emitted 

Proposed facility-wide 

annual emission limits in 

kg/yr—option 1 

Proposed facility-wide 

annual emission limits in 

kg/yr—option 2 

PCE only .................................................................................................................................. a 3,200 b (26,700) a 2,000 b (16,700) 

TCE only .................................................................................................................................. 10,000 6,250 

MC only .................................................................................................................................... 40,000 25,000 

Multiple solvents—Calculate the MC-weighted emissions using equation 1 .......................... 40,000 25,000 

a PCE emission limit calculated using California EPA (CalEPA) Unit Risk Estimate (URE). b PCE emission limit calculated using the EPA Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPPTS) Unit Risk Estimate (URE). 

Equation 1: 

(kgs/yr of PCE emissions x A)+(kgs/yr of 

TCE emissions x B) + (kgs/yr of MC 

emissions) = MC weighted 

emissions in kgs/yr 

In equation 1, the facility emissions of 

PCE and TCE are weighted according to 

their carcinogenic potency relative to 

that of MC. Thus, ‘‘A’’ in the equation 

is the ratio of the cancer unit risk 

estimate (URE) for PCE to the URE for 

MC, and the ‘‘B’’ in the equation is the 

ratio of the URE for TCE to the URE for 

MC. Because the IRIS assessment for 

PCE is in process, we requested 

comment on the use of the CalEPA URE, 

the OPPTS URE, or other values in 

deriving the PCE emission limit for the 

final rule. See 71 FR 47680. As 

explained in our proposal, the value of 

‘‘A’’ would be 1.5 or 12.5, depending on 

whether we used the OPPTS URE or the 

CalEPA URE value for PCE. The value 

for ‘‘B’’ is 4.25. At proposal, we stated 

that there may be other approaches for 

deriving emissions standards for 

facilities that use multiple HAP. We 

requested comment on other possible 

methods for establishing emission limits 

at facilities using more than one of the 

listed HAP solvents. 

Further, at proposal we presented and 

discussed our evaluation of four other 

emission limits that would reduce 

residual risk. These emission limits are 

summarized below: 

<bullet≤ 100,000 level—Sources 

would reduce MC-equivalent emissions 

to no more than 100,000 kg/yr (220,000 

lbs/yr). 

<bullet≤ 60,000 level— Sources 

would reduce MC-equivalent emissions 

to no more than 60,000 kg/yr (132,000 

lbs/yr). <bullet≤ 15,000 level— Sources 

would reduce MC-equivalent emissions 

to no more than 15,000 kg/yr (33,000 

lbs/yr). <bullet≤ 6,000 level—Sources would 

reduce MC-equivalent emissions to no 

more than 6,000kg/yr (13,200 lbs/yr). 

See 71 FR 47680–81 for further 

discussion of these four emission levels. 

We proposed a compliance deadline 

of two years after the effective date of 

the final rule for existing sources by 

resolving the seemingly conflicting 

provisions of section 112(f)(4)(A) and 

112(i), and by determining that CAA 

section 112(i) was the controlling 

provision for compliance deadlines for 

existing sources with regard to 

standards promulgated under CAA 

section 112(f)(2). This proposal was 

based on our belief that the proposed 

compliance date was realistic for any 

affected facility that has to plan a 

control strategy, purchase and install 

the control device(s), and bring the 

control device(s) online. 

See 71 FR 47683–84 for a complete 

discussion of the proposed facility-wide 

solvent emission limit, compliance 

options, and our rationale for proposing 

the facility-wide solvent emission limit. 

A. Issuance of the Notice of Data 

Availability (NODA) 

We received comments on the 

proposed rule from industry, states, 

solvent manufacturers, industry 

associations and district air 

associations. Industry’s comments were 

primarily submitted by four specific 

sectors: Narrow tubing manufacturing 

facilities, facilities that manufacture 

specialized products requiring 

continuous web cleaning, aerospace 

manufacturing and maintenance 

facilities, and military depot 

maintenance facilities. Additional 

comments were submitted by facilities 

that use multiple halogenated solvent 

cleaning machines. Comments and data 

submitted by the four industry sectors 

focused on the unique nature and size 

of the halogenated solvent cleaning 

machines they use in their cleaning 

operations. These data and information 

were otherwise not available to EPA at 

proposal. The commenters expressed 

concern about their ability to comply 

with the proposed emission limits 

because of technical and economic 

difficulties. They also expressed an 

inability to meet the proposed 

compliance deadline. Based on these 

comments and our desire to reconcile 

these concerns, we issued a Notice of 

Data Availability (NODA) on December 

14, 2006 (71 FR 75182). In addition, in 

order to have adequate time to address 

these concerns, we asked for and 

received an extension of our December 

15, 2006 court-ordered promulgation 

deadline to April 16, 2007. The NODA 

was intended to gather more 

information, especially from these four 

industry sectors, on the availability of 

technology or methods to meet the 

proposed emission limits, the costs to 

achieve the proposed emission limits, 

and the time required to achieve the 

proposed emission limits. 

mmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOB

25142 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 85 / Thursday, May 3, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

As a result of the NODA, EPA 

received significant comments from 

responders associated with the abovenoted industries, industry associations, 

and commenters that were not 

associated with the above-noted 

industries. They provided additional 

data and information that were directly 

relevant to the promulgation of the 

proposed facility-wide emission limits. 

These data and information were 

otherwise not available to EPA at 

proposal. A more complete description 

of the comments received may be found 

in section V of this Preamble and in the 

docket for this rule. 

III. Summary of Final Rule 

A. What does the final rule require? 

Using the data from comments on the 

proposal and NODA, we re-evaluated 

the costs and technical feasibility of 

complying with the proposed emission 

limits. The re-analysis resulted in a final 

rule that changed from what we 

proposed, especially for four industry 

sectors: narrow tubing manufacturing 

facilities, facilities that manufacture 

specialized products requiring 

continuous web cleaning, aerospace 

manufacturing and maintenance 

facilities, and military depot 

maintenance facilities. 

1. What are the requirements for 

Halogenated Solvent Cleaning 

Machines? 

EPA is promulgating a facility-wide 

emission limit of 60,000 kg/yr MC 

equivalent, as shown in Table 2 of this 

Preamble, applicable to all existing 

halogenated solvent cleaning machines 

with the exception of halogenated 

solvent cleaning machines used by the 

following industries: Facilities that 

manufacture narrow tubing, facilities 

that manufacture specialized products 

requiring continuous web cleaning, 

aerospace manufacturing and 

maintenance facilities, and military 

depot maintenance facilities. 

This final rule also requires owners or 

operators of halogenated solvent 

cleaning machines that use any one of 

the halogenated solvents covered by this 

rule (i.e., MC, PCE or TCE), with the 

exception of the halogenated solvent 

cleaning machines used by the abovenoted industries, to ensure that facilitywide solvent emissions from all 

halogenated solvent cleaning activities 

are less than or equal to the limit for the 

single halogenated solvent specified in 

Table 2 of this Preamble. 

This final rule also requires 

halogenated solvent cleaning machines 

that are constructed or reconstructed 

after August 17, 2006, with the 

exception of halogenated solvent 

cleaning machines associated with the 

above-noted industries, to comply with 

the 60,000 kg/yr MC equivalent 

emission limit upon the effective date of 

this rule or upon startup, whichever 

occurs later. The revised requirements 

apply in addition to the 1994 NESHAP. 

For area sources subject to the 1994 

NESHAP and constructed or 

reconstructed after August 17, 2006, the 

final rule revisions add to the previous 

1994 NESHAP by requiring 

implementation of the 60,000 kg/yr MC 

equivalent facility-wide emission limit 

upon the effective date of this rule or 

upon startup, whichever occurs later. 

This final rule also limits the use of any 

one of the halogenated solvents covered 

by this rule (i.e., MC, PCE or TCE), at 

area sources, to the limits for the single 

halogenated solvent specified in Table 2 

of this Preamble. The area sources in the 

halogenated solvent cleaning source 

category that are subject to GACT are 

not subject to these additional 

standards. These area sources are cold 

batch cleaning machines. 

When a facility’s total halogenated 

solvent emissions from its degreasing 

operations exceed the applicable 

emission limits, the facility must 

implement means to comply with these 

amended standards. In addition, under 

this final rule, the 1994 NESHAP 

requirements for all halogenated solvent 

cleaning machines remain applicable. 

Compliance with the 60,000 kg/yr MC 

equivalent emission limit is 

demonstrated by determining the 

annual PCE, TCE, and MC emissions for 

all cleaning machines at the facility, 

using Equation 1 as necessary, and 

comparing to the emission limits in 

Table 2. 

There are no other additional 

equipment monitoring or work practice 

requirements associated with the 

facility-wide annual emissions limit. 

Annual emissions of PCE, TCE, and MC 

are determined based on records of the 

amounts and dates of the solvents added 

to cleaning machines during the year, 

the amounts and dates of solvents 

removed from cleaning machines during 

the year, and the amounts and dates of 

the solvents removed from cleaning 

machines in solid waste. Records of the 

calculation sheets showing how the 

annual emissions were determined must 

be maintained. A facility will determine 

compliance with the standards by 

comparing their annual MC-equivalent 

emissions to the limits specified in 

Table 2 of this final rule. 

TABLE 2.—SUMMARY OF THE FACILITY-WIDE ANNUAL EMISSION LIMITS

Solvents emitted 

Final general halogenated solvent cleaning 

facility-wide annual 

emission limits in kg/yr 

Final military maintenance facility-wide annual emission limits in 

kg/yr 

PCE only .................................................................................................................................. 4,800 8,000 

TCE only .................................................................................................................................. 14,100 23,500 

MC only .................................................................................................................................... 60,000 100,000 

Multiple solvents—Calculate the MC-weighted emissions using equation 1 .......................... 60,000 100,000 

Equation 1: 

(kgs/yr of PCE emissions x A)+(kgs/yr of 

TCE emissions x B) + (kgs/yr of MC 

emissions) = MC weighted 

Emissions in kgs/yr 

In this equation, the facility emissions 

of PCE and TCE are weighted according 

to their carcinogenic potency relative to 

that of MC. Thus, ‘‘A’’ in the equation 

is the ratio of the URE for PCE to the 

URE for MC, and the ‘‘B’’ in the 

equation is the ratio of the URE for TCE 

to the URE for MC. The value of ‘‘A’’ is 

12.5 (see section C below). The value for 

‘‘B’’ is 4.25. 

2. What are the requirements for 

halogenated solvent cleaning machines 

at military depot maintenance facilities? 

For existing halogenated solvent 

cleaning machines in use at military 

depot maintenance facilities where 

multiple halogenated solvents are 

emitted, the final rule sets a facilitywide emission limit of 100,000 kg/yr of 

MC equivalent emissions as indicated in 

Table 2 of this Preamble. This final rule 

also limits the use of any one of the 

halogenated solvents covered by this 

rule (i.e., MC, PCE or TCE), to the limits 

for the single halogenated solvent 

specified in Table 2 of this Preamble. In 

mmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOB

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 85 / Thursday, May 3, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 25143 

addition, the 1994 NESHAP 

requirements remain applicable. For halogenated solvent cleaning 

machines that are constructed or 

reconstructed after August 17, 2006 and 

that are used at military depot 

maintenance facilities, the final rule 

revisions add to the previous 1994 

NESHAP by requiring implementation 

of the 100,000 kg/yr MC equivalent 

emission limit upon the effective date of 

this rule or upon startup, whichever 

occurs later. 

Military Depot Maintenance Facilities 

are Government-owned industrial 

centers that operate solely for the 

purpose of repairing, modifying, 

converting and refitting worn and/or 

damaged military assets for 

redistribution to military units and are 

subject to the 1994 NESHAP. Depot 

level maintenance includes the repair, 

fabrication, manufacture, rebuilding, 

assembly overhaul, modification, 

refurbishment, test, analysis, repairprocess design, in-service engineering, 

upgrade, painting and disposal of parts, 

assemblies, subassemblies, software, 

components, or end items that require 

industrial shop facilities, tooling, 

support equipment, and/or personnel of 

higher technical skills, or processes 

beyond the military installation’s 

organizational level capability. 

3. What are the requirements for 

continuous web cleaners and 

halogenated solvent cleaning machines 

at narrow tube manufacturing and 

aerospace facilities? 

The requirements set forth in this 

final rule are not applicable to 

continuous web cleaning machines, 

halogenated solvent cleaning machines 

that are located at narrow tubing 

manufacturing facilities, and the 

aerospace manufacturing and 

maintenance industry and facilities. 

Narrow tube manufacturing facilities 

primarily engage in the production of 

small diameter (mechanical and 

hypodermic size) cold drawn metallic, 

seamless tubes from materials such as 

stainless steel, nickel alloys, titanium 

and its alloys, and alloys of zirconium 

with a portion of the outside diameters 

1/4’’ or less (a subset of NAICS 331210), 

and are subject to the 1994 NESHAP. 

Aerospace manufacturing and 

maintenance facilities manufacture, 

rework, or repair aircraft such as 

airplanes, helicopters, missiles, rockets, 

and space vehicles, and are subject to 

the 1994 NESHAP. The 1994 NESHAP 

requirements remain applicable to all 

the continuous web and halogenated 

solvent cleaning machines associated 

with the above-noted facilities. 

For the above-noted facilities, we are 

adopting no changes to the 1994 

NESHAP under CAA Section 112(f) 

because the current level of control 

called for by the existing NESHAP 

reduces HAP emissions to levels that 

present an acceptable level of risk, 

protects public health with an ample 

margin of safety, and prevents any 

adverse environmental effects. The 

finding regarding an ‘‘ample margin of 

safety’’ is based on a consideration of 

the additional costs of further control as 

represented by compliance with 

emissions limits adapted for each 

industry sector, considering availability 

of technology, costs and time to comply 

with further controls (see Section III.B., 

below for a discussion of our rationale 

for this final rule). 

B. What is the rationale for the final 

rule? 

Based on comments and data received 

on both the proposal and the NODA, we 

re-evaluated the risk, the technical 

feasibility, the costs of the proposed 

options, and the compliance time 

needed to implement the proposed 

options. This re-analysis focused 

especially on the four industry sectors 

discussed above. Additionally, in 

response to public comments we 

updated the risk assessment for the 

entire source category using the 2002 

National Emissions Inventory (NEI) 

database, which was not available for 

the proposal. The following rationale 

presents the results of our re-analysis of 

the data. 

1. Revision of the Baseline Risk Estimate 

Based on public comment, we used 

the 2002 NEI inventory to re-analyze the 

risk from this source category. The 

resulting re-analysis of risk at the 

baseline emission level (i.e., the level of 

emissions allowed by the 1994 MACT) 

indicated that the maximum individual 

cancer risk (MIR) associated with this 

source category is 100-in-a-million with 

an annual cancer incidence of 0.55. This 

is as compared to the 200-in-a-million 

MIR and 0.40 annual cancer incidence 

level that we presented at proposal, 

which was based on the 1999 NEI 

database. We consider both MIR values 

to be acceptable levels of maximum 

individual risk considering the number 

of people exposed at these levels and 

the absence of other adverse human and 

environmental health effects. We note 

that the MIR of 100-in-a-million 

(calculated using the 2002 NEI data) is 

the same regardless of the URE for PCE 

chosen for the risk analysis (i.e., the 

CalEPA value or the OPPTS value, 

which results were contrasted at 

proposal). This is because PCE is not the 

only driver of the MIR risk level for the 

highest risk facilities. 

Given the uncertainties associated 

with the development of emission 

inventories, neither the 1999 nor the 

2002 NEI inventory should be 

considered as correct in an absolute 

sense or as suggesting temporal trends 

in degreasing machine populations or 

emissions. Rather, we consider them to 

be ‘‘snapshots’’ of the true long-term 

inventory of emissions for this source 

category, each carrying its own degree of 

uncertainty. As such, the derived risk 

assessment results compared above 

should be regarded as ranges within 

which the true risk metrics are likely to 

fall. 

The revised population risk 

distribution at baseline emission levels 

shows that about 25 people are exposed 

to the MIR risk level, about 22,000 

people are at estimated risks of ≤= 10- 

in-a-million risk level, and about 

4,000,000 people are at estimated risks 

of ≤= 1-in-a-million. This is compared to 

approximately 90 people exposed to 

risks at the MIR level (200-in-a-million), 

about 42,000 people at estimated risks 

of ≤= 10-in-a-million risk level, and 

about 6,000,000 people at estimated 

risks of ≤= 1-in-a-million that we 

presented at proposal. Similar to the 

MIR and annual cancer incidence 

metrics, these values may be an 

indication of the uncertainty presented 

by the databases because, as earlier 

explained, both inventories are 

‘‘snapshots’’ of the industry rather than 

an absolute reflection of the ‘‘current’’ 

state of the industry. 

We did not reassess the 

environmental risks using the 2002 NEI 

inventory but believe that no ‘‘adverse 

environmental effects,’’ as defined in 

CAA section 112(a)(7), would occur 

given the similarities of the human 

health risk results between the 1999 NEI 

data and 2002 NEI data and the fact that 

we showed in the proposal that no 

adverse environmental effects would 

likely occur using the 1999 NEI 

inventory. 

2. Rationale for the 60,000 kg/yr MC 

Equivalent Emission Limit 

EPA is promulgating a facility-wide 

emission limit of 60,000 kg/yr (MC 

equivalent emissions) applicable to 

emissions from all new and existing 

halogenated solvent cleaning machines 

that are subject to the 1994 NESHAP, 

with the exception of halogenated 

solvent cleaning machines used by the 

following industry sectors: Narrow 

tubing manufacturing, facilities that 

manufacture specialized products 

requiring continuous web cleaning, 

aerospace manufacturing and 

maintenance, military depot 

mmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOB

25144 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 85 / Thursday, May 3, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

1 In considering these revised cost estimates, it 

should be noted that there may be inherent 

uncertainties or anomalies in the availability of 

information that underlie our costs for our options, 

regardless of whether the estimates be positive costs 

or net cost savings. There may also be other factors 

that are not reflected in these estimates, however. 

For example, these estimates are largely based on 

a 15-year equipment life for existing affected 

cleaners (20-year for new cleaners) and a discount 

rate of 7 percent. If industry determines that a 

shorter equipment life for the controls considered 

in this analysis is appropriate based on perceived 

uncertainty of future availability of these solvents, 

then the opportunity cost of capital will be higher 

and our estimates of net cost savings may be 

altered. If these controls are in operation longer 

than expected by industry, however, then a longer 

equipment life would be appropriate and our 

estimates of costs, which may be net costs or net 

savings, may also be altered. 

maintenance operations, and cold batch 

cleaning machines (which are subject to 

GACT). Area sources operating 

halogenated solvent cleaning machines 

that are subject to GACT also are not 

required to comply with the facilitywide emission limits. This final rule 

reflects our decision that the 60,000 kg/ 

yr MC equivalent emission limit from 

the August 17, 2006 proposal provides 

an ample margin of safety to protect 

public health and prevents adverse 

environmental effects. 

In response to public comments 

received on our proposal and 

subsequent NODA, we re-examined the 

data and assumptions used to estimate 

the risk and compliance costs presented 

in the Preamble to our proposed rule. 

We determined that certain significant 

data and assumptions that we used to 

develop our cost estimates at proposal 

were either no longer relevant, not 

reflective of more recent inventory data, 

or not valid. As a result, we re-evaluated 

risks using the more recent inventory 

data and modified our cost estimates in 

response to public comment. The most 

important change we made is that we reanalyzed the risk metrics and costs 

using the halogenated solvent cleaning 

facilities in the finalized 2002 NEI, but 

removing facilities in four specific 

industry sectors—aerospace 

manufacture and maintenance facilities, 

narrow tube manufacturing facilities, 

facilities using continuous web cleaning 

machines, and military equipment 

maintenance facilities—from the 

database for the purpose of estimating 

the risks and compliance costs 

associated with the remaining facilities 

(Sections III.A.3 and III.B.3 explain our 

rationale for removing the facilities in 

these industry sectors from this 

analysis). 

Other changes we made to our cost 

estimates in response to public 

comment are as follows: 

<bullet≤ We used the finalized 2002 

NEI database containing facility and 

emissions data as the source of our 

baseline emissions estimates. We 

removed aerospace manufacture and 

maintenance facilities, narrow tube 

manufacturing facilities, facilities using 

continuous web cleaning machines, and 

military equipment maintenance 

facilities from the database for the 

purpose of estimating the compliance 

costs for the remaining facilities. 

(Sections III.A.3 and III.B.3 explain our 

rationale for removing these facilities 

from this analysis.) 

<bullet≤ We changed our assumptions 

about the percent reductions in 

emissions that can be achieved by 

vacuum-to-vacuum machines from 97 

percent to 95 percent. 

<bullet≤ In the proposal, we assigned 

no operation and maintenance cost to 

vacuum-to-vacuum machines. Based on 

public comment, our cost estimates for 

this final rule incorporate annual 

operation and maintenance costs of 

$18,832 for each machine. 

<bullet≤ We updated the cost per 

gallon of PCE and TCE based on 

information provided by commenters 

representing manufacturers of solvents 

and the narrow tube manufacturing 

industry. <bullet≤ We added a carbon 

adsorption device (CAD) option that 

assumes a 30 percent control in 

emissions. We did not have this option 

in the cost assumptions we made at 

proposal. We received comments that 

this option may be available for some 

industries but that it is at least ten times 

more expensive than the retrofit options 

we costed for the proposal. <bullet≤ We reduced the number of 

units for which solvent switching could 

be a compliance option from 30 percent, 

used in the proposal, to 15 percent. We 

also corrected our method for 

calculating the emission reduction 

impacts and solvent savings associated 

with solvent switching. After re-assessing the risk and 

calculating revised cost estimates, we 

re-examined our decision as to what 

level of control is necessary to provide 

an ample margin of safety to protect 

human health and to prevent adverse 

environmental effects, as required by 

the second step of the residual risk 

process under CAA section 112(f)(2). 

We considered the re-assessed risk 

estimates and the other health 

information along with additional 

factors consistent with the 1989 

Benzene NESHAP (54 FR 38044, 

September 14, 1989), such as cost, 

technological feasibility, uncertainties 

and other relevant factors as discussed 

at proposal. We re-analyzed the risk 

metrics using the halogenated solvent 

cleaning facilities in the 2002 NEI, but 

removing aerospace manufacture and 

maintenance facilities, narrow tube 

manufacturing facilities, facilities using 

continuous web cleaning machines, and 

military depot maintenance facilities. At proposal we had presented two 

options for emission limits that would 

apply to all facilities in the category 

subject to the 1994 MACT standards— 

25,000 kg/yr MC equivalent and 40,000 

kg/yr MC equivalent. We estimated that 

the 25,000 kg/yr limit would result in an 

emissions reduction of 6,778 tons/year, 

thereby reducing the MIR to 10-in-a 

million and reducing cancer incidence 

by 0.14–0.27 cases annually (depending 

on which URE we use for PCE), at an 

annual cost savings of $4.9 million 

annually or a cost savings of $724/ton 

HAP reduced. Comments received 

included support for and against this 

level of emissions reduction. Similarly, 

at proposal we estimated that applying 

the 40,000 kg/yr limit to facilities in the 

entire source category would result in 

an emissions reduction of 5,911 tons/yr, 

reducing the MIR to 20-in-a million and 

reducing cancer incidence by 0.12–0.23 

cases annually, at an annual cost 

savings of $5.9 million annually or a 

cost savings of $1,000/ton HAP 

reduced.1

In developing the final rule, we 

initially re-examined the 25,000 kg/yr 

and 40,000 kg/yr levels of control for the 

subset of the category that excludes the 

four specific industry sectors identified 

above, using costing assumptions 

revised based on public comment as 

described above. This re-analysis uses 

the 2002 NEI data rather than the 1999 

NEI data used in the proposal. We 

observed that although the overall 

reductions in MIR and cancer incidence 

at these levels would be similar to those 

estimated at proposal for the entire 

category, the substantial cost savings 

estimated at proposal would change to 

a net cost for both emission limits. This 

is a result of both our use of certain cost 

assumptions at proposal that have been 

amended for analyzing the cost of the 

final rule and the fact that four industry 

sectors are now being considered 

separately in this final rule. Specifically, 

for the 25,000 kg/yr limit, our analysis 

of the subset of the category that 

excludes the four specific industry 

sectors shows the same reduction in 

MIR (to 10-in-a-million) and similar 

estimated reduction in cancer 

incidence, 0.24 cases annually, as we 

showed at proposal. In contrast, our cost 

analysis for this subset of the source 

category shows a total annualized cost 

(not savings) of about $1.2 million, or a 

cost of about $520 per ton HAP reduced 

(we estimate 2,351 tons HAP reduced at 

this level). Similarly, for the 40,000 kg/ 

yr limit, our revised analysis shows the 

mmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOB

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 85 / Thursday, May 3, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 25145 

2 For comparison purposes, we estimated that 

compliance with the requirements of the National 

Perchloroethylene Air Emission Standards for Dry 

Cleaning Facilities Final Rule (71 FR 42727, July 27, 

2006), would result in an annualized cost of about 

$7 million to achieve a cancer incidence reduction 

of 2 cancer cases per year. This yields a cost of $3.5 

million per cancer case avoided based on the 

CalEPA unit risk estimate for PCE. 

same reduction in MIR (to 20-in-amillion), and a similar estimated 

reduction in cancer incidence, 0.21 

cases annually, as we showed at 

proposal, but at an annualized cost (not 

savings) of $130,000, or a cost of about 

$74 per ton HAP reduced (we estimate 

1,759 tons HAP reduced at this level). 

The incremental tons of HAP reduced is 

nearly 600 tons with the incremental 

cost of about $1,800 per ton HAP 

reduced. 

Because we estimated that the cost of 

achieving the 25,000 kg/yr and 40,000 

kg/yr emissions limits would be 

considerably greater than what we had 

projected for this rulemaking at 

proposal, we additionally evaluated the 

next less stringent emission limit that 

was considered and presented in the 

proposal, but not selected as one of our 

two proposed options for limiting 

emissions from the entire category—a 

60,000 kg/yr MC equivalent facilitywide emission limit. For the subset of 

the category that excludes the four 

specific industry sectors, we estimated 

that the 60,000 kg/yr level reduces the 

MIR to between 20-in-a million and 50- 

in-a million and reduces cancer 

incidence by about 0.19 cases/yr. These 

risk reductions are estimated to be 

achieved at total annualized cost 

savings of just over $1.3 million, or a 

savings of $832/ton of HAP reduced (we 

estimate 1,594 tons HAP reduced at this 

level). 

To more fully analyze the 

implications of the various emission 

limits, we calculated the overall and 

incremental annualized cost per cancer 

case avoided. In this case, we compared 

the proposed 40,000 kg/yr option and 

the next less-stringent alternative, the 

60,000 kg/yr MC equivalent emission 

limit. Given the overall reduction in 

incidence from the baseline of 0.21 

cancer cases/yr at the 40,000 kg/yr level 

and the total annualized cost of 

$130,000, the overall cost per cancer 

case avoided is about $620,000.2 For the 

60,000 kg/yr level, there is an estimated 

overall reduction in incidence of 0.19 

cases/yr and a total annualized cost 

savings of just over $1.3 million, 

resulting in an overall savings of almost 

$7 million per cancer case avoided. 

While these cost estimates for the 

overall reductions from current levels of 

control appear to be modest (given the 

estimated cost savings of intermediate 

control levels), the incremental 

reduction in emissions and risk of going 

from the 60,000 kg/yr to the more 

stringent 40,000 kg/yr level are small 

and the corresponding cost-effectiveness 

estimates of these incremental 

reductions are unacceptably high. The 

incremental incidence avoided between 

the 40,000 kg/yr level and the 60,000 

kg/yr level is 0.02 cases. The annualized 

incremental cost between the two levels 

is about $1.5 million, with resulting 

incremental cost per cancer case 

avoided of about $73 million. (Annual 

operation and maintenance and 

annualized capital costs of $1.9 million 

per year and an estimated costs savings 

for solvent recovery of $0.4 million per 

year.) 

After considering revisions to the risk 

and cost estimates presented at 

proposal, we believe that the 60,000 kg/ 

yr MC equivalent emission limit for 

those halogenated solvent cleaning 

machines not identified as being in use 

by one of the four sectors discussed in 

Section III.A.3., above, protects public 

health with an ample margin of safety 

and prevents adverse environmental 

effects. Specifically, the 60,000 kg/yr 

level reduces 90 percent of the HAP 

emissions reduced at the 40,000 kg/yr 

level. The 60,000 kg/year emission limit 

achieves reductions in MIR and cancer 

incidence that are similar to those 

expected at the 25,000 kg/yr and 40,000 

kg/yr emission levels. The incremental 

reduction in emissions with a 40,000 

kg/yr level instead of 60,000 kg/yr 

imposes an incremental cost of $1.5 

million per year. The incremental cost 

per ton of this reduction is roughly 

$9,000/ton. Moreover, in comparing the 

40,000 kg/yr and the 60,000 kg/yr 

emission limits, the incremental cost 

per cancer case avoided, $73 million/ 

case, is substantial, supporting our 

conclusion that the $60,000 kg/yr 

emission limit provides an ample 

margin of safety consistent with the 

Benzene NESHAP. 

3. Rationale for the Requirements for 

Halogenated Solvent Cleaning Machines 

at Military Depot Maintenance Facilities 

For halogenated solvent cleaning 

machines in use at military depot 

maintenance facilities, the final rule sets 

a facility-wide emission limit of 100,000 

kg/yr (MC equivalent emissions). In 

addition, the 1994 NESHAP 

requirements remain applicable. 

For halogenated solvent cleaning 

machines at these facilities that are 

constructed or reconstructed after 

August 17, 2006, the final rule revisions 

add to the previous 1994 NESHAP by 

requiring implementation of the 100,000 

kg/yr MC equivalent emission limit 

upon the effective date of this rule or 

upon startup, whichever occurs later. 

We based this decision on comments 

received from one such facility that we 

considered representative of these types 

of military facilities that maintain and 

restore military weapons systems. They 

indicated an increase in maintenance 

and restoration levels due to current 

worldwide military activities and that 

they could not meet either of the 

proposed emission limits within the 

proposed two-year compliance period. 

In additional comments in response to 

the NODA, and in subsequent meetings 

with the Agency, they indicated that 

they could meet the 100,000 kg/yr 

emission limit within a three-year 

compliance timeframe. We then 

projected that implementation of the 

100,000 kg/yr MC equivalent emission 

limit will reduce the MIR from 

halogenated solvent cleaning machines 

associated with a military depot 

maintenance facility from about six-ina-million to about three-in-a-million 

with an estimated reduction in annual 

cancer incidence of 0.002 cancer cases 

per year. An analysis of the costs for 

only this facility which was based on 

information from the 2002 NEI shows 

that the annual cost effectiveness of 

complying with this limit results in a 

cost savings of about $625/ton with 

annualized cost savings of 

approximately $55,761. Therefore, we 

believe that a requirement for these 

facilities to meet a 100,000 kg/yr MC 

equivalent emission limit is technically 

feasible, provides an annual and longterm cost savings, provides an ample 

margin of safety to protect public health 

and prevents adverse environmental 

effects. 

4. Rationale for Our Decisions Regarding 

Continuous Web Cleaners and 

Halogenated Solvent Cleaning Machines 

at Narrow Tube Manufacturing and 

Aerospace Facilities 

The requirements set forth in this 

final rule are not applicable to 

continuous web cleaning machines, 

halogenated solvent cleaning machines 

that are associated with the narrow 

tubing manufacturing industry, and 

aerospace manufacturing and 

maintenance industry and facilities. The 

requirements of the 1994 NESHAP and 

its subsequent amendments (where 

relevant) remain applicable to all the 

continuous web and halogenated 

solvent cleaning machines associated 

with the above-noted facilities. 

We received comments from these 

three sectors on the proposal, in 

response to the NODA, and in 

subsequent meetings with 

mmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOB

25146 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 85 / Thursday, May 3, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

3 California Department of Health Services 

(CDHS), Health Effects of Tetrachloroethylene 

(PCE), Berkeley, CA, April 1992. (Available in the 

rulemaking docket.) 

4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cleaner 

Technologies Substitutes Assessment: Professional 

Fabricare Processes (EPA 744–B–98–001), June 

1998. (Available at http://www.epa.gov/dfe/pubs/ 

garment/CTSA/.) 

representatives of these industries. They 

submitted information that stressed the 

unique nature of their cleaning 

operations, the technical infeasibility, 

the uncertainty of our original cost 

estimates, the processes involved, 

including review of their process 

changes by other federal agencies such 

as FDA and FAA (see Section IV.A. for 

additional discussion), and the 

difficulty they would experience in 

complying with the proposed emission 

limits within the proposed timeframe. 

Based on new information they 

provided in response to the NODA, 

including new cost information, we reanalyzed the costs for each of these 

three sectors and estimated the annual 

cost effectiveness of complying with 

emission limits they provided in 

comments. 

For the Aerospace sector, we 

estimated an MIR of 30-in-a-million and 

an annual cancer incidence of 0.066 at 

their baseline emission level. We then 

projected that implementation of the 

100,000 kg/yr MC equivalent limit (the 

maximum reduction we discussed in 

the proposal) would reduce the MIR 

from halogenated solvent cleaning 

machines associated with this sector to 

about 20-in-a-million with a reduction 

to their annual cancer incidence to 

about 0.03 cancer cases annually. Our 

revised cost estimate showed a cost 

effectiveness of $2,000/ton with a total 

annualized cost of nearly $630,000. 

For the narrow tube manufacturers, 

we estimated an MIR of 70-in-a-million 

with an annual cancer incidence of 0.08 

at their baseline level of emissions. 

Based on comments from this industry 

indicating that they could reasonably 

accomplish a 10 percent reduction in 

their current emission levels within a 

three-year compliance time, we 

developed risk and cost estimates for 

that level of reduction. We have 

estimated that the MIR would decrease 

to approximately 60-in-a-million with 

very little change expected in the 

annual cancer incidence. The annual 

cost effectiveness for complying with an 

overall 10 percent reduction in total 

emissions limit would be a cost of over 

$3,600/ton with total annualized costs 

of nearly $700,000. 

For the continuous web cleaners, we 

estimated a baseline MIR risk level of 

about 30-in-a-million with an annual 

cancer incidence of 0.03 cases. 

Comments from this industry suggested 

they could achieve an 80 percent overall 

control efficiency compared to their 

current emission levels, within a threeyear compliance period. The current 

NESHAP limit requires a 70 percent 

overall control efficiency. To achieve 

the 80 percent overall efficiency, 

facilities would be required to reduce 

emissions by 33 percent ((1–70%) - (1– 

80%) / (1–70%) = 33%). We developed 

risk and cost estimates for that level of 

reduction. We have estimated that 

under this scenario, the MIR would 

decrease to approximately 20-in-amillion with and the annual cancer 

incidence would decrease to 0.02 cases 

annually. The annual cost effectiveness 

of complying with the 80 percent 

overall emission control efficiency rate 

is over $3,400/ton with a total 

annualized costs of over $600,000. 

In summary, we are adopting no 

changes to the 1994 NESHAP, under 

CAA Section 112(f) for the halogenated 

solvent cleaning machines used by the 

above-noted specific industry sectors 

(i.e., aerospace, narrow tube 

manufacturers, and the facilities that 

use continuous web cleaning machines) 

because the current level of emissions 

control called for by the existing 

NESHAP both reduces risk to acceptable 

levels and provides an ample margin of 

safety to protect public health. Further, 

additional standards are not necessary 

to prevent adverse environmental 

effects. The finding regarding an ‘‘ample 

margin of safety’’ is based on a 

consideration of the relatively small 

reductions in health risks likely to result 

from the feasible emission reductions 

we evaluated, the additional costs 

required to achieve further control, the 

lack of technically feasible control 

options for these sectors, and the time 

required to comply with any 

requirements. 

C. What is the compliance schedule? 

In this final rule, in accordance with 

CAA section 112(i)(3), we are 

promulgating a compliance deadline of 

three years from the effective date of 

this final rule for all existing 

halogenated solvent cleaning machines 

and for all existing halogenated solvent 

cleaning machines at military depot 

maintenance facilities. Facilities 

described in Section III.A.3 above are 

not subject to further requirements 

beyond the 1994 NESHAP. 

At proposal, we determined that CAA 

section 112(i) was the controlling 

provision that addresses compliance 

deadlines for existing sources with 

regard to standards promulgated under 

CAA sections 112(d)(6) and 112(f)(2). 

See 71 FR 47684–86. We hereby 

incorporate our discussion by reference. 

In the NODA, we asked for comments 

on the issue of whether a two year 

compliance deadline was sufficient time 

to comply with the co-proposed facilitywide emission limits. We received 

significant comments on this 

compliance deadline issue. 

We are persuaded by the commenters 

representing the general population that 

use halogenated solvent cleaning 

machines that existing sources will need 

more than 2 years to comply with the 

final revised standards. Affected 

facilities would have to plan their 

control strategy, purchase and install 

the control device(s), and subsequently, 

bring the control device(s) online. We, 

therefore, believe that for the remaining 

halogenated solvent cleaning facilities, 

this final compliance deadline of three 

years is more reasonable and realistic 

than the proposed two year compliance 

deadline. 

D. What is the final decision on the 

applicable unit risk value? 

At proposal, we explained that the 

Agency’s IRIS health assessment for PCE 

is currently being revised. Therefore, we 

requested comment on the use of the 

CalEPA URE,3 the OPPTS URE,4 or 

other values in deriving the PCE 

emission limit for the final rule (71 FR 

47680). We received comments both 

supporting and opposing our use of the 

CalEPA URE for PCE. 

For those situations where a 

particular chemical does not have a 

cancer potency value in IRIS, we have 

established a prioritization process for 

accessing other health assessment 

information (as described in our 

‘‘Residual Risk Report to Congress’’ on 

pages 56 through 58). This hierarchy 

includes peer reviewed cancer potency 

values from EPA as well as from other 

agencies that conduct chemical 

carcinogenicity assessments such as the 

California Environmental Protection 

Agency (CalEPA). See also our 

responses to comments on this issue in 

the final Coke Oven Batteries NESHAP 

(70 FR 19998–20000, (April 15, 2005)). 

In this final rulemaking, we have chosen 

to use the CalEPA URE in preference to 

the OPPTS value for a number of 

reasons. CalEPA’s PCE cancer unit risk 

value was derived using two different 

approaches for estimating the 

metabolized dose in humans, whereas 

the OPPTS value incorporated a single 

model of metabolism. Additionally, 

while the CalEPA approach allowed for 

the consideration of variability and 

uncertainty, the OPPTS approach did 

not. We have used both the CalEPA and 

OPPTS UREs for PCE in the risk 

mmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOB

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 85 / Thursday, May 3, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 25147 

characterizations for the dry cleaning 

residual risk rulemaking (71 FR 42723) 

and for this rulemaking (71 FR 47670; 

see also the risk document in the 

rulemaking docket). However, for the 

purposes of this rulemaking, we have 

chosen to use the CalEPA URE to 

implement the facility emission limits. 

Explicit consideration of variability and 

uncertainty is more consistent with 

EPA’s current approach for conducting 

risk assessments. EPA also uses the 

CalEPA URE in the 1999 National-Scale 

Air Toxics Assessment (available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata1999/), 

in Superfund cleanup decisions, and in 

EPA’s Air Toxics Risk Assessment 

Reference Library (available at: http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/fera/risk—atra— 

main.html; dose-response values in 

Appendix C at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

fera/data/risk/vol—1/appendix—c.pdf. 

We have the authority to revisit (and 

revise, if necessary) any rulemaking if 

there is sufficient evidence that changes 

within the affected industry or 

significant improvements to the science 

suggest that the public might experience 

significantly more or less risk than 

estimated in the risk assessment 

prepared for the rulemaking (See CAA 

section 301). In particular, it may 

become necessary at some time in the 

future to revise the facility emission 

limits if the pending IRIS assessments 

result in significant changes to the UREs 

for PCE, TCE, or MC. 

Additionally, while we have chosen 

to use the CalEPA URE for PCE for 

implementing this rule, this should not 

be interpreted as a precedent for all 

future rules. As was stated earlier, in the 

dry cleaning residual risk rulemaking 

(71 FR 42723) and in this rulemaking, 

we used both the CalEPA and OPPTS 

values to characterize the risk. When 

there is uncertainty, it is EPA’s 

preference to provide a range of values. 

However, for the purposes of this 

rulemaking, a single value was needed 

to implement the facility emission 

limits. EPA’s choice of the CalEPA value 

does not mean that this is the only value 

to be considered while the EPA IRIS 

assessment is pending. 

E. What is EPA’s finding on the CAA 

section 112(d)(6) review requirements? 

We stated in the proposal that in the 

technology review under CAA section 

112(d)(6) we did not identify any 

additional control technologies beyond 

those that are already in widespread use 

within the source category (e.g., 

freeboard refrigeration devices, 

extended freeboards, working mode and 

downtime covers). We concluded that 

the proposed rule changes would satisfy 

both CAA section 112(d)(6) and 

112(f)(2). See 71 FR 47685. 

Since the August 17, 2006 proposal, 

we have not identified any significant 

developments in practices, processes, or 

control technologies. We have 

discovered, however, that affected 

industries are researching the 

development of halogenated solvent 

cleaning machines and alternate 

cleaning technologies. At some time in 

the future these technologic 

developments could lead to significant 

technologies relevant to the CAA 

section 112(d)(6) analysis, but we 

understand that to date the engineering 

and implementation of such technology 

has not been proven to satisfy the 

performance needs of the industry 

coupled with the low-emission 

directives of the agency. We therefore 

conclude that the final facility-wide 

emissions limits we are promulgating 

today satisfy our obligations under both 

CAA sections 112(d)(6) and 112 (f)(2). 

IV. Responses to Significant Comments 

A. Significant Comments on the 

Proposal 

During the public comment period, 

EPA received significant comments, 

new data, and information concerning 

program elements for which we 

specifically sought public comments. 

We received favorable and unfavorable 

comments on both proposed emission 

limits. Commenters provided 

substantial information on the use of the 

methylene chloride equivalency 

equation. We received significant 

comments on the implementation of the 

emission limits from commenters 

representing narrow tube manufacturing 

facilities, aerospace manufacturing and 

maintenance facilities, military depot 

maintenance facilities, facilities that use 

multiple solvent cleaning machines, and 

facilities that use continuous web 

cleaning machines. 

All of the comments, information, and 

data submitted by commenters are 

compiled in the Response to Comments 

document available in the Air Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0009. Some of 

the more significant comments are 

discussed below. 

1. Emission Limit Option 1 or Option 2 

Comment: While four commenters 

supported the proposed Option 1 

(40,000 kg/yr MC equivalent emission 

limit), other commenters encouraged 

EPA to set relative standards. Another 

commenter, an association of state air 

program administrators, believed that 

Option 2 (25,000 kg/yr of MC equivalent 

emission limit) still presented 

unacceptably high risks; but noted that 

it was preferable to Option 1. Three 

commenters supported our proposed 

Option 2. According to the commenters, 

Option 2 would provide significant 

emissions reductions and greater 

protection of public health, safety, and 

welfare. In addition to lowering the 

potential cancer and non-cancer chronic 

health risk associated with exposure to 

the three HAPs, the additional 

reductions of trichloroethylene (TCE) 

under Option 2 would likely augment 

the State’s efforts to reach attainment 

with the 8-hour ozone standard since 

TCE is identified as an ozone precursor. 

One commenter recognized the 

reductions in the number of people 

exposed to cancer risk and the capital 

costs between Option 1 and the more 

stringent Option 2. The commenter 

stated that under Option 2 the numbers 

of affected sources are greater than the 

number of affected sources under 

Option 1, but that EPA determined that 

those affected sources complying with 

Option 2 would still save money 

because the annual solvent savings were 

projected to exceed the annualized 

capital and operating costs. The 

commenter added that even at a 

financial cost, Option 2 would be 

warranted, and that given the financial 

savings, Option 2 was the only 

reasonable choice. One commenter 

stated that the proposed facility-wide 

emission limits would leave source 

owners only two compliance options: 

(1) Establish internal production 

restrictions or (2) install add-on capture 

and control equipment to ensure 

operating flexibility. Another 

commenter requested that EPA exempt 

batch cold cleaning machines operating 

with capture and control devices that 

are subject to federally-enforceable 

monitoring conditions in a Title V 

permit. 

Response: As stated in Section II of 

the Preamble, we presented and 

discussed our evaluation of four other 

emission limits that would reduce 

residual risk. These emission limits 

were 100,000 kg/yr, 60,000 kg/yr, 15,000 

kg/yr and 6,000 kg/yr (71 FR 47680–81). 

In this final rule, as stated in Section 

II.A. of the Preamble, we are 

promulgating the 60,000 kg/yr facilitywide MC equivalent emission limit. 

EPA’s risk assessment for the proposal 

and an updated risk assessment for the 

final rule using data from EPA’s 2002 

NEI database show that the maximum 

individual risk (MIR) and population 

risks associated with the majority of 

halogenated solvent cleaning machines 

would be reduced by adopting the 

60,000 kg/yr MC-equivalent emission 

limit. Based on the more recent 

assessment using the 2002 NEI, the MIR 

mmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOB

25148 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 85 / Thursday, May 3, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

would be reduced from 100-in-a-million 

to between 20 and 50-in-a-million and 

the total number of people with risks 

greater than 1-in-a-million would also 

be reduced from 4,000,000 people to 

between 500,000 and 1,000,000. Our 

cost analyses at proposal and the more 

recent revisions to the cost estimates 

based on the 2002 NEI show that these 

emission and risk reductions are 

technically feasible within the threeyear time for compliance, and facilities 

would experience a cost savings 

implementing the emission limit. 

Therefore, we believe that the 60,000 

kg/yr facility-wide emission limit 

(expressed as MC equivalent emissions) 

applied to the halogenated solvent 

cleaning machines, except where noted, 

provides an ample margin of safety to 

protect the public’s health because it 

significantly reduces cancer risks, 

prevents adverse environmental effects, 

and given the level of the risk 

reductions, is technically feasible and 

can be accomplished at reasonable 

costs. EPA is not exempting batch cold 

cleaning machines that operate with 

capture and control devices that are 

subject to Title V permitting 

requirements. 

2. Equation for MC Equivalents 

Comment: Two commenters 

supported EPA’s toxicity-weighted 

approach for calculating the facilitywide annual emission limits for affected 

sources, except where otherwise noted, 

that use more than one of the three 

HAPs subject to the proposed Subpart T 

residual risk rule. This toxicityweighted calculation was proposed as 

Equations 1 and 9 in the Preamble, and 

proposed 40 CFR 63.471(a)(2), 

respectively. In our August 17, 2006 

proposal, EPA requested comment on 

this methodology (71 FR 47675). 

Another commenter was concerned 

about the use of the methylene chloride 

equivalent. The commenter stated that 

the use of this term was somewhat 

misleading because rather than a toxic 

equivalent, this methodology reflects a 

weighted-emission approach using 

toxicity-weighted emission rates. The 

commenter further stated that while 

EPA conservatively added the cancer 

and noncancer toxicity-weighted 

emissions rates, the scaling factors we 

used were simply the ratio of the cancer 

unit-risk estimates and noncancer 

reference concentrations multiplied by 

the post-MACT emission rate or 

exposure level. The commenter also 

stated that because EPA did not 

specifically conduct toxicological 

comparisons (common mode of action 

and metabolites and possible synergistic 

interactions among the components of 

the mixture) for PCE, TCE and MC, we 

should be careful not to use the term 

‘‘methylene chloride equivalent’’ as a 

‘‘toxic equivalent,’’ because the latter is 

a specific term associated with a 

supporting body of literature and a 

documented methodology. Another 

commenter noted that because the 

current recordkeeping and annual 

reports requirements, under 40 CFR 

63.467 and 63.468 (f-g), were 

inapplicable to batch cold cleaning 

machines, our proposed methodology 

may not be suitable for all batch cold 

cleaning machines and requested 

flexibility in calculating emissions so 

long as the alternate methodology was 

scientifically sound and documented. 

Response: In this final rule, we are 

finalizing as proposed the use of 

Equation 1 (and Equation 9) to calculate 

the MC equivalent for implementing the 

60,000 kg/yr emission limit or the 

100,000 kg/yr emission limit. EPA 

believes this methodology will facilitate 

the use of an annual emissions limit for 

multiple HAPs and allow flexibility in 

reducing the facility-wide emissions to 

meet this emissions limit. For cold 

batch cleaning machines at area sources, 

the requirements in the final rule do not 

apply. 

3. Use of CalEPA or OPPTS URE for 

Implementation of the Emission Limit 

Comment: Some commenters that use 

large halogenated solvent cleaning 

machines recommended that EPA not 

promulgate either Option 1 or 2 of the 

proposed rule, but rather defer 

promulgation of a final rule until 

completion of the IRIS re-evaluations of 

the URE for PCE. 

One commenter believed that EPA 

included two different facility-wide 

annual emission limits for PCE because 

the IRIS URE was not available and will 

not be available before 2008. The 

commenter supported the use of CalEPA 

URE because it was clearly more health 

protective and more appropriate than 

the OPPTS URE value. 

One commenter stated several reasons 

why EPA should use the CalEPA URE: 

(1) EPA’s Air Toxics Risk Assessment 

Reference Library recommended the use 

of the CalEPA URE for PCE, (2) the EPA 

Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards (OAQPS) recommended the 

use of the CalEPA URE in situations in 

which there are no IRIS data available 

(see EPA’s ‘‘Prioritization of Data 

Sources for Chronic Exposure’’ Web 

site), and (3) OAQPS used the CalEPA 

URE for PCE when conducting the 1999 

risk assessment for the National-Scale 

Air Toxics Assessment. They believed 

that EPA has an established precedent 

for use of the CalEPA URE and 

recommended that it be used for this 

residual risk standard as well. 

Three commenters, one identifying 

itself as operating two continuous web 

cleaning lines in the world’s largest 

integrated production of aluminum and 

aluminum semi-fabricated products 

stated that the two PCE UREs differ by 

a factor of ten and that EPA’s selection 

of the applicable URE would obviously 

have a significant impact on control 

options available to their facility. They 

expressed concern that EPA would 

finalize an emissions limit by selecting 

an inappropriate URE and prior to 

completion of the IRIS reassessment for 

PCE. According to the commenter, the 

fact that the final IRIS URE ‘‘may be 

different from both the CalEPA and 

OPPTS values’’, means that 

inappropriate or unnecessary emission 

reduction strategies could be required as 

a result of EPA’s promulgating the 

wrong PCE facility-wide limit in a final 

rule. 

Another commenter suggested that 

EPA delay promulgation of this final 

rule until completion of IRIS 

assessments for PCE and TCE. One 

commenter stated that while EPA 

referenced both the OPPTS and the 

CalEPA UREs, there was little or no 

mention made of other URE studies 

conducted for PCE which would 

potentially indicate a different URE. The 

commenter stated the same is believed 

to be true regarding the URE for TCE. 

Response: EPA has explained that 

when a particular chemical does not 

have a cancer potency value in IRIS, we 

have established a prioritization process 

for assessing other health assessment 

information (as described in our 

‘‘Residual Risk Report to Congress’’ on 

pages 56 through 58). This hierarchy 

includes peer reviewed cancer potency 

values from EPA as well as from other 

agencies that conduct chemical 

carcinogenicity assessments such as 

CalEPA. See also our response to 

comments on this issue in the final Coke 

Oven Batteries NESHAP (70 FR 19998– 

20000, (April 15, 2005)). 

Because we have not yet issued a final 

IRIS health assessment for PCE, we are 

using the CalEPA unit risk estimate 

(URE) of 5.9 X 10–6 (ug/m3)-1 to 

implement the emission limit for PCE in 

this final rule. See section III.D. of this 

Preamble for further discussion of our 

decision to use the CalEPA cancer URE. 

We also have the authority to revisit 

(and revise, if necessary) any 

rulemaking if sufficient evidence 

becomes available that changes within 

the affected industry or significant 

improvements to the underlying science 

suggest that the public is exposed to 

significantly more or less risk than 

mmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOB

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 85 / Thursday, May 3, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 25149 

5 National Emission Standards for Organic 

Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Synthetic 

Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry, (71 FR 

76603) (December 21, 2006)). 

estimated in the risk assessment 

prepared for this rulemaking (See CAA 

section 301). See also Ethylene Oxide 

Emissions Standards for Sterilization 

Facilities Residual Risk Rules (71 FR 

17712, 17715, (April 7, 2006). In 

particular, it may become necessary at 

some time in the future to revise the 

facility emission limits if the pending 

IRIS assessments result in significant 

changes to the UREs for PCE, TCE, or 

MC. 

Additionally, while we have chosen 

to use the CalEPA URE for PCE for 

implementing this rule, this should not 

be interpreted as a precedent for all 

future rules. As was stated earlier, in the 

dry cleaning residual risk rulemaking 

(71 FR 42723) and in this rulemaking, 

we used both the CalEPA and OPPTS 

values to characterize the risk. When 

there is uncertainty, it is EPA’s 

preference to provide a range of values. 

However, for the purposes of this 

rulemaking, a single value was needed 

to implement the facility emission 

limits. EPA’s choice of the CalEPA value 

does not mean that this is the only value 

to be considered while the EPA IRIS 

assessment is pending. 

4. Compliance Deadline 

Comment: The majority of facilities 

that use halogenated solvent cleaning 

machines suggested that EPA should 

allow at least three years for existing 

sources to comply with the new 

requirements. Two commenters 

contended that EPA should be 

consistent with the HON rule 5 and 

provide affected facilities three years 

after the effective date of the 

promulgated standard to comply. 

Another commenter stated that the 

narrow tubing manufacturers could not 

comply with the proposed compliance 

period because compliance would 

require between one and two years to 

evaluate non-regulated solvents and an 

additional two to three years to obtain 

FDA and air permit approvals and 

implement the necessary equipment 

modifications. All commenters stated 

that sources subject to this new rule 

would need time to evaluate their 

compliance options; conduct feasibility 

testing (for solvent substitution) to 

ensure they can still achieve customer 

specifications; and design, build, and/or 

install any equipment or facility 

modifications potentially required. They 

stated that our proposed two year 

compliance deadline would be 

insufficient time for the regulated 

sources to comply. Two commenters 

stated that the proposed two year 

compliance time frame was not 

sufficient time for the installation of 

vacuum-to-vacuum machines. The 

commenters stated that even if the 

technology existed, that in order to meet 

the proposed two year compliance 

deadline, they would be required to take 

the following measures: (1) Conduct 

initial research and development effort 

to determine a control strategy; (2) 

perform a pilot study using the selected 

control strategy; (3) demonstrate to their 

customers that the resulting product 

meets contract specifications; (4) get 

acceptance by their customers that the 

change meets contract specifications; (5) 

design engineering work to develop the 

selected equipment and apply for air 

pollution control and other permits; (6) 

obtain permits to install the selected 

equipment; (7) order the equipment; (8) 

fabricate the equipment; (9) prepare the 

shop floor for installation of equipment; 

(10) receive and install the equipment; 

and (11) place the equipment in 

operation. 

Three other commenters believed that 

the proposed two years compliance 

schedule did not provide sufficient time 

for the affected facilities to fully assess 

the impacts and develop approved 

alternatives. The commenters requested 

an extension of the compliance period. 

They stated that EPA has authority to 

allow up to three years for affected 

facilities to comply and that permitting 

authorities have authority to grant an 

additional one year for compliance 

purposes, under CAA section 112(i). 

A large military depot maintenance 

facility commented that the proposed 

compliance time allowed in the 

proposed rule was inadequate. They 

also agreed with the Preamble 

discussions as to whether EPA could 

allow up to three years for existing 

sources to comply with the proposed 

limits. The commenter recommended 

that EPA allow a three-year compliance 

deadline. 

Two commenters supported EPA’s 

proposed two-year compliance 

deadline. One of the commenters, 

however, pointed out that existing 

solvent cleaning machines could receive 

a one year extension of time from 

permitting authorities. The commenter 

believed that the Congressional intent 

behind the compliance deadlines in 

CAA section 112(f) was to insure an 

expedited compliance schedule (90 days 

with a possible two-year extension) for 

controlling emissions from facilities that 

result in unacceptable risk levels. Two 

States provided comments supporting 

the proposed two year compliance 

deadline and one commenter advocated 

a 90-day compliance period. 

Response: In this final rule, in 

accordance with CAA section 112(i)(3), 

EPA is promulgating a three-year 

compliance deadline from the effective 

date of this rule for all the existing 

affected sources. As explained in 

Section III.C. of the Preamble, we 

believe that CAA section 112(i) is the 

controlling provision addressing 

compliance deadlines for existing 

sources with regard to standards 

promulgated under CAA sections 

112(d)(6) and (f)(2). EPA believes this 

will give owners or operators of solvent 

cleaning machines the necessary time to 

evaluate technologies for controlling 

emissions and possible alternatives to 

halogenated HAP solvent cleaning. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

proposed § 63.460(i) would allow 

sources that only have existing 

halogenated solvent cleaning machines 

two years to comply, but if they 

construct or reconstruct a single 

machine after August 17, 2006, they 

would lose the two-year compliance 

period. The commenter recommended 

that any facility that has existing 

halogenated solvent cleaning machines 

and that exceeds the proposed facility 

wide emission limits should be allowed 

two years from the date of the final rule 

to comply with the standard, even if one 

or more halogenated solvent cleaning 

machines are constructed or 

reconstructed after August 17, 2006. 

Another commenter stated that if the 

Agency finalized the proposed rule, the 

compliance schedule should be 

amended to (1) Require new facilities 

constructed after the date of 

promulgation to be in compliance upon 

startup; (2) consider new facilities 

constructed prior to the date of 

promulgation to be existing facilities; (3) 

allow existing degreasing facilities that 

installed new equipment after the date 

of proposal, but prior to the date of 

promulgation, ten years to come into 

compliance with any new requirements 

consistent with CAA section 112(i)(7), 

and (4) allow the maximum amount of 

time possible for existing Halogenated 

Solvent Cleaning facilities to come into 

compliance. This commenter alluded to 

a three-year timeframe. The commenter 

cited one example of where the 

installation of new equipment at an 

existing facility would require 

additional or redesigned floor space and 

thus would require additional time for 

compliance. 

Response: As stated in the earlier 

response, and in Section III.C. of this 

Preamble, we believe that it is 

reasonable to conclude that CAA section 

112(i) is the controlling provision 

mmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOB

25150 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 85 / Thursday, May 3, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

addressing compliance deadlines for 

existing sources with regard to 

standards promulgated under CAA 

section 112(d)(6) and 112(f)(2). Thus, in 

this final rule, in accordance with CAA 

section 112(i)(3), EPA is promulgating a 

three-year compliance deadline from the 

effective date of this rule for existing 

sources. Further, for purposes of today’s 

rule, existing sources are affected 

facilities (as defined in § 63.461) on 

which construction or reconstruction 

began on or before August 17, 2006. 

New sources are affected facilities that 

commence construction or 

reconstruction after August 17, 2006. 

This is consistent with CAA Section 

112(i)(1)-(3). Additionally, 

‘‘construction’’ and ‘‘reconstruction,’’ 

are defined at 40 CFR 63.2. However, 

changes to the emission controls at a 

facility made to comply with existing 

source standards in today’s rule do not 

trigger the reconstruction threshold. 

5. Applicability of Control 

Requirements 

Comment: One commenter that uses 

continuous web cleaning machines 

stated that it had installed two carbon 

adsorption devices (CAD) to address the 

TCE reductions required by the 1994 

NESHAP. According to the commenter, 

even an upgrade of the systems would 

likely not enable the facilities to achieve 

either proposed emissions limit. The 

commenter suggested that for facilities 

that use continuous web cleaning 

machines, EPA should evaluate a range 

of emission reduction limits. The 

commenter stated that this method 

would have been consistent with the 

alternative standards set for the 

continuous web cleaning machines by 

the 1994 NESHAP. 

Response: In light of this and similar 

comments by the aerospace and narrow 

tubing industries, EPA issued a NODA 

to gather specific data on the technical 

feasibility and costs of complying with 

the proposed emission limits, if feasible, 

and the period of time required to 

comply with the proposed emissions 

limit (71 FR 75184, (December 14, 

2006)). EPA has re-evaluated the 

technical feasibility, costs and other 

factors that relate to facilities operating 

continuous web cleaning machines. 

Consequently, in this final rule, we are 

not promulgating any facility-wide 

emission limits for facilities that operate 

continuous web cleaning machines, 

facilities that operate halogenated 

solvent cleaning machines for the 

aerospace manufacturing and 

maintenance industry, and the narrow 

tubing manufacturing industry. 

Comment: Numerous commenters 

from both the narrow tubing 

manufacturing industry that use MC, 

PCE and TCE, and airline maintenance 

facilities and aerospace industry that 

use PCE stated that switching to TCE or 

MC would be an unsuitable compliance 

option. They stated that facilities have 

procedural requirements for the higher 

vapor temperature of PCE and that TCE 

and MC’s vapor temperature is 

inadequate for proper cleaning. The 

commenters stated that many original 

equipment manufacturers have not 

approved the use of alternative 

degreasing solvents. The commenters 

also stated that changing solvents 

involved a rigorous approval process by 

the original equipment manufacturers 

and the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) in order to ensure 

that safety and quality criteria are met. 

The commenters stated that such an 

approval process could take more than 

two years. 

The commenter also stated that EPA’s 

proposed retrofit options for freeboard 

ratios, working mode covers and 

freeboard refrigeration devices are not 

expected to be sufficient to enable the 

facility to comply with the proposed 

facility-wide emission limits of the 

proposed rule. The commenter also 

stated that there are few manufacturers 

of vacuum-to-vacuum degreasing 

machines and they were not aware of 

this technology effectively cleaning 

parts of specific types and sizes. 

According to the commenter, similar 

facilities that installed the technology 

incurred costs of over $1 million with 

new annualized costs of approximately 

$80,000 per year. The commenter was 

concerned that compliance with the 

proposed standards would be achieved 

by using expensive technology, that has 

high capital costs and operating costs 

and that may not be proven effective or 

reliable for the operations of subject 

facilities. 

Response: In response to this 

comment and certain comments 

discussed below, EPA issued a NODA 

(71 FR 75184, (December 14, 2006)) to 

gather more information pertinent to the 

halogenated solvent machines used by 

the aerospace industry, narrow tubing 

manufacturing industry, and the 

facilities that use continuous web 

cleaning machines. Responses to the 

NODA provided significant data and 

information that have led EPA to 

determine that it is both technologically 

infeasible and not cost effective for 

these industries to implement any 

further emission controls or 

requirements. Consequently, as stated in 

Section III.A.3., of the Preamble, we are 

not promulgating any facility-wide 

emission limits for halogenated solvent 

cleaning machines used by the 

aerospace manufacturing and 

maintenance industry, the narrow 

tubing manufacturing industry and for 

continuous web cleaning machines. 

Comment: Two commenters 

associated with the aerospace industry 

stated that the FAA, Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA) and the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) 

guidelines for safety and quality control 

often dictate the types of solvents and 

materials that may be used in aerospace 

operations. According to the 

commenters, solvent cleaning criteria 

determined the quality of adhesion 

between aircraft assemblies and 

components and the various coatings, 

primers, sealants, and adhesives later 

applied to their surfaces, and improper 

degreasing could cause loss of coating 

adhesion and ultimate failure of specific 

aircraft component parts. The 

commenters also stated that they had 

explored solvent alternatives such as 

aqueous cleaners, and had encountered 

incompatibilities with FAA guidelines, 

such as inability to meet the degree of 

cleaning required, incompatibility of the 

parts being cleaned with the cleaning 

solution, longer required cleaning time, 

and problems associated with moisture 

left on parts being cleaned. The 

commenter stated that these regulatory 

and product specifications frequently 

dictated or otherwise limited aerospace 

cleaning options to PCE or TCE. 

However, some aerospace facilities 

maintain their PCE cleaning capacity 

because certain, very specific aerospace 

parts cannot be processed with MC or 

alternative solvents. 

Response: In response to this 

comment, as earlier explained, EPA 

issued a NODA (71 FR 75184, 

(December 14, 2006)) to gather more 

information pertinent to the halogenated 

solvents cleaning machines used by the 

aerospace industry, narrow tubing 

manufacturing industry, and the 

facilities that use continuous web 

cleaning machines. Responses to the 

NODA provided significant information 

that has led EPA to conclude that it is 

both technologically infeasible and not 

cost effective for the above-noted 

facilities to implement any further 

emission controls or requirements. (See 

Section III.A.3. of the Preamble on costs 

of compliance). EPA is also persuaded 

that some halogenated solvent cleaning 

processes for the aerospace and narrow 

tubing industry are controlled by FAA, 

FDA, the NRC guidelines, and from 

protocols of original equipment 

manufacturers. Therefore, EPA is 

concluding in this final rule that solvent 

switching from PCE or TCE to MC may 

not be a viable option in some instances 

for the aerospace industry. 

mmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOB

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 85 / Thursday, May 3, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 25151 

Consequently, as stated earlier in 

Section III.A.3., of this Preamble, EPA is 

not promulgating facility-wide emission 

limits for halogenated solvent machines 

used by the aerospace manufacturing 

and maintenance industry, the narrow 

tubing manufacturing industry and for 

continuous web cleaning machines. 

Comment: Commenters from the 

narrow tube manufacturing industry 

stated that they use ‘‘one of a kind’’ 

machines in their degreasing operations. 

They described these machines as very 

large, some with dimensions 

approaching 110 ft. long by 10 ft. deep 

and 42 inches wide, with a capacity of 

7,000 gallons of solvent. According to 

the commenters, these machines also 

heat the solvent, usually TCE, to its 

boiling point while condenser coils 

prevent evaporation by forming a cold 

air blanket over the cleaning machine in 

order to limit emissions. In addition, 

they explained that these machines are 

covered when not in use. 

They also stated that the installation 

of vacuum-to-vacuum cleaning 

machines is not a feasible option 

because of their products’ sizes and the 

lack of engineering information to 

establish whether machines of such size 

can be engineered and produced. They 

stated that EPA’s proposed requirements 

would require them to design, obtain 

permits, develop and install these 

systems within two years. 

Response: In response to this 

comment, as earlier explained, we 

issued a NODA (71 FR 75184, 

(December 14, 2006)) to gather more 

information pertinent to the halogenated 

solvent cleaning machines used by the 

aerospace industry, narrow tubing 

manufacturing industry, and the 

facilities using continuous web cleaning 

machines. Responses to the NODA 

provided significant information that 

has led EPA to determine that it is both 

technologically infeasible and not cost 

effective for the above-noted facilities to 

implement any further emission 

controls or requirements. EPA is also 

persuaded that it may be quite difficult 

for the above-noted industries to reduce 

emissions through chemical or physical 

means and technology applications to 

the levels required by our final 

promulgated emissions limits. 

Accordingly, due to the costs associated 

with compliance, technical feasibility, 

and other factors, EPA has determined 

that the current MACT requirements 

provided for the narrow tubing 

manufacturing industry both reduce 

HAP emissions to levels that both pose 

acceptable risk and protect public 

health with an ample margin of safety. 

As stated earlier in Section III.A.3., of 

the Preamble, EPA is not promulgating 

facility-wide emission limits for 

halogenated solvent cleaning machines 

used by the narrow tubing industries. 

Comment: Two commenters stated 

that switching from PCE and/or TCE to 

MC (indicated as being lower risk) as a 

compliance alternative under the 

proposed revisions would likely result 

in an increased danger to public health 

and, more specifically, potentially 

increase the danger from employee 

exposure to MC emissions. The 

commenter stated that because 

employee exposure to MC is specifically 

regulated by the Occupational Safety 

and Health Administration (OSHA), 

switching to MC would be an error. 

According to the commenter, this is 

because applicable OSHA regulations 

would limit and/or restrict MC and 

would lead to increased employer costs, 

a fact the commenter believed EPA did 

not consider. One commenter stated that 

some halogenated solvent cleaning 

machines may have the potential for 

undetected fugitive emissions. The 

commenter added that the necessary 

monitoring for adequate employee 

protection from overexposure to MC 

would be far more expensive, more 

extensive, and more difficult to 

implement than monitoring for TCE. 

Response: Before proposal, EPA was 

aware of the requirements of the 

Occupational Health and Safety 

Administration concerning worker 

safety when MC is used. 29 CFR part 

1910, which are the applicable OSHA 

regulations, require employers to make 

an initial determination of each 

employee’s exposure to MC. If the 

employer determines that employees are 

exposed below the action level, 

employers are required to make a record 

of the determination. Conversely, if the 

employees are exposed to MC above the 

action levels, employers are required to 

perform exposure monitoring. 

In addition, EPA did not consider any 

costs associated with MC monitoring at 

proposal. EPA believes, however, that a 

facility would not incur costs if MC 

emissions do not exceed the OSHA 

levels. If a facility experiences worker 

exposure of MC emissions over the 

OSHA level, the facility incurs costs to 

develop a control plan for fugitive 

emissions and possibly implement an 

employee medical monitoring plan. To 

account for the possibility of increased 

costs, we reduced the number of units 

assumed to use solvent switching. 

6. Costs Associated With Compliance 

Comment: Seven commenters, from 

the aerospace and narrow tube 

manufacturing sectors, stated that EPA 

had underestimated its cost basis for 

vacuum-to-vacuum technology in the 

proposed rule. One commenter stated 

that because EPA’s estimation used the 

costs for small halogenated solvent 

cleaning machines and applied the 

credit for cost reduction from recovered 

solvent to the large halogenated solvent 

cleaning machines with large amounts 

of recovered solvent, the estimate 

erroneously yielded a false return on 

investment. The commenter stated that 

discussions with manufacturers of 

available vacuum-to-vacuum units 

suggested costs approximately five 

times higher than the assumptions used 

by EPA for each unit, and this was 

assuming that the manufacturers could 

develop scaled-up units suitable for 

narrow tubing manufacturers. The 

commenter stated that because the 

larger size of their products would 

require construction of the new unit 

while maintaining operation, facilities 

would need to undergo building 

expansion. The commenter anticipated 

that installation costs, including 

building and required utilities and 

infrastructure, would likely be 

approximately three times the 

equipment cost. According to the 

commenter, assuming the technology 

was successful, EPA’s capital cost basis 

was approximately fifteen times below 

its likely cost range. The commenter 

further stated that EPA’s assumption of 

97 percent solvent recovery was 

unlikely with regard to hypothetical 

future large units that would require 

storage and movement of solvent 

between storage tanks, solvent cleaning 

machines and other ancillary 

equipment. The commenter concluded 

that EPA’s assumptions of the project 

payback were unrealistic both for large 

operations, whose capital cost was 

underestimated, and for small 

operations, whose solvent recovery 

payback would be smaller than the 

average figures used in the analysis. 

Response: In response to this 

comment, as explained earlier, EPA 

issued a NODA (71 FR 75184, 

(December 14, 2006)) to gather more 

information on the costs of complying 

with the proposed standards by the 

aerospace industry, narrow tubing 

manufacturing industry, and the 

facilities that use continuous web 

cleaning machines. Responses to the 

NODA provided significant information 

that has led EPA to determine that it is 

both technologically infeasible and not 

cost effective for the above-noted 

facilities to implement any further 

emission controls or requirements. 

As earlier stated, EPA is also 

persuaded that some solvent cleaning 

processes for the aerospace and narrow 

tubing industry are controlled by 

protocols from the FAA, FDA, NRC and 

mmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOB

25152 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 85 / Thursday, May 3, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

from protocols to satisfy original 

equipment manufacturers’ 

specifications. As earlier stated, EPA 

has also concluded in this final rule that 

solvent switching from PCE or TCE to 

MC may not be a viable option in some 

instances for the aerospace industry. As 

also explained earlier in Section III.B. of 

the Preamble, EPA has re-analyzed the 

cost assumptions made at proposal for 

the aerospace industry separate from the 

halogenated solvent cleaning machines 

that are covered by this final rule, and 

has determined that due to costs, 

technical feasibility, and other factors 

requiring additional controls, would not 

be feasible at this time. Consequently, as 

stated earlier in section III.A.3 of the 

Preamble, we are not promulgating 

facility-wide emission limits for 

halogenated solvent cleaning machines 

used by the narrow tubing and 

aerospace manufacturing and 

maintenance industries. 

Comment: Commenters that use 

continuous web cleaning machines 

stated that EPA’s analysis of the 

technology and cost impacts of the two 

proposed emission limits failed to 

consider the impacts on continuous web 

machines. The commenters stated that 

while EPA identified numerous 

compliance options, solvent switching 

from PCE to TCE or MC would be the 

sole compliance option for continuous 

web cleaning machines. The 

commenters further stated that EPA was 

correct to conclude that neither retrofits 

nor machine replacement would be an 

available compliance option for 

continuous web cleaners; however, the 

commenters stated that ‘‘EPA should 

not have concluded that solvent 

switching would be an available option 

for continuous web cleaners.’’ The 

commenters further stated that 

switching from TCE to MC is not an 

available option because ‘‘MC reacts 

with chemically active metals such as 

aluminum.’’ The commenters also stated 

that MC is incompatible with some of 

the gaskets and seals in pumps, ports 

and manifold systems. The commenters 

added that MC is less stable as a 

continuous web cleaning solvent and 

would require additional monitoring 

and probably additional stabilization 

control systems. Additionally, the 

commenters stated that MC is not 

readily adsorbed by the carbon in 

carbon adsorption devices and, as such, 

solvent switching would require 

reconfiguration and possibly rebuilding 

of the carbon adsorption devices. 

According to the commenters, MC 

requires longer dwell time in the carbon 

beds, which would in turn require a 

greater carbon surface area and larger 

carbon filtration systems. The 

commenters also stated that quantities 

of TCE would react with MC and that 

facilities would need to conduct a 

complete purging of systems in order to 

prevent cross contamination. The 

commenters further stated that such 

purging would include the removal of 

significant production line components, 

which would lead to increased 

compliance costs. 

The commenters also stated that EPA 

estimated a 29 percent increase in 

solvent consumption if switching from 

TCE to MC. The commenters, however, 

expected much higher increases. The 

commenters explained that because 

steel that is placed in cleaning machines 

is slightly heated above ambient 

temperature, any slight temperature 

elevation would cause MC to vaporize 

more readily than TCE. The commenters 

claimed that increases in solvent 

consumption rate would ultimately 

create elevated vapor concentrations in 

the carbon adsorption device thereby 

making recovery more difficult. The 

commenters further claimed that even 

though MC is cheaper per unit volume, 

more MC would be required to achieve 

the same level of cleaning. 

The commenters also maintained that 

add-on control equipment, retrofits and 

machine replacement technologies 

identified in the proposed rule are for 

the typical halogenated solvent cleaning 

machines that were subject to the 1994 

NESHAP, and not continuous web 

cleaning machines or systems. The 

commenters stated that modifications 

such as modifying freeboard ratios, 

adding working mode covers, or 

retrofitting freeboard refrigeration 

devices are inapplicable because no 

freeboard exists in continuous web 

cleaning machines, which are enclosed, 

with the exception of entrance and exit 

points during normal operations. The 

commenters further stated that vacuumto-vacuum machines are only 

appropriate for batch cleaners. Because 

of these technical issues, the 

commenters stated that EPA did not 

evaluate the costs and technological 

feasibility of the facility-wide emission 

limits for the continuous web cleaning 

machines. 

Response: In response to this 

comment, as stated earlier, EPA issued 

a NODA (71 FR 75184, (December 14, 

2006)) to gather more information on the 

costs of complying with the proposed 

standards by the aerospace industry, 

narrow tubing manufacturing industry, 

and the facilities using continuous web 

cleaning machines. As also stated 

earlier, responses to the NODAprovided significant information has led 

EPA to re-evaluate costs of installing 

CADs and vacuum-to-vacuum 

machines. EPA has determined that 

compliance by continuous web cleaning 

machines with either the proposed 

40,000 kg/yr limit or the 60,000 kg/yr 

MC equivalent limit would not be cost 

effective and either limit may be 

technically infeasible in some instances. 

Consequently, as stated in Section 

III.A.3 of this Preamble, EPA is not 

requiring continuous web cleaning 

machines to comply with the facilitywide emission limits we are 

promulgating for this final rule. EPA is 

concluding that the current level of 

control by the existing NESHAP both 

reduces HAP emissions to levels that 

present an acceptable risk and provides 

an ample margin of safety to protect 

public health and prevent adverse 

environmental effects. 

Comment: One commenter, an 

industry association representing 

producers and users of halogenated 

solvents, indicated that MC is not 

compatible with some substrates 

because of its aggressive nature. In 

addition, the commenter stated that 

MC’s low boiling point shortens the 

effective cleaning time and makes it 

ineffective for light-gauge metals where 

incomplete rinsing action may cause 

staining. According to the commenter, 

the low boiling point of MC also makes 

it less effective on stubborn soils, 

including high-melting point waxes and 

pitches and grossly contaminated parts. 

The commenter stated that PCE’s higher 

boiling point makes it ideal for these 

applications. According to the 

commenter, PCE is also a popular 

choice for closed-loop equipment, 

where PCE’s inherent stability reduces 

the possibility of hydrolysis. 

The commenter also stated that while 

MC has the lowest vapor loss rate from 

an idling halogenated solvent cleaning 

machine, its low vapor density makes it 

the most difficult to control in a 

working degreaser where air movements 

generally increase losses. The 

commenter also stated that MC has the 

lowest vapor recovery rates in carbon 

adsorption systems used to collect 

solvents from many web and in-line 

machines. In addition, the commenter 

stated that MC users are subject to a 

comprehensive OSHA standard that 

requires a medical surveillance and 

removal program not required for PCE 

and TCE users. 

Response: EPA recognizes that there 

are chemical and physical limitations 

when considering solvent switching as 

a method to reduce emissions in 

compliance with both the proposed and 

final facility-wide emission limits we 

are promulgating in this final rule. In 

the proposed rule, EPA assumed 30 

mmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOB

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 85 / Thursday, May 3, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 25153 

percent of facilities would switch to a 

less potent solvent; however, significant 

comments have led us to re-evaluate 

these assumptions. Consequently, with 

regard to our solvent switching analysis, 

for this final rule, EPA has reduced the 

number of units for which solvent 

switching is an option from 30 percent 

to 15 percent. The cost analysis in 

Section III.B. of the Preamble to this 

final rule reflects this change. 

7. General Comments 

Comment: A number of commenters 

stated that the 1999 NEI data did not 

reflect current emission levels and were 

not a sufficient basis for assessing 

technical or economic feasibility. Some 

believed that the 1999 NEI database was 

obsolete and provided an incomplete 

emission database when used as a 

primary source of data for halogenated 

solvent emissions. The commenter 

stated that the industry had changed 

since 1999 due to local, regional, and 

State regulatory pressures. The 

commenter indicated that the most 

significant change since 1999 was the 

phase out of TCA manufacture for 

emissive use, which effectively 

eliminated its use for solvent cleaning. 

The commenters pointed out that EPA 

had access to the 2002 NEI database and 

encouraged EPA to re-evaluate the risk 

assessment using the updated database. 

Response: In response to public 

comments we received on the August 

17, 2006 rule proposal, we reassessed 

the risks associated with the 

halogenated solvent source category 

using the 2002 NEI inventory. The 

proposal was based on the 1999 

inventory. These data were not available 

at the time the proposal was being 

developed. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

EPA established a MACT standard for 

the continuous web subcategory in 

December 1999 and therefore, Section 

112(f) risk analysis for the subcategory 

is not required until December 2007. 

The commenter stated that the 

continuous web subcategory was 

established five years after the standard 

for the other halogenated solvent 

machines. According to the commenter 

EPA’s proposed rule fails to recognize 

that under this requirement EPA has 

eight years from December 3, 1999 (or 

by December 3, 2007) to conduct the 

residual risk evaluation for the 

continuous web subcategory. 

Response: Section 112(f)(2)(A) 

requires the Administrator to 

promulgate applicable standards 

‘‘within 8 years after promulgation of 

standards,’’ under section 112(d). We 

read this provision as allowing for our 

promulgation of standards, under 

section 112(f), within 8 years of the 

effective date of section 112(d) 

requirements, rather than within 8 years 

of the compliance date of the section 

112(d) requirements. (See for example, 

section 112(f)(3) (‘‘the Administrator 

shall establish a compliance date or 

dates * * * which shall provide for 

compliance as expeditiously as 

practicable but in no event later than 

three years after the effective date of 

such standard.’’ (Emphasis added)). The 

effective date of the Halogenated 

Solvent Cleaning NESHAP is December 

2, 1994, and not December 3, 1999, as 

suggested by the commenter, although 

we subsequently made certain 

clarifications and amendments to these 

requirements. Our obligation to 

promulgate residual risk standards for 

this source category is therefore past, 

and we are now operating under a 

consent decree that required our 

promulgation of today’s rule on or 

before December 15, 2006, subsequently 

extended to April 16, 2007. We also 

believe that there is nothing in the Act 

that precludes our completion of the 

residual risk review prior to 8 years after 

promulgation of section 112(d) 

standards. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

EPA had used a very simplistic model 

to perform the emissions evaluations 

which may be acceptable for an initial 

screening, but that the Agency had 

failed to provide information to either 

validate its approach or any indication 

as to whether the presented risk levels 

exceed the upper bound limit of 100-ina-million using the correct facility 

information such as stack parameters. 

The commenter requested that EPA 

review the seven facilities with an 

estimated cancer risk greater than 100- 

in-a-million to determine whether the 

use of average stack parameters was 

appropriate and to revise the proposed 

rule accordingly. The commenter also 

requested that EPA add an option 

allowing facilities to conduct sitespecific emission modeling to determine 

if a facility meets or exceeds the 

allowable MIR, which would depend on 

which option EPA finalized. 

Subsequently, EPA could use this 

modeling to set a site-specific facility 

limit that is higher than either proposed 

options. 

Response: The choice of the proposed 

emission limits and the final emission 

limit is based on the level of risk 

reduced, cost and technical feasibility to 

achieve a particular emission limit. 

While we acknowledge the uncertainty 

inherent in the NEI data used, its effect 

on risk is not the only consideration for 

the proposed emission limits. In spite of 

the fact that perhaps 50 percent of the 

release parameters in the 1999 NEI 

database may be defaults, our 

understanding of this source category 

and our best engineering judgment 

suggested the data were reasonable to 

use in our risk assessment, (e.g., the 

range of stack heights was appropriate 

for these sources). We also 

acknowledged that while our risk 

assessment was likely to overestimate 

risks, this overestimate was not likely to 

be large because of the many variables 

and assumptions used in the assessment 

that would yield lower estimated risk 

levels, (e.g., the use of a probabilistic 

method for evaluating population risks). 

Therefore, a focused evaluation of the 

release parameters of a few facilities at 

the upper end of the risk spectrum, 

while possibly having some effect on 

their individual risk levels, is not likely 

to affect our overall conclusions about 

the level of risk from the entire source 

category. 

Concerning the site specific emission 

modeling, EPA did not incorporate in 

the proposed rule an approach that 

would allow site specific modeling. 

Instead, EPA assessed risk on a source 

category basis. EPA also did not 

incorporate in the proposed rule an 

approach a low-risk alternative for 

compliance. 

V. Responses to Significant Comments 

on EPA’s December 14, 2006, Notice of 

Data Availability (NODA) 

A. Emission Limits 

Comment: Two commenters from the 

aerospace industry submitted available 

compliance options for the 40,000 kg/yr 

MC equivalent emission limit. One 

option involved switching from HAP 

chlorinated solvents to n-propyl 

bromide. Another option involved the 

facilities switching to an alkaline 

degreasing system with ultrasonic wash 

tanks. 

One aerospace facility, which had a 

large operation with multiple 

halogenated solvent cleaning machines, 

submitted very detailed descriptions of 

each machine, the options available and 

the associated costs of implementation. 

For their multiple machines, they 

presented twelve emissions reduction 

options, five of which reduced their 

emissions to below the 40,000 kg/yr MC 

equivalent limit. The compliance 

options include a combination of 

machine covers, extension areas, 

additional drain time for parts, 

installing larger or additional carbon 

absorption systems and switching some 

current machines with vacuum-tovacuum machines. The commenter 

indicated that completing these 

mmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOB

25154 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 85 / Thursday, May 3, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

compliance options would take six 

years or more. 

Response: EPA recognizes that a few 

small aerospace facilities may operate 

with emissions at or below both the 

proposed and final promulgated 

emission limits. In the proposal, EPA 

assumed solvent switching and other 

technologies could be applied at a 

reasonable cost. EPA has discovered, 

however, that this industry is bound to 

the use of chlorinated solvents and 

solvent switching is not a viable option 

for compliance. As earlier stated, EPA 

also recognized that the affected 

facilities cannot undertake all the 

necessary modifications within the 

three-year compliance period. EPA also 

notes that all these considerations are 

true for the final promulgated 60,000 kg/ 

yr emission limit. 

Comment: Two commenters that use 

continuous web cleaning machines 

maintained that they could not comply 

with either of the proposed emission 

limits. Both facilities stated that they 

had installed carbon absorption devices, 

which operated at about 99 percent 

control efficiency, but that most of their 

emissions could not be captured by 

these devices because of the nature of 

continuous web cleaning machines. 

According to the commenters, fugitive 

emissions occur in different locations 

along production lines and along the 

cleaning process. The commenters 

provided some possible additions to 

their cleaning systems that would 

achieve additional reductions, but they 

did not provide information on the 

emission levels they could attain. The 

commenters stated that there are limited 

available technologies to capture 

emissions and that it would be 

technically difficult for them to capture 

a significant portion of their emissions. 

The commenters also maintained that 

attaining a degree of control rather than 

meeting an emission limit is a more 

appropriate measure of their emission 

reduction capability. 

Response: EPA recognizes that 

continuous web machines are designed 

differently from general halogenated 

solvent cleaning machines, i.e., batch 

and in-line cleaning machines. As 

explained in earlier responses, we have 

determined that it is both 

technologically infeasible and not cost 

effective for continuous web cleaning 

machines to comply with our final 

promulgated emissions limit. As also 

stated in Section III.A.3. of the 

preamble, in this final rule, we are not 

setting any emissions limits for facilities 

that use continuous web cleaners. As 

also explained earlier, we are 

concluding that the current level of 

control for continuous web cleaning 

machines called for by the existing 

NESHAP reduces HAP emissions to 

levels that present an acceptable risk, 

protects public health with an ample 

margin of safety, and prevents adverse 

environmental effects. 

Comment: We received significant 

comments from five narrow tubing 

manufacturers. These commenters 

presented very significant and 

compelling reasons as to why they 

could not meet the proposed emission 

limits. The commenters indicated that 

carbon absorption systems were the 

only available feasible control 

technology but that installation would 

result in only a maximum of 25 percent 

overall emissions reduction. The 

commenters stated that vacuum-tovacuum machines have not been 

engineered or tested to the sizes that are 

required for their specific industrial 

processes. They claimed that such large 

vacuum-to-vacuum machines are not 

available from machine manufacturers. 

One commenter stated that after five 

years of research and design they may 

be able to achieve the 100,000 kg/yr MC 

equivalent emission limit. 

Response: EPA is persuaded that 

narrow tube manufacturing facilities are 

the most technically challenged in 

reducing emissions to the levels called 

for by either our proposed or final 

promulgated 60,000 kg/yr emission 

limit. EPA has also determined that this 

industry is bound to the use of 

chlorinated solvents and solvent 

switching is not a viable option for 

compliance. Furthermore, EPA is 

persuaded that vacuum-to-vacuum 

technology has not developed to a point 

where this industry can install these 

machines into their processes with 

certainty of performance. Therefore, 

EPA has concluded in this rule that this 

industry could only achieve both the 

proposed and final promulgated 

emissions limits by implementing 

newly engineered and untested 

technology. Consequently, as explained 

earlier in Section III.A.3. of the 

Preamble, EPA is adopting no changes 

to the 1994 NESHAP for the halogenated 

solvent cleaning machines used by the 

narrow tubing industry, and we are 

concluding that the current level of 

control by the existing NESHAP reduces 

HAP emissions to levels that present an 

acceptable risk, protects public health 

with an ample margin of safety, and 

prevents adverse environmental effects. 

B. Cost Impacts 

Comment: One aerospace facility 

maintained that the application of 

various technologies would result in 85 

percent overall emissions reduction at 

capital costs of between $1.1 and $1.7 

million, for this particular facility, but 

that it would need considerable more 

time beyond the proposed two years 

compliance period to implement the 

proposed emissions limits. 

Response: As a result of the comments 

on compliance costs, EPA re-evaluated 

the ability of the aerospace industry to 

feasibly implement in a cost effective 

manner other emission limits we 

discussed at proposal but did not 

propose (ranging from 60,000 kg/yr to 

250,000 kg/yr MC equivalent emission 

limits). We relied on commenters’ 

submissions to assist us in revising our 

cost estimates for complying with these 

emissions limits by the aerospace 

industry and also relied on it in part in 

applying cost assumptions to the 

remainder of the other industries that 

use halogenated solvent cleaning 

machines. 

The results indicated that 

implementing additional emission 

control levels, (ranging from 60,000 kg/ 

yr to 250,000 kg/yr MC equivalent 

emission limits), within a three-year 

compliance period would result in total 

capital costs of over $9 million with a 

cost effectiveness of about $2,000/ton of 

solvent used. Furthermore, EPA 

calculated the total annualized costs for 

each cancer case avoided would be 

more than $17.5 million for the 100,000 

kg/yr MC equivalent emission limit. 

Therefore, EPA is concluding in this 

final rule that the NESHAP 

requirements for aerospace 

manufacturing and maintenance 

degreasing machines, provide an ample 

margin of safety and that the 

requirements set forth in this final rule 

are not applicable to halogenated 

solvent cleaning machines that are 

associated with the aerospace 

manufacturing and maintenance 

industry and facilities. Under this final 

rule, the 1994 NESHAP requirements 

remain applicable to all the halogenated 

solvent cleaning machines associated 

with the aerospace manufacturing and 

maintenance facilities. 

Comment: Commenters that use 

continuous web cleaning machines 

projected the capital costs of complying 

with the proposed emission limits 

(through ‘‘additions’’ to their production 

lines) at about $1,000,000. 

Response: EPA recognizes the unique 

character of continuous web cleaning 

machines and is persuaded that 

technical emission control choices are 

limited to CADs to attain significant 

emission reductions. EPA has assumed 

that CADs may only achieve a 10 to 30 

percent overall reductions in facilitywide emissions. Therefore, CAD alone 

would be insufficient for purposes of 

complying with the final promulgated 

mmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOB

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 85 / Thursday, May 3, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 25155 

emissions limit. We have taken this into 

consideration in promulgating the final 

rule. 

Comment: The narrow tube 

manufacturing industry calculated their 

costs of compliance with the proposed 

emission limits on the basis of installing 

CAD and researching and designing new 

and untested vacuum-to-vacuum 

technology. They indicated that capital 

costs for CAD installation ranged from 

$200,000 to $1,800,000. They also 

indicated that while this option is 

technically feasible it would only 

achieve 10 to 30 percent maximum in 

overall facility emissions reductions. 

The commenters further indicated that 

compliance with the proposed limits 

would require engineering new 

technology or relying on vacuum-tovacuum machines, but that after 

conferring with vacuum-to-vacuum 

machine manufacturers, the cost 

estimates were more than $4,600,000 in 

capital costs with about $578,000 for 

operating costs. One facility, which 

produces specialized narrow tubing for 

medical applications, projected costs for 

vacuum-to-vacuum machines 

installation at $10.5 million and 

estimated that it would require between 

five and six years for the evaluation of 

the machines’ cleaning performance. 

The commenters also stated that endloading machines would require 

additional building space for loading 

and unloading tube bundles with 

lengths of 80 to 110 feet. 

Response: EPA is persuaded that the 

narrow tubing industry is confronted 

with the biggest technological hurdle in 

achieving emissions reductions for 

purposes of achieving either the 

proposed or final promulgated emission 

limits. EPA is persuaded that emission 

control choices, for the narrow tubing 

industry, are limited to CAD, in order to 

attain the most significant emission 

reductions within the three-year 

compliance time frame. EPA is also 

persuaded that CAD may only achieve 

a 10 to 30 percent overall reductions in 

facility-wide emissions. Therefore, we 

have determined that installation of 

CAD alone would not control emissions 

to the level of either the proposed or 

final promulgated emission limits. We 

have also taken into consideration the 

costs for developing technology that 

will reduce emissions to both the 

proposed and final promulgated 

emissions limits. EPA has amended its 

cost analysis for this group of facilities 

and has determined that a cost 

effectiveness of over $3,600/ton, when 

joined with EPA’s estimate of over $87 

million in annual costs for each cancer 

case avoided, is unreasonable. 

Therefore, EPA is concluding in this 

final rule that the NESHAP 

requirements for narrow tube 

manufacturing provide an ample margin 

of safety, prevent adverse environmental 

effects and that the requirements set 

forth in this final rule will not be 

applicable to halogenated solvent 

cleaning machines associated with the 

narrow tubing manufacturing industry. 

Under this final rule, the 1994 NESHAP 

requirements remain applicable to all 

continuous web and halogenated 

solvent cleaning machines used by 

narrow tubing and aerospace 

manufacturing and maintenance 

facilities. 

C. Compliance Schedule 

Comment: Aerospace industries 

maintained that a five-year minimum 

compliance period would be necessary 

to investigate technology and protocol 

changes in order to comply with the 

proposed 40,000 kg/yr limit. A 

commenter from the narrow tubing 

industry suggested between five and ten 

years as necessary for them to 

investigate the probability of applying 

technology to reduce emissions to a 

significant amount, to either of the 

proposed emission limits. 

The narrow tube manufacturing 

commenters stated that their machines 

are unique, indicated the nonavailability of feasible emission 

reductions technology for either 

proposed emission limits and 

recommended that EPA allow the 

industry five to ten years for research 

and development of specific vacuum-tovacuum technology for the specific 

needs of their industry. 

Response: As stated in responses to 

earlier comments, EPA has considered 

these comments as significant and after 

re-evaluating compliance costs, 

technical feasibility and other factors, is 

concluding that, for the aerospace 

manufacturing and maintenance 

industry, narrow tube manufacturing 

industry, and facilities using continuous 

web cleaning machines, the current 

level of control provided by the existing 

NESHAP both reduces HAP emissions 

to levels that present an acceptable risk 

and provides an ample margin of safety 

to protect public health. 

VI. Impacts 

For sources required to comply with 

the 60,000 kg/yr MC equivalent 

emission limit, the national capital costs 

to reach compliance with the final rule 

are estimated to be $15,000,000 with 

annualized cost savings of $1.3 million. 

The capital costs for individual facilities 

would range from $15,000 to $800,000 

with an average cost of about $200,000. 

More than 60 percent of the facilities 

implementing control technology would 

recognize a cost savings primarily from 

solvent savings. Capturing and 

controlling HAP emissions is a 

pollution prevention approach where 

emissions reduction translate into less 

PCE, TCE and MC consumption and 

reduced operating costs primarily 

because facilities would need to 

purchase less solvents. Using the 2002 

NEI database, the maximum individual 

cancer risk is estimated to be reduced 

from 100-in-1 million to between 20 and 

50-in-a-million (using both OPPTS and 

CalEPA potency values). The rule is 

expected to reduce cancer incidence 

from 0.55 cases annually to 0.36 cases 

annually, a reduction in cancer 

incidence of 0.19 cases annually. 

EPA also estimates that to comply 

with the 100,000 kg/yr MC equivalent 

emission limit, military depot 

maintenance facilities are expected to 

incur $540,000 in capital costs with 

annualized savings of about $56,000. 

Using the 2002 NEI database, the 

maximum individual cancer risk is 

estimated to be reduced from six-in-amillion to three-in-a-million. The 

emission limit for military depot 

maintenance facilities is expected to 

reduce cancer incidence by 0.002 cases 

annually. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a 

‘‘significant regulatory action.’’ 

Executive Order (EO) 12866 gives the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) the authority to review 

regulatory actions that are categorized as 

‘‘significant’’ under section 3(f) of the 

EP, i.e., those actions that are likely to 

result in a rule that may raise novel 

legal and policy issues arising out of 

mandates in CAA section 112(f)(2) and 

112(d)(6). Accordingly, EPA submitted 

this action to OMB for review under EO 

12866 and any changes made in 

response to OMB recommendations 

have been documented in the docket for 

this action. 

In addition, EPA prepared an analysis 

of the potential costs and benefits 

associated with this action. This 

analysis, which is briefly summarized in 

Section III.B. of the Preamble, is 

contained in National Cost Impacts 

Memorandum. A copy of the analysis is 

available in the docket for this action. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose any new 

information collection burden. Owners 

mmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOB

25156 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 85 / Thursday, May 3, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

or operators will continue to keep 

records and submit required reports to 

EPA or the delegated State regulatory 

authority. Notifications, reports, and 

records are essential in determining 

compliance and are required, in general, 

of all sources subject to the 1994 

Halogenated Solvent Cleaning NESHAP. 

Owners or operators subject to the 1994 

Halogenated Solvent Cleaning NESHAP 

continue to maintain records and retain 

them for at least 5 years following the 

date of such measurements, reports, and 

records. Information collection 

requirements that were promulgated on 

December 2, 1994 in the Halogenated 

Solvent Cleaning NESHAP prior to the 

2005 proposed amendments, as well the 

NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR 

part 63, subpart A), which are 

mandatory for all owners or operators 

subject to national emission standards, 

are documented in EPA ICR No. 

1652.05. The Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) has previously approved 

these information collection 

requirements contained in the existing 

regulations 40 CFR part 63 subpart T 

under the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

and has assigned OMB control number 

2060–0273, EPA ICR number 1652.05. A 

copy of the OMB approved Information 

Collection Request (ICR) may be 

obtained from Susan Auby, Collection 

Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (2822T); 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460 or by calling (202) 566–1672. 

Burden means the total time, effort, or 

financial resources expended by persons 

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose 

or provide information to or for a 

Federal agency. This includes the time 

needed to review instructions; develop, 

acquire, install, and utilize technology 

and systems for the purposes of 

collecting, validating, and verifying 

information, processing and 

maintaining information, and disclosing 

and providing information; adjust the 

existing ways to comply with any 

previously applicable instructions and 

requirements; train personnel to be able 

to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; 

complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise 

disclose the information. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR part 9 and 48 CFR part 15. 

We have established a public docket 

for this action, which includes the ICR, 

under Docket ID number EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2003–0009, which can be found in 

http://www.regulations.gov. This final 

decision will not change the burden 

estimates from those developed and 

approved in 1994 for the national 

emission standard. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impact 

of the final action on small entities, 

small entity is defined as: (1) A small 

business as defined by the Small 

Business Administration’s (SBA) 

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a 

small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district, or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

As mentioned earlier in this 

Preamble, facilities across several 

industries use halogenated solvents to 

degrease their products, therefore a 

number of size standards are utilized in 

this analysis. For the industries 

represented in this analysis, the 

employment size standard varies from 

500 to 1,500 employees. The annual 

sales standard is as low as 4 million 

dollars and as high as 150 million 

dollars. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this final rule on small 

entities, we have concluded that this 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. This 

conclusion is based on the economic 

impact of the final rule to affected small 

entities in the entire halogenated 

solvent cleaning source category. The 

final rule is expected to affect 125 

ultimate parent entities that will be 

regulated as major sources. Forty of the 

parent entities, or approximately onethird, are defined as small according to 

the SBA small business size standards. 

None of the small firms has an 

annualized cost of more than 0.7 

percent of sales associated with meeting 

the requirements for major sources, and 

16 of the forty affected small firms are 

estimated to incur no costs or have cost 

savings associated with compliance 

with the final rule. For more 

information, please consult the 

economic impact analysis for this 

rulemaking. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on State, local, 

and tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, 

EPA generally must prepare a written 

statement, including a cost-benefit 

analysis, for proposed and final rules 

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may 

result in expenditures to State, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or to the private sector, of $100 million 

or more in any one year. Before 

promulgating an EPA rule for which a 

written statement is needed, section 205 

of the UMRA generally requires us to 

identify and consider a reasonable 

number of regulatory alternatives and 

adopt the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule. The provisions of section 

205 do not apply when they are 

inconsistent with applicable law. 

Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to 

adopt an alternative other than the least 

costly, most cost-effective, or least 

burdensome alternative if the 

Administrator publishes with the final 

rule an explanation why that alternative 

was not adopted. 

Before we establish any regulatory 

requirements that may significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments, 

including tribal governments, it must 

have developed under section 203 of the 

UMRA a small government agency plan. 

The plan must provide for notifying 

potentially affected small governments, 

enabling officials of affected small 

governments to have meaningful and 

timely input in the development of EPA 

regulatory proposals with significant 

Federal intergovernmental mandates, 

and informing, educating, and advising 

small governments on compliance with 

the regulatory requirements. 

We have determined that this final 

rule does not contain a Federal mandate 

that may result in expenditures of $100 

million or more for State, local, and 

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

to the private sector in any 1 year. Thus, 

this final rule is not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 and 205 of 

the UMRA. 

EPA has determined that the final rule 

contains no regulatory requirements that 

might significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments because it contains 

mmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOB

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 85 / Thursday, May 3, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 25157 

no requirements that apply to such 

governments or impose obligations 

upon them. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism,’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ 

This final rule does not have 

federalism implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. None of the 

affected halogenated solvent cleaning 

facilities are owned or operated by State 

or local governments. Thus, Executive 

Order 13132 does not apply to the final 

rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribe Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires us 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal 

implications’’ is defined in the 

Executive Order to include regulations 

that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on 

one or more Indian tribes, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

Government and the Indian tribes, or on 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes.’’ 

This final rule does not have tribal 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on tribal governments, on 

the relationship between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes as 

specified in Executive Order 13175. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this final decision. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: 

(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

EPA has reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

the Agency must evaluate the 

environmental health or safety effects of 

the planned rule on children, and 

explain why the planned regulation is 

preferable to other potentially effective 

and reasonably feasible alternatives 

considered by the Agency. 

This final decision is not subject to 

the Executive Order because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, the Agency 

believes this action represents 

reasonable further efforts to mitigate 

risks to the general public, including 

effects on children. This conclusion is 

based on our assessment of the imposed 

emission limits that would reduce 

chlorinated solvent impacts on human 

health associated with exposures to 

halogenated solvent cleaning 

operations. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

The final rule is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ as defined in Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 

2001) because it is not likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. 

This final rule will have a negligible 

impact on energy consumption because 

about ten percent of entities using 

halogenated solvent cleaning will have 

to reduce emissions through a range of 

activities involving simple process 

changes to the installation of additional 

emission control equipment or special 

low emitting machines to comply. The 

cost of energy distribution should not be 

affected by the final rule at all since the 

standards do not affect energy 

distribution facilities. We also expect 

that there would be no impact on the 

import of foreign energy supplies, and 

no other adverse outcomes are expected 

to occur with regards to energy supplies. 

Further, we have concluded that this 

final rule is not likely to have any 

significant adverse energy effects. 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–113, 

12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs EPA 

to use voluntary consensus standards 

(VCS) in its regulatory activities unless 

to do so would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

VCS are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA 

to provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable VCS. 

This final revision to the 1994 

NESHAP for halogenated solvent 

cleaning do not include requirements 

for technical standards beyond what the 

NESHAP requires. Therefore, the 

requirements of the NTTAA do not 

apply to this action. 

J. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. The EPA will 

submit a report containing the final rule 

amendment and other required 

information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. 

House of Representatives, and the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of this final 

rule amendment in the Federal Register. 

The final rule amendment is not a 

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). This final rule is effective on 

May 3, 2007. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: April 16, 2007. 

Stephen L. Johnson, 

Administrator. 

■ For reasons stated in the Preamble, 

title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 63—[Amended] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 63 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart T—[Amended] 

■ 2. Section 63.460 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (c), (d), and (g) and 

adding paragraph (i) to read as follows: 

mmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOB

25158 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 85 / Thursday, May 3, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 63.460 Applicability and designation of 

source. 

* * * * * 

(c) Except as provided in paragraph 

(g) of this section, each solvent cleaning 

machine subject to this subpart that 

commenced construction or 

reconstruction after November 29, 1993 

shall achieve compliance with the 

provisions of this subpart, except for §

63.471, immediately upon start-up or by 

December 2, 1994, whichever is later. 

(d) Except as provided in paragraph 

(g) of this section, each solvent cleaning 

machine subject to this subpart that 

commenced construction or 

reconstruction on or before November 

29, 1993 shall achieve compliance with 

the provisions of this subpart, except for 

§ 63.471, no later than December 2, 

1997. 

* * * * * 

(g) Each continuous web cleaning 

machine subject to this subpart shall 

achieve compliance with the provisions 

of this subpart, except for § 63.471, no 

later than December 2, 1999. 

* * * * * 

(i) The compliance date for the 

requirements in § 63.471 depends on 

the date that construction or 

reconstruction of the affected facility 

commences. For purposes of this 

paragraph, affected facility means all 

solvent cleaning machines, except 

solvent cleaning machines used in the 

manufacture and maintenance of 

aerospace products, solvent cleaning 

machines used in the manufacture of 

narrow tubing, and continuous web 

cleaning machines, located at a major 

source that are subject to the facilitywide limits in Table 1 of § 63.471(b)(2), 

and for area sources, affected facility 

means all solvent cleaning machines, 

except cold batch cleaning machines, 

located at an area source that are subject 

to the facility-wide limits in Table 1 of 

§ 63.471(b)(2). 

(1) Each affected facility that was 

constructed or reconstructed on or 

before August 17, 2006, shall be in 

compliance with the provisions of this 

subpart no later than May 3, 2010. 

(2) Each affected facility that was 

constructed or reconstructed on or after 

August 17, 2006, shall be in compliance 

with the provisions of this subpart on 

May 3, 2007 or immediately upon 

startup, whichever is later. 

■ 3. Section § 63.471 is added to 

Subpart T to read as follows: 

§ 63.471 Facility-wide standards. 

(a) Each owner or operator of an 

affected facility shall comply with the 

requirements specified in this section. 

For purposes of this section, affected 

facility means all solvent cleaning 

machines, except solvent cleaning 

machines used in the manufacture and 

maintenance of aerospace products, 

solvent cleaning machines used in the 

manufacture of narrow tubing, and 

continuous web cleaning machines, 

located at a major source that are subject 

to the facility-wide limits in paragraph 

(b)(2) of this section, and for area 

sources, affected facility means all 

solvent cleaning machines, except cold 

batch cleaning machines, located at an 

area source that are subject to the 

facility-wide limits in paragraph (b)(2) 

of this section. 

(b)(1) Each owner or operator of an 

affected facility must maintain a log of 

solvent additions and deletions for each 

solvent cleaning machine. 

(2) Each owner or operator of an 

affected facility must ensure that the 

total emissions of perchloroethylene 

(PCE), trichloroethylene (TCE) and 

methylene chloride (MC) used at the 

affected facility are equal to or less than 

the applicable facility-wide 12-month 

rolling total emission limit presented in 

Table 1 of this section as determined 

using the procedures in paragraph (c) of 

this section. 

TABLE 1.—FACILITY-WIDE EMISSION LIMITS FOR FACILITIES WITH SOLVENT CLEANING MACHINES

Solvents emitted 

Facility-wide annual 

emission limits in kg— 

for general population 

degreasing machines 

Facility-wide annual 

emission limit in kg for 

military depot 

maintenance facilities 

PCE only a ............................................................................................................................... 4,800 8,000 

TCE only .................................................................................................................................. 14,100 23,500 

MC only .................................................................................................................................... 60,000 100,000 

Multiple solvents—Calculate the MC-weighted emissions using equation 1 .......................... 60,000 100,000 

a PCE emission limit calculated using CalEPA URE. 

Note: In the equation, the facility emissions 

of PCE and TCE are weighted according to 

their carcinogenic potency relative to that of 

MC. The value of A is 12.5. The value for B 

is 4.25. 

W E PCE A TCE B M C Eq = × ( )+ × ( )+( ) ( .9)

Where: 

WE = Weighted 12-month rolling total 

emissions in kg (lbs). 

PCE = 12-month rolling total PCE emissions 

from all solvent cleaning machines at the 

facility in kg (lbs). 

TCE = 12-month rolling total TCE emission 

from all solvent cleaning machines at the 

facility in kg (lbs). 

MC = 12-month rolling total MC emissions 

from all solvent cleaning machines at the 

facility in kg (lbs). 

(c) Each owner or operator of an 

affected facility shall on the first 

operating day of every month, 

demonstrate compliance with the 

applicable facility-wide emission limit 

on a 12-month rolling total basis using 

the procedures in paragraphs (c)(1) 

through (5) of this section. For purposes 

of this paragraph, ‘‘each solvent 

cleaning machine’’ means each solvent 

cleaning machine that is part of an 

affected facility regulated by this 

section. 

(1) Each owner or operator of an 

affected facility shall, on the first 

operating day of every month, ensure 

that each solvent cleaning machine 

system contains only clean liquid 

solvent. This includes, but is not limited 

to, fresh unused solvent, recycled 

solvent, and used solvent that has been 

cleaned of soiled materials. A fill line 

must be indicated during the first month 

the measurements are made. The 

solvent level within the machine must 

be returned to the same fill-line each 

month, immediately prior to calculating 

monthly emissions as specified in 

paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) of this section. 

The solvent cleaning machine does not 

have to be emptied and filled with fresh 

unused solvent prior to the calculations. 

(2) Each owner or operator of an 

affected facility shall, on the first 

operating day of the month, using the 

records of all solvent additions and 

deletions for the previous month, 

determine solvent emissions (Eunit) from 

each solvent cleaning machine using 

equation 10: 

E SA LSR SSR Eq uniti i i =− − ( .10)

Where: 

Eunit = the total halogenated HAP solvent 

emissions from the solvent cleaning 


mmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOBER03MY07.015 ER03MY07.016
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 85 / Thursday, May 3, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 25159 

machine during the most recent month i, 

(kilograms of solvent per month). 

SAi = the total amount of halogenated HAP 

liquid solvent added to the solvent 

cleaning machine during the most recent 

month i, (kilograms of solvent per 

month). 

LSRi = the total amount of halogenated HAP 

liquid solvent removed from the solvent 

cleaning machine during the most recent 

month i, (kilograms of solvent per 

month). 

SSRi = the total amount of halogenated HAP 

solvent removed from the solvent 

cleaning machine in solid waste, 

obtained as described in paragraph (c)(3) 

of this section, during the most recent 

month i, (kilograms of solvent per 

month). 

(3) Each owner or operator of an 

affected facility shall, on the first 

operating day of the month, determine 

SSRi using the method specified in 

paragraph (c)(3)(i) or (c)(3)(ii) of this 

section. 

(i) From tests conducted using EPA 

reference method 25d. 

(ii) By engineering calculations 

included in the compliance report. 

(4) Each owner or operator of an 

affected facility shall on the first 

operating day of the month, after 12 

months of emissions data are available, 

determine the 12-month rolling total 

emissions, ETunit, for the 12-month 

period ending with the most recent 

month using equation 11: 

ET E Eq unit unit

j l

= 



 



 =

∑

12

( .11)

Where: 

ETunit = the total halogenated HAP solvent 

emissions over the preceding 12 months, 

(kilograms of solvent emissions per 12- 

month period). 

Eunit = halogenated HAP solvent emissions for 

each month (j) for the most recent 12 

months (kilograms of solvent per month). 

(5) Each owner or operator of an 

affected facility shall on the first 

operating day of the month, after 12 

months of emissions data are available, 

determine the 12-month rolling total 

emissions, ETfacility, for the 12-month 

period ending with the most recent 

month using equation 12: 

ET ET Eq facility unit

j l

i

= 



 



 =

∑ ( .12)

Where: 

ETfacility = the total halogenated HAP solvent 

emissions over the preceding 12 months 

for all cleaning machines at the facility, 

(kilograms of solvent emissions per 12- 

month period). 

ETunit = the total halogenated HAP solvent 

emissions over the preceding 12 months 

for each unit j, where i equals the total 

number of units at the facility (kilograms 

of solvent emissions per 12-month 

period). 

(d) If the applicable facility-wide 

emission limit presented in Table 1 of 

paragraph (b)(2) is not met, an 

exceedance has occurred. All 

exceedances shall be reported as 

required in § 63.468(h). 

(e) Each owner or operator of an 

affected facility shall maintain records 

specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through 

(3) of this section either in electronic or 

written form for a period of 5 years. For 

purposes of this paragraph, ‘‘each 

solvent cleaning machine’’ means each 

solvent cleaning machine that is part of 

an affected facility regulated by this 

section. 

(1) The dates and amounts of solvent 

that are added to each solvent cleaning 

machine. 

(2) The solvent composition of wastes 

removed from each solvent cleaning 

machines as determined using the 

procedure described in paragraph (c)(3) 

of this section. 

(3) Calculation sheets showing how 

monthly emissions and the 12-month 

rolling total emissions from each solvent 

cleaning machine were determined, and 

the results of all calculations. 

(f) Each owner or operator of an 

affected facility shall submit an initial 

notification report to the Administrator 

no later than May 3, 2010. This report 

shall include the information specified 

in paragraphs (f)(1) through (5) of this 

section. 

(1) The name and address of the 

owner or operator of the affected 

facility. 

(2) The address (i.e., physical 

location) of the solvent cleaning 

machine(s) that is part of an affected 

facility regulated by this section. 

(3) A brief description of each solvent 

cleaning machine at the affected facility 

including machine type (batch vapor, 

batch cold, vapor in-line or cold inline), solvent/air interface area, and 

existing controls. 

(4) The date of installation for each 

solvent cleaning machine. 

(5) An estimate of annual halogenated 

HAP solvent consumption for each 

solvent cleaning machine. 

(g) Each owner or operator of an 

affected facility shall submit to the 

Administrator an initial statement of 

compliance on or before May 3, 2010. 

The statement shall include the 

information specified in paragraphs 

(g)(1) through (g)(3) of this section. 

(1) The name and address of the 

owner or operator of the affected 

facility. 

(2) The address (i.e., physical 

location) of each solvent cleaning 

machine that is part of an affected 

facility regulated by this section. 

(3) The results of the first 12-month 

rolling total emissions calculation. 

(h) Each owner or operator of an 

affected facility shall submit a solvent 

emission report every year. This solvent 

emission report shall contain the 

requirements specified in paragraphs 

(h)(1) through (h)(3) of this section. 

(1) The average monthly solvent 

consumption for the affected facility in 

kilograms per month. 

(2) The 12-month rolling total solvent 

emission estimates calculated each 

month using the method as described in 

paragraph (c) of this section. 

(3) This report can be combined with 

the annual report required in § 63.468(f) 

and (g) into a single report for each 

facility. 

[FR Doc. E7–7668 Filed 5–2–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


mmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOBER03MY07.017 ER03MY07.018