62384 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 203 / Monday, October 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0009; FRL–8727–5] 

RIN 2060–AP07 

National Emission Standards for 

Halogenated Solvent Cleaning 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed Notice of 

Reconsideration and Request for Public 

Comment. 

SUMMARY: On May 3, 2007, EPA 

promulgated the final rule titled: 

National Air Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Halogenated 

Solvent Cleaning (the Halogenated 

Solvent Cleaning rule) pursuant to 

sections 112(d)(6) and 112(f) of the 

Clean Air Act. The Halogenated Solvent 

Cleaning rule set facility-wide emission 

limits for certain halogenated solvent 

cleaning machines and a May 3, 2010, 

compliance deadline. 

Following promulgation of the 

Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule, the 

Administrator received several petitions 

for reconsideration, pursuant to Clean 

Air Act section 307(d)(7)(B). The 

purpose of this notice is to initiate a 

process for responding to certain issues 

raised in the petitions. We are 

requesting comment on the particular 

issues for which we are granting 

reconsideration, and those issues are 

identified, in detail, below. Specifically, 

we are requesting comment on the 

revised risk assessment, our use of the 

2002 National Emissions Inventory data 

in lieu of the 1999 National Emissions 

Inventory data, which was used at 

proposal, our ample margin of safety 

determination under Clean Air Act 

section 112(f)(2), our determination 

under Clean Air Act section 112(d)(6), 

and the compliance deadline. 

DATES: Comments. Comments must be 

received on or before December 4, 2008. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts 

EPA requesting to speak at a public 

hearing by October 30, 2008, a public 

hearing will be held November 4, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2002–0009, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (202)566–1741. 

• Mail: Air and Radiation Docket, 

EPA, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460. Please include a duplicate 

copy, if possible. We request that a 

separate copy of each public comment 

also be sent to the contact person listed 

below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). 

• Hand Delivery: In person or by 

courier, deliver comments to: EPA 

Docket Center (2822T), EPA West 

Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. We 

request that a separate copy of each 

public comment also be sent to the 

contact person listed below (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2002– 

0009. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., 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. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center, Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0009, EPA West 

Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the Air and Radiation 

Docket is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions about this proposed action, 

contact Mr. H. Lynn Dail, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, Sector 

Policies and Programs Division, Natural 

Resources and Commerce Group (E143– 

03), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 

27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 

2363; fax number: (919) 541–3470; and 

e-mail address: dail.lynn@epa.gov. For 

specific information regarding the 

modeling methodology, contact Ms. 

Elaine Manning, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Health and 

Environmental Impacts Division, Sector 

Based Assessment Group (C539–02), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; 

telephone number: (919) 541–5499; fax 

number: (919) 541–0840; and e-mail 

address: manning.elaine@epa.gov. For 

information about the applicability of 

these national emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) to a 

particular entity, contact Mr. Scott 

Throwe, Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, DC, (202) 564–7013; and email address: throwe.scott@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated 

Entities. Categories and entities 

potentially affected by this notice 

include: 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 203 / Monday, October 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules 62385 

Category NAICS1 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 

manufacturing), 332 (fabricated metal manufacturing), 

333 (machinery manufacturing), 334 (computer and 

electronic product manufacturing), 335 (electrical 

equipment, appliance, and component manufacturing); 336 (transportation equipment manufacturing); 337 (furniture and related products manufacturing); and 339 (misc. manufacturing).

Operations at sources that are engaged in solvent 

cleaning using methylene chloride (MC), 

perchloroethylene (PCE), or trichloroethylene (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 this proposed action. This 

action proposes to require an owner or 

operator of a facility that is subject to 

the 1994 NESHAP for Halogenated 

Solvent Cleaning (40 CFR part 63.460 of 

subpart T) to operate under certain 

specific emission limits. If you have any 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this proposal to a particular entity, 

consult the person listed in the 

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

Submitting Comments/CBI. Direct 

your comments to Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2002–0009. Do not submit 

CBI to EPA through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Instead, 

send or deliver information identified as 

CBI only to the following address: Mr. 

Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document 

Control Officer (C404–02), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC 

27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2002–0009. Clearly mark the 

part or all of the information that you 

claim to be CBI. For CBI information on 

a disk or CD–ROM that you mail to Mr. 

Morales, mark the outside of the disk or 

CD–ROM as CBI and then identify 

electronically within the disk or CD– 

ROM the specific information that is 

claimed as CBI. 

In addition to one complete version of 

the comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

inclusion in the public docket. If you 

submit a CD–ROM or disk that does not 

contain CBI, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM clearly that it does not 

contain CBI. Information not marked as 

CBI will be included in the public 

docket and EPA’s electronic public 

docket without prior notice. 

If you have any questions about CBI 

or the procedures for claiming CBI, 

please consult the person identified in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section. Information marked as CBI will 

not be disclosed except in accordance 

with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 

2. Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition 

to being available in the docket, an 

electronic copy of this proposed action 

will also be available on the WWW 

through the Technology Transfer 

Network (TTN). Following signature, a 

copy of the proposed action will be 

posted on the TTN’s policy and 

guidance page for newly proposed or 

promulgated rules at the following 

address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. 

The TTN provides information and 

technology exchange in various areas of 

air pollution control. 

Additional information is available in 

section I of this preamble and on the 

Halogenated Solvents Cleaning Web 

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

rrisk/rtrpg.html. This information 

includes source category descriptions 

and detailed emissions and other data 

that were used as inputs to the risk 

assessments. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts 

EPA requesting to speak at a public 

hearing concerning the particular issues 

for which we are granting 

reconsideration by October 30, 2008, we 

will hold a public hearing at 10 a.m. at 

EPA’s Campus located at 109 T.W. 

Alexander Drive in Research Triangle 

Park, NC, or an alternate site nearby on 

November 4, 2008. Persons interested in 

presenting oral testimony should 

contact Ms. Joan C. Rogers, Natural 

Resources and Commerce Group (E143– 

03), Sector Policies and Programs 

Division, EPA, Research Triangle Park, 

NC 27711, telephone number: (919) 

541–4487, e-mail address: 

rogers.joanc@epa.gov, by October 30, 

2008. Persons interested in attending 

the public hearing should also call Ms. 

Rogers to verify the time, date, and 

location of the hearing. A public hearing 

will provide interested parties the 

opportunity to present data, views, or 

arguments concerning the proposed 

standards. 

Outline. The information presented in 

this Preamble is organized as follows: 

I. Background 

A. What is the statutory authority for 

regulating hazardous air pollutants? 

B. What is the Halogenated Solvent 

Cleaning rule? 

C. What have we been asked to reconsider? 

II. Proposed Response to the Petitions for 

Reconsideration 

A. What is our proposed action? 

B. What is the reason for our proposed 

action? 

III. Discussion of Issues Subject to 

Reconsideration 

A. Baseline Risk Assessment and Decision 

on Acceptable Risk 

B. Decision on Ample Margin of Safety 

C. Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(6) Review 

D. Compliance Schedule 

IV. Proposed Regulatory Text 

V. Impacts 

VI. 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. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

I. Background 

A. What is the statutory authority for 

regulating hazardous air pollutants? 

Section 112 of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) establishes a two-stage regulatory 

process to address emissions of 

hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from 

stationary sources. In the first stage, 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

62386 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 203 / Monday, October 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

1 ‘‘Adverse environmental effect’’ is defined in 

CAA Section 112(a)(7) as any significant and 

widespread adverse effect, which may be 

reasonably anticipated to wildlife, aquatic life, or 

natural resources, including adverse impacts on 

populations of endangered or threatened species or 

significant degradation of environmental quality 

over broad areas. 

after EPA has identified categories of 

sources emitting one or more of the HAP 

listed in section 112(b) of the CAA, 

section 112(d) of the CAA calls for us 

to promulgate NESHAP for those 

sources: ‘‘Major sources’’ are those that 

emit or have the potential to emit any 

single HAP at a rate of 10 tons or more 

per year or 25 tons or more per year of 

any combination of HAP. For major 

sources, the technology-based standards 

must reflect the maximum degree of 

emission reductions of HAP achievable 

(after considering cost, energy 

requirements, and non-air quality health 

and environmental impacts) and are 

commonly referred to as maximum 

achievable control technology (MACT) 

standards. 

The MACT floor is the minimum 

control level allowed for NESHAP and 

is defined under section 112(d)(3) of the 

CAA. For new sources, the MACT floor 

cannot be less stringent than the 

emission control that is achieved in 

practice by the best-controlled similar 

source. The MACT standards for 

existing sources can be less stringent 

than standards for new sources, but it 

cannot be less stringent than the average 

emission limitation achieved by the 

best-performing 12 percent of existing 

sources in the category or subcategory 

(or the best-performing five sources for 

categories or subcategories with fewer 

than 30 sources). In developing MACT 

standards, we must also consider 

control options that are more stringent 

than the floor. We may establish 

standards more stringent than the floor 

based on the consideration of the cost of 

achieving the emission reductions, any 

non-air quality health and 

environmental impacts, and energy 

requirements. 

EPA is then required to review these 

technology-based standards and to 

revise them ‘‘as necessary (taking into 

account developments in practices, 

processes, and control technologies)’’ no 

less frequently than every 8 years, under 

CAA section 112(d)(6). In this proposal, 

we are publishing the results of our 8- 

year technology review for the 

halogenated cleaning solvent source 

category. 

The second stage in standard-setting 

focuses on reducing any remaining 

‘‘residual’’ risk according to CAA 

section 112(f). This provision requires, 

first, that EPA prepare 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 of emitting 

sources, and recommendations as to 

legislation regarding such remaining 

risk. EPA prepared and submitted this 

report (Residual Risk Report to 

Congress, EPA–453/R–99–001) in March 

1999. Congress did not act in response 

to the report, thereby triggering EPA’s 

obligation under CAA section 112(f)(2) 

to analyze and address residual risk. 

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

determine for source categories subject 

to certain CAA section 112(d) standards 

whether the emission limitations 

provide an ample margin of safety to 

protect public health. If the MACT 

standards for 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-1 million,’’ EPA must promulgate 

residual risk standards for the source 

category (or subcategory) as necessary to 

provide an ample margin of safety to 

protect public health. EPA must also 

adopt more stringent standards, if 

necessary, to prevent an adverse 

environmental effect,1 but must 

consider cost, energy, safety, and other 

relevant factors in doing so. In a 

residual risk rulemaking under section 

112(f)(2), EPA may adopt standards 

equal to the existing MACT standards 

(NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 

(D.C. Cir. 2008). 

Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA expressly 

preserves our use of the two-step 

process for developing standards to 

address residual risk and our 

interpretation of ‘‘ample margin of 

safety’’ developed in the National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants: Benzene Emissions from 

Maleic Anhydride Plants, Ethylbenzene/ 

Styrene Plants, Benzene Storage Vessels, 

Benzene Equipment Leaks, and Coke 

By-Product Recovery Plants (Benzene 

NESHAP) (54 FR 38044, September 14, 

1989). See NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077 

D.C. Cir. 2008). The first step in the 

residual risk process is the 

determination of acceptable risk. The 

second step provides for an ample 

margin of safety to protect public health, 

which is the level at which the 

standards are set (unless a more 

stringent standard is required to 

prevent, taking into consideration costs, 

energy, safety, and other relevant 

factors, an adverse environmental 

effect). 

The terms ‘‘individual most exposed,’’ 

‘‘acceptable level,’’ and ‘‘ample margin 

of safety’’ are not specifically defined in 

the CAA. However, CAA section 

112(f)(2)(B) directs us to use the 

interpretation set out in the Benzene 

NESHAP. See also, A Legislative History 

of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 

1990, volume 1, p. 877 (Senate debate 

on Conference Report). We notified 

Congress in the Residual Risk Report to 

Congress that we intended to use the 

Benzene NESHAP approach in making 

CAA section 112(f) residual risk 

determinations (EPA–453/R–99–001, p. 

ES–11). 

In the Benzene NESHAP, we stated as 

an overall objective: 

* * * in protecting public health with an 

ample margin of safety, we strive to provide 

maximum feasible protection against risks to 

health from hazardous air pollutants by (1) 

protecting the greatest number of persons 

possible to an individual lifetime risk level 

no higher than approximately 1-in-1 million; 

and (2) limiting to no higher than 

approximately 1-in-10 thousand (i.e., 100-in1 million) the estimated risk that a person 

living near a facility would have if he or she 

were exposed to the maximum pollutant 

concentrations for 70 years. 

We also stated that, ‘‘The EPA also 

considers incidence (the number of 

persons estimated to suffer cancer or 

other serious health effects as a result of 

exposure to a pollutant) to be an 

important measure of the health risk to 

the exposed population. Incidence 

measures the extent of health risk to the 

exposed population as a whole, by 

providing an estimate of the occurrence 

of cancer or other serious health effects 

in the exposed population.’’ The EPA 

went on to conclude that ‘‘estimated 

incidence would be weighed along with 

other health risk information in judging 

acceptability.’’ As explained more fully 

in our Residual Risk Report to Congress, 

EPA does not define ‘‘rigid line(s) of 

acceptability,’’ but considers rather 

broad objectives to be weighed with a 

series of other health measures and 

factors (EPA–453/R–99–001, p. ES–11). 

The determination of what represents an 

‘‘acceptable’’ risk is based on a judgment of 

‘‘what risks are acceptable in the world in 

which we live’’ (54 FR 38045, quoting the 

Vinyl Chloride decision at 824 F.2d 1165) 

recognizing that our world is not risk-free. 

In the Benzene NESHAP, we stated 

that ‘‘EPA will generally presume that if 

the risk to (the maximum exposed) 

individual is no higher than 

approximately 1-in-10 thousand, that 

risk level is considered acceptable.’’ We 

discussed the maximum individual 

lifetime cancer risk as being ‘‘the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 203 / Monday, October 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules 62387 

2Quoted text is from the Benzene NESHAP 

preamble, pages 38045 and 38046. 

3Quoted text is from the Benzene NESHAP 

preamble, pages 38045 and 38046. 

4Quoted text is from the Benzene NESHAP 

preamble, pages 38045 and 38046. 

5MIR is the maximum individual cancer risk. 

6Halogenated 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. 

7All emission limits and emission rates in the 

assessments were converted to MC equivalents 

based on the relative cancer potency of the HAP 

emitted. The cancer potency-weighted MC 

equivalent emission rate was calculated as the 

estimated emissions for the HAP in kg/yr or lb/yr 

times the unit risk estimate (URE) for the HAP 

divided by the URE for MC. 

estimated risk that a person living near 

a plant would have if he or she were 

exposed to the maximum pollutant 

concentrations for 70 years.’’ We 

explained that this measure of risk ‘‘is 

an estimate of the upperbound of risk 

based on conservative assumptions, 

such as continuous exposure for 24 

hours per day for 70 years.’’ 2 We 

acknowledge that maximum individual 

lifetime cancer risk ‘‘does not 

necessarily reflect the true risk, but 

displays a health-protective risk level 

which is an upper bound that is 

unlikely to be exceeded.’’ 3

Understanding that there are both 

benefits and limitations to using 

maximum individual lifetime cancer 

risk as a metric for determining 

acceptability, we acknowledged in the 

1989 Benzene NESHAP that 

‘‘consideration of maximum individual 

risk * * * must take into account the 

strengths and weaknesses of this 

measure of risk.’’ 4 Consequently, the 

presumptive risk level of 100-in-1 

million (1-in-10 thousand) provides a 

benchmark for judging the acceptability 

of maximum individual lifetime cancer 

risk, but does not constitute a rigid line 

for making that determination. 

The EPA also explained in the 1989 

Benzene NESHAP the following: 

In establishing a presumption for MIR5, 

rather than rigid line for acceptability, the 

Agency intends to weigh it with a series of 

other health measures and factors. These 

include the overall incidence of cancer or 

other serious health effects within the 

exposed population, the numbers of persons 

exposed within each individual lifetime risk 

range and associated incidence within, 

typically, a 50 kilometer (km) exposure 

radius around facilities, the science policy 

assumptions and estimation uncertainties 

associated with the risk measures, weight of 

the scientific evidence for human health 

effects, other quantified or unquantified 

health effects, effects due to co-location of 

facilities, and co-emission of pollutants. 

In some cases, these health measures 

and factors taken together may provide 

a more realistic description of the 

magnitude of risk in the exposed 

population than that provided by 

maximum individual lifetime cancer 

risk alone. 

As explained in the Benzene 

NESHAP, ‘‘(e)ven though the risks 

judged ‘‘acceptable’’ by EPA in the first 

step of the Vinyl Chloride inquiry are 

already low, the second step of the 

inquiry, determining an ‘‘ample margin 

of safety,’’ again includes consideration 

of all of the health factors, and whether 

to reduce the risks even further. In the 

second step, EPA strives to provide 

protection to the greatest number of 

persons possible to an individual 

lifetime risk level no higher than 

approximately 1 in 1 million. In the 

ample margin decision, the EPA again 

considers all of the health risk and other 

health information considered in the 

first step. Beyond that information, 

additional factors relating to the 

appropriate level of control will also be 

considered, including costs and 

economic impacts of controls, 

technological feasibility, uncertainties, 

and any other relevant factors. 

Considering all of these factors, the EPA 

will establish the standard at a level that 

provides an ample margin of safety to 

protect the public health, as required by 

section 112.’’ 

B. What is the Halogenated Solvent 

Cleaning rule? 

On December 2, 1994, we 

promulgated national emission 

standards for halogenated solvent 

cleaning machines 6 (59 FR 61801, 

December 2, 1994) (1994 NESHAP), to 

control emissions of the halogenated 

solvents MC, PCE, TCE, 1,1,1,- 

trichloroethane (TCA), carbon 

tetrachloride, chloroform, and 

halogenated solvent blends or their 

vapors from halogenated solvent 

cleaning machines, pursuant to Section 

112(d) of the CAA. The standards, 

which can be found in 40 CFR Subpart 

T, include multiple alternatives that 

allow maximum compliance flexibility. 

The final rule is available in the docket 

for this rulemaking. It can also be 

accessed at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

atw/degrea/halopg.html. 

Carbon tetrachloride and chloroform 

are no longer used in this source 

category. The Montreal Protocol, a 

multi-national treaty signed on 

September 16, 1987, phased out the 

production and use of these 

chlorofluorocarbons by January 1, 1996. 

The Montreal Protocol also phased out 

the production and use of TCA. 

Although production and use of TCA 

has been phased out since 1998, an 

exemption to the phase-out allows 

facilities with essential products or 

activities to continue their use of TCA, 

and facilities with non-essential 

activities or products to continue the 

use of their remaining TCA stockpiles 

until depleted. A declining quantity of 

TCA continued to be used until 2002, 

when all production of TCA ceased, and 

eventually, facilities used TCA 

stockpiles until depleted. Since January 

1, 2002, TCA has not been 

manufactured for domestic use in the 

United States. 

Halogenated solvent cleaning 

machines use MC, PCE, TCE and TCA 

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 halogenated 

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 halogenated solvent cleaning 

machines. 

In May 2007, we promulgated the 

Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule (72 

FR 25138), which established revised 

standards that further limit emissions of 

MC, TCE and PCE from facilities 

engaged in halogenated solvent 

cleaning, pursuant to CAA section 

112(f). Specifically, we promulgated a 

facility-wide emission limit of 60,000 

kilograms per year (kg/yr) MC 

equivalent 7 that applied to all 

halogenated solvent cleaning machines 

with the exception of halogenated 

solvent cleaning machines used by the 

following industries: Facilities that 

manufacture narrow tubing, facilities 

that use continuous web cleaning 

machines, aerospace manufacturing and 

maintenance facilities, and military 

maintenance and depot facilities. We 

also promulgated a facility-wide 

emission limit of 100,000 kg/yr MC 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

62388 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 203 / Monday, October 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

8These petitions for reconsideration were filed by 

the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection, Natural Resources 

Defense Council, Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future 

and Sierra Club, several State and federal legislators 

and the Governor of the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania (petitioners). 

9Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection v. EPA, No. 07–1129 

(D.C. Cir.); Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future and 

Sierra Club v. EPA, No. 07–1255 (D.C. Cir.); Natural 

Resources Defense Council v. EPA, No. 07–1256 

(D.C. Cir.). These cases have since been 

consolidated. 

10These sources include halogenated solvent 

cleaning machines used by facilities that 

manufacture narrow tubing, facilities that 

manufacture specialized products requiring 

continuous web cleaning machines, and aerospace 

manufacturing and maintenance facilities. 

11These sources include halogenated solvent 

cleaning machines at military maintenance and 

depot facilities and the general population of 

halogenated solvent cleaning machines. The general 

population of halogenated solvent cleaning 

machines includes all halogenated solvent cleaning 

machines, except those machines used by facilities 

that manufacture narrow tubing, facilities that 

manufacture specialized products requiring 

continuous web cleaning, aerospace manufacturing 

and maintenance facilities, and military 

maintenance and depot facilities. 

equivalent for halogenated solvent 

cleaning machines used at military 

maintenance and depot facilities. We 

required existing facilities to comply 

with the revised standards by May 3, 

2010, which is three years after the 

effective date of the Halogenated 

Solvent Cleaning rule. Further, with 

regard to halogenated solvent cleaning 

machines used by facilities that 

manufacture narrow tubing, facilities 

that use continuous web cleaning 

machines, and aerospace manufacturing 

and maintenance facilities we found, 

after considering risks, associated 

compliance costs and the availability of 

control measures, that the 1994 

NESHAP reduces risk to acceptable 

levels, provides an ample margin of 

safety to protect public health, and 

prevents adverse environmental effects. 

We also reviewed the 1994 NESHAP as 

required by CAA section 112(d)(6). 

C. What have we been asked to 

reconsider? 

Following promulgation of the 

Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule, the 

Administrator received several 

petitions 8 for reconsideration 

(Petitions), under CAA section 

307(d)(7)(B). Generally, petitioners 

claimed that the Halogenated Solvent 

Cleaning rule contained legal 

interpretations and information that are 

of central relevance to the final rule that 

were not sufficiently reflected at 

proposal, and that they, therefore, did 

not have adequate opportunity to 

provide input during the designated 

public comment period. Further, 

petitioners claimed that additional 

information on compliance measures 

had become available since the close of 

the public comment period for the 

Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule, and 

that this new information is also of 

central relevance to the Halogenated 

Solvent Cleaning rule. 

On August 15, 2007, EPA informed 

petitioners of its intent to initiate notice 

and comment rulemaking to address the 

Petitions. We also informed petitioners 

that the particular issues for 

reconsideration and the specifics of the 

reconsideration process would be 

addressed in a forthcoming Federal 

Register notice. Additionally, we denied 

the request to stay the effectiveness of 

the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule 

pending completion of the 

reconsideration proceedings. (These 

letters are in the docket for this 

rulemaking.) 

Finally, petitioners challenged the 

Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule in 

the Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit.9 Because we intended 

to initiate notice and comment 

rulemaking to address the Petitions, the 

Court has granted our request to hold 

the litigation in abeyance. The Court has 

directed the parties to the litigation to 

file Motions to Govern Further 

Proceedings by November 3, 2008. 

II. Proposed Response to the Petitions 

for Reconsideration 

A. What is our proposed action? 

In this action, we are proposing to 

find that the risk associated with the 

1994 NESHAP for the halogenated 

solvent cleaning source category is 

acceptable within the meaning of 

Section 112(f). We are also proposing 

various regulatory options that would 

provide an ample margin of safety to 

protect public health and prevent 

adverse environmental effects. These 

proposed requirements would apply to 

owners and operators of halogenated 

solvent cleaning machines that are 

subject to the 1994 NESHAP. We are 

proposing these requirements under 

both CAA sections 112(d)(6) and 

112(f)(2). For existing sources that were 

not subject to the emission reduction 

requirements in the Halogenated 

Solvent Cleaning rule,10 we are 

proposing a 2-year compliance deadline 

from the date of publication of the final 

rule in the Federal Register. As to those 

sources that were subject to emission 

reduction requirements in the 

Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule,11 if 

the final rule on reconsideration 

changes those requirements and makes 

them more stringent, we propose that 

these sources have two years from the 

date of publication of the final rule to 

comply with the requirements of the 

final rule. We believe that such an 

extension is appropriate to allow the 

affected facilities time to meet the more 

stringent emission limitations. 

We are seeking public comment on all 

aspects of this proposed reconsideration 

rule. As noted above, the issues 

identified below are the ones for which 

we are granting reconsideration. We will 

convey our decision as to any other 

issues raised in the reconsideration 

petitions no later than the date by which 

we take final action on the issues 

discussed in this action. 

B. What is the reason for our proposed 

action? 

On August 17, 2006, pursuant to CAA 

section 112(f), we proposed revised 

standards (71 FR 47670, August 17, 

2006) (August 2006 Proposal) to further 

limit emissions of MC, TCE and PCE 

from facilities engaged in halogenated 

solvent cleaning. We co-proposed 

emission limits of 25,000 kg/yr MC 

equivalent and 40,000 kg/yr MC 

equivalent to provide an ample margin 

of safety to protect public health and 

prevent adverse environmental effects. 

The August 2006 proposal also 

identified other levels of emission 

reductions, including the 60,000 and 

100,000 kg/yr MC equivalent levels. 71 

FR 47680–81. We indicated that we 

expected to finalize one of the two coproposed options, and that the 

standards finalized would apply to the 

entire source category in addition to the 

1994 NESHAP requirements. We also 

proposed a compliance deadline for 

existing sources of two years after the 

effective date of the final rule. 

Industry, States, solvent 

manufacturers, industry trade 

associations and district air associations 

submitted comments in response to our 

August 2006 proposal. Industry’s 

comments were primarily submitted by 

the aerospace manufacturing and 

maintenance industry, the narrow 

tubing manufacturing industry, facilities 

that use continuous web cleaning 

machines, and military maintenance 

and depot facilities. Comments focused 

on associated compliance costs, 

technical feasibility, and the proposed 

compliance deadline. In response to 

these comments, we issued a Notice of 

Data Availability (NODA), on December 

14, 2006 (71 FR 75182), requesting 

specific information on compliance 

costs, technical feasibility, and 

compliance deadlines as they related to 

halogenated solvent machines used by 

the above-referenced industries. 

Responses to the NODA provided 

significant data and information that led 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 203 / Monday, October 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules 62389 

12 In addition to raising the PADEP risk 

assessment in their Petitions, Petitioners identified 

certain other documents dated after the close of the 

public comment period, which they argue are of 

central relevance to the Halogenated Solvent 

Cleaning rule. If the Petitioners believe that these 

documents are relevant to the issues on which we 

Continued 

EPA to re-evaluate the data and 

assumptions used to estimate risks, 

costs and technical feasibility of 

compliance with the co-proposed 

emission limits. 

In the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning 

rule, we presented our re-evaluation of 

risks, costs and technical feasibility of 

compliance with the co-proposed 

emission limits. As a result of our reevaluation, we promulgated a facilitywide emission limit of 60,000 kg/yr MC 

equivalent for all halogenated solvent 

cleaning machines with the exception of 

halogenated solvent cleaning machines 

used by facilities that manufacture 

narrow tubing, facilities that use 

continuous web cleaning machines, 

aerospace manufacturing and 

maintenance facilities, and military 

maintenance and depot facilities. We 

determined that this emission limit 

would provide an ample margin of 

safety to protect health and prevent 

adverse environmental effects. For all 

halogenated solvent cleaning machines 

used at military maintenance and depot 

facilities, we promulgated a facilitywide emission limit of 100,000 kg/yr 

MC equivalent that would provide an 

ample margin of safety to protect health 

and prevent adverse environmental 

effects. We also set a compliance 

deadline of three years from the 

effective date of the Halogenated 

Solvent Cleaning rule. Finally, with 

regard to facilities that use continuous 

web cleaning machines and halogenated 

solvent cleaning machines used by 

facilities that manufacture narrow 

tubing and aerospace manufacturing 

and maintenance facilities, we found 

that the current level of control required 

by the 1994 NESHAP reduces HAP 

emissions to levels that provide an 

ample margin of safety to protect public 

health and prevent any adverse 

environmental effects. 

As noted earlier above, following 

promulgation of the Halogenated 

Solvent Cleaning rule, the 

Administrator received several petitions 

for reconsideration, under CAA Section 

307(d)(7)(B). In general, petitioners 

alleged that the following issues 

appeared for the first time in the 

Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule, 

making it impracticable to raise 

objections during the period provided 

for public comment: The 60,000 kg/yr 

MC equivalent limit for the general 

population of halogenated solvent 

cleaning machines; the 100,000 kg/yr 

MC equivalent limit for halogenated 

solvent cleaning machines used by 

military maintenance and depot 

facilities; EPA’s decision to use in 

support of its risk assessment, data from 

the 2002 National Emissions Inventory 

(NEI) as opposed to data from the 1999 

NEI; EPA’s conclusion that the 1994 

NESHAP reduces risk to acceptable 

levels and provides an ample margin of 

safety to protect public health for 

aerospace manufacturing and 

maintenance facilities, facilities that 

manufacture narrow tubing, and 

facilities that use continuous web 

cleaning machines; EPA’s technical 

feasibility and cost analyses in the final 

rule; and the 3-year compliance period 

for existing sources. 

Petitioners also provided information 

on technical feasibility that was not 

otherwise available to EPA at the time 

of promulgation of the Halogenated 

Solvent Cleaning rule. That information 

shows certain facilities that manufacture 

narrow tubing either taking steps or 

planning to take steps to reduce HAP 

emissions at their facilities. This 

information is discussed in greater 

detail below. 

In response to the petitions, we are 

reconsidering various issues, and those 

issues are described in detail below. 

III. Discussion of Issues Subject to 

Reconsideration 

A. Baseline Risk Assessment and 

Decision on Acceptable Risk 

In addition to the general issues 

raised above, petitioners raised several 

specific issues relating to the baseline 

risk assessment and EPA’s decision on 

acceptable risk. 

Before discussing the issues on which 

we are granting reconsideration, we 

would like to clarify a 

misunderstanding that was revealed to 

us in the Petitions. Specifically, certain 

petitioners contend that by removing 

facilities that use continuous web 

cleaning machines, and halogenated 

solvent cleaning machines used by 

facilities that manufacture narrow 

tubing, aerospace manufacturing and 

maintenance, and military maintenance 

and depot facilities in the risk 

assessments for the Halogenated Solvent 

Cleaning rule, we failed to consider the 

health risks from the entire source 

category and thus, that the Halogenated 

Solvent Cleaning rule deviated from the 

Benzene NESHAP (54 FR 38044, 

September 14, 1989) framework and 

CAA Section 112(f)(2)(B). Petitioners 

also contend that the risks associated 

with the source category are ‘‘gross 

underestimates of actual risks’’ because 

of our removal of this subset of sources. 

One petitioner asserts that because the 

risk assessment at proposal showed the 

baseline maximum individual risk 

(MIR) as 200-in-1 million with 0.40 

annual cancer incidences, as compared 

to 100-in-1 million and 0.55 annual 

cancer incidences presented in the 

Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule, the 

resulting 38 percent increased cancer 

incidence was not subject to public 

comment. The petitioner further 

contends that cancer risks would have 

increased beyond 38 percent but for the 

exemptions of certain halogenated 

solvent cleaning machines that had a 

further effect of removing the 

Collegeville, PA, population from the 

population risk distribution. 

However, contrary to petitioners 

understanding, we performed a risk 

assessment for the entire halogenated 

solvent cleaning machines source 

category both for the August 2006 

Proposal (71 FR 47670) and for the 

Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule (72 

FR 25138). Our re-evaluation of risks 

involved the re-assessment of the risks 

for the entire category using both the 

1999 and the 2002 NEI inventory 

(discussed in greater detail, below), 

which was not available at the time of 

the August 2006 Proposal, but was 

available for the Halogenated Solvent 

Cleaning rule. The preamble and risk 

assessment also provided separate 

analyses for each of the industry sectors 

(facilities that manufacture narrow 

tubing, aerospace manufacturing and 

maintenance, military maintenance and 

depots, facilities that use continuous 

web cleaning machines) and the subset 

of remaining facilities not included in 

one of these four sectors that make up 

the halogenated solvent cleaning source 

category. This approach allowed us to 

compare the risk contribution of each 

sector to the overall risks presented by 

the facilities in the halogenated solvent 

source category. In this way, we were 

able to show the contribution of each 

sector’s risk to the risk from the entire 

category. Therefore, contrary to 

petitioners’ allegations, our re-analyses 

of the risks in the Halogenated Solvent 

Cleaning rule did not exclude a subset 

of the halogenated solvent cleaning 

machines source category and therefore, 

did not understate or fail to consider a 

portion of the risks associated with the 

entire source category. 

With regard to the issues on which 

EPA is granting reconsideration, one 

petitioner states that we failed to 

consider the risk assessment prepared 

by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 

Department of Environmental Protection 

(PADEP),12 and that our maximum 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

62390 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 203 / Monday, October 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

are granting reconsideration in this rule, we invite 

petitioners to submit the documents to EPA during 

the public comment period. We will consider such 

documents at the same time we consider all 

significant comments received during the comment 

period for this action. 

13Ted Johnson and Jim Capel. 1992. A Monte 

Carlo Approach to Simulating Residential 

Occupancy Periods and Its Application to the 

General U.S. Population, EPA–450/3–92–011, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Research 

Triangle Park, N.C. (This information has been 

placed in the docket for this rule). 

individual cancer risk level of 70-in-1 

million associated with the narrow 

tubing industry was erroneous given the 

associated risks of 160-in-1 million 

indicated by PADEP’s risk assessment. 

Another petitioner contends that the 

certain assumptions underlying EPA’s 

risk assessment for the Halogenated 

Solvent Cleaning rule are erroneous. In 

support of its position, the petitioner 

cites EPA’s use of census block 

centroids to predict MIR. The petitioner 

argues that EPA should have estimated 

risk at the nearest residence and that 

EPA’s census block approach may have 

resulted in an underprediction of risk. 

We reviewed the risk assessment 

prepared by the PADEP, and we 

disagree with their conclusion that our 

estimated MIR risk level associated with 

the narrow tubing industry is erroneous. 

The PADEP risk assessment was based 

on ambient monitoring data collected in 

2004. (PADEP continues to collect 

ambient data on TCE in the Collegeville, 

PA, area.) From 2004 to 2007, the 

annual average TCE concentrations 

measured over the 4 years ranged from 

0.6 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) 

to 1.5 μg/m3 (avg. = 0.9 μg/m3) at the 

Evansberg, PA site and 1.2 μg/m3 to 1.3 

μg/m3 (avg. = 1.3 μg/m3) at the Trappe, 

PA, site. We extended our risk 

assessment, which was based on 

dispersion modeling of TCE emissions 

from the two Collegeville, PA, 

halogenated solvent cleaning facilities 

in the 2002 NEI emissions inventory, to 

estimate TCE concentrations of 0.8 μg/ 

m3 and 1.4 μg/m3 at the Evansberg and 

Trappe monitoring sites, respectively. 

Thus, from an ambient air concentration 

perspective, the two risk assessments 

are consistent. The risk assessments 

differ, however, because TCE exposures 

were assessed using different cancer 

unit risk estimates (URE) for TCE. 

Following the long-established EPA 

policy, we used the California EPA 

(CalEPA) inhalation URE for TCE. In 

contrast, PADEP used a unit risk value 

for TCE developed by EPA in a draft 

report issued in 2001. That draft report 

was subjected to peer review by the 

EPA’s Science Advisory Board, and the 

Board raised several important issues. 

As a result of the Science Advisory 

Board’s input on the draft report, EPA 

asked the National Academy of Sciences 

(NAS) to examine issues critical to 

developing an objective, realistic, and 

scientifically-based health assessment of 

TCE. The NAS released their report in 

2006, providing EPA further insight as 

they develop a revised health risk 

assessment for TCE. EPA never finalized 

the 2001 draft report because of the 

significant issues raised by the Science 

Advisory Board and NAS. Thus, 

PADEP’s use of EPA’s draft 2001 TCE 

risk assessment neither satisfies the 

basic requirements of our peer review 

policy, nor is the draft 2001 TCE risk 

assessment currently endorsed by the 

EPA’s Office of Research and 

Development. 

In addition, PADEP used an oral 

cancer slope value from the draft TCE 

document instead of the inhalation 

value derived in that document, and 

extrapolated the oral cancer slope factor 

for use in their inhalation risk 

assessment. Use of such an 

extrapolation is considered substantially 

inferior to use of values developed 

directly from inhalation data. PADEP’s 

use of the draft extrapolated URE in 

their assessment resulted in the 

estimation of a maximum individual 

cancer risk of 160-in-1 million at the 

Trappe site, a risk which is 

approximately 50 times higher than 

what the EPA risk assessment indicates 

for that location. Thus, while both risk 

assessments are consistent with respect 

to the estimates of ambient TCE 

concentrations around these monitoring 

sites, there is a significant difference in 

the estimation of individual cancer risk. 

The difference results from PADEP 

using a cancer potency value that would 

not be considered acceptable under 

EPA’s Information Quality Guidelines 

because it did not withstand a rigorous 

scientific peer review. 

Several petitioners stated that the 

EPA’s decision to use available data 

from the 2002 NEI, instead of data from 

the 1999 NEI as proposed, appeared for 

the first time in the Halogenated Solvent 

Cleaning rule, making it impracticable 

to raise objections during the period 

provided for public comment. 

Based on public comments on our 

August 2006 Proposal, our risk 

assessment for the entire source 

category that was presented in the 

Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule used 

the 2002 NEI database instead of the 

1999 NEI database as presented at 

proposal. The 2002 NEI database was 

unavailable at proposal. Further, since 

receipt of the petitions, we have 

conducted additional risk assessments 

using facility emissions from both the 

1999 and 2002 NEI, explicitly assessing 

the risks separately for each of the 

industry sectors identified above at 

various levels of control, similar to our 

August 2006 Proposal and the 

Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule. In 

this way, we have been able to show the 

contribution of each sector’s risk to the 

risk from the entire source category. The 

1999 NEI contains information for 1,167 

halogenated solvent cleaning facilities, 

out of which 743 emit carcinogenic 

HAP. The 2002 NEI contains 

information for 1,080 halogenated 

solvent cleaning facilities, out of which 

734 emit carcinogenic HAP. Considering 

the uncertainties associated with the 

development of emission inventories, 

we consider neither the 1999 nor the 

2002 NEI to be accurate in an absolute 

sense. Rather, we consider them to be 

our best estimates of annual snapshots 

of emissions for this source category. 

For each base year risk assessment, we 

scale-up the modeled results to reflect 

what we believe to be the true number 

of facilities in the source category, 

approximately 1,900. Given our 

knowledge of the NEI database and as a 

result of meetings with industry we 

believe that 1,900 is a better estimate of 

the number of sources in the source 

category. 

To develop an estimate of facilities 

currently operating, EPA asked State 

and EPA regional source category 

contacts for estimates of the number of 

cleaning machines in their jurisdictions. 

As a result of that effort, EPA concluded 

that there were 3,821 halogenated 

solvent cleaning machines nationwide. 

EPA also determined that there was on 

average about two machines per facility, 

therefore, EPA estimated a total of 1,932 

solvent cleaning facilities currently 

existing nationwide. Therefore, for the 

development of this rule, the number of 

sources in this source category was 

assumed to be about 3,800 cleaning 

machines located at 1,900 facilities 

nationwide. This estimate is based on 

information collected by EPA in 1998 

and in 2005. If the scale-up had not 

been implemented the cost and HI 

results would be reduced by 56 percent 

(given that the scale-up factor is 1.76) 

relative to the number of facilities and 

may not truly represent the affected 

universe. We request comment on the 

use of the scale-up to accurately 

represent the universe of sources. 

In addition, the Johnson and Capel 

(1992) population mobility model,13

used to develop the population risk 

distribution for the Halogenated Solvent 

Cleaning rule, was updated subsequent 

to promulgation of that rule. The 

updated model reflects the use of more 

recent Surveys of Income and Program 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 203 / Monday, October 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules 62391 

14U.S. Census Bureau, 2007. American 

Community Survey. Available online at http:// 

www.census.gov/acs/www/. 

15New York State Department of Health, 

Trichloroethene Air Criteria Document, October 

2006, page 1, http://www.health.state.ny.us/ 

environmental/chemicals/trichloroethene/docs/ 

cd_tce.pdf. 

16NYS DOH toxicological review document. 

http://www.health.state.ny.us/environmental/ 

chemicals/trichloroethene/docs/cd_tce.pdf. 

17California EPA, 1999. Chronic toxicity 

summary: Trichloroethylene. Office of 

Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. http:// 

www.oehha.ca.gov/air/chronic_rels/pdf/79016.pdf. 

18The 2002 NEI contained 1,080 facilities and we 

estimate that there are a nationwide total of 1,900 

facilities in this source category, we scale up the 

facility population by a factor of 1.76 to obtain an 

estimated total of facilities for the HI analysis. 

Participation (SIPP) data and a newer, 

more complete modeling approach. The 

new model randomly selects subjects 

from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 

American Community Survey 

database,14 and estimates time already 

spent in the residence, future time to be 

spent in the residence, and future length 

of life. These estimates are then 

combined to predict the total time, past 

and future, that the subject would 

occupy the current residence. Results 

are then compared with SIPP residence 

time data and adjusted to compensate 

for ‘‘residential inertia’’ (i.e., a tendency 

in the SIPP data for long-term residents 

to have lower-than-expected move 

rates). As a result of this update to the 

modeling approach, the baseline 

population risk estimates in this 

preamble differ somewhat from those 

presented in the Halogenated Solvent 

Cleaning rule. This preamble (section 

III) presents risk estimates based on the 

2002 NEI. We believe the 2002 NEI is 

likely to provide more accurate 

estimates of current emissions from the 

source category (compared to the 1999 

NEI), reflecting known decreases in 

solvent demand and use. 

Since promulgation of the 

Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule, we 

have also become aware of a newer 

assessment for non-cancer effects of TCE 

developed by the New York State 

Department of Health (NYS DOH). The 

NYS DOH states that their ‘‘air 

criterion,’’ is ‘‘essentially equivalent to 

an United States Environmental 

Protection Agency’s (US EPA, 2002a) 

reference concentration (RfC) * * * or 

an Agency for Toxic Substances and 

Disease Registry’s (ATSDR, 1996) 

chronic minimal risk level (MRL) * * * 

.’’ 15 In addition to evaluating a number 

of studies which look at numerous 

different toxicological endpoints, the 

NYS DOH air criterion relies on a 1993 

study which evaluated clinical 

neurological effects (as measured by 

coordination tests) in 99 Danish 

workers. For 70 of these workers, the 

dominant exposure was TCE, while for 

25 of the workers the dominant 

exposure was to CFC 113. Air exposures 

were extrapolated from measurements 

of the urinary metabolite TCA. 

Limitations of this study include some 

uncertainty about the actual long-term 

exposure levels of the workers to TCE 

during their employment, and that 25 of 

the 99 subjects were exposed primarily 

to CFC 113. The NYS DOH assessment 

is limited by gaps in the data on 

developmental effects and 

immunotoxicity, and concerns about 

adequacy of methods for evaluating 

health risks to children (limitations it 

shares with the CalEPA assessment). 

The results of the scientific review are 

described in the NYS DOH toxicological 

review document.16

The CalEPA inhalation reference 

exposure level (REL) 17 used in the risk 

assessment for this proposal and our 

previous assessment was based on a 

1973 study of 19 workers who 

experienced symptoms of drowsiness, 

fatigue, headache, and eye irritation. 

CalEPA identified the use of human 

exposure data from workers exposed 

over a period of years as a strength of 

the REL. The lack of reproductive and 

developmental toxicity studies and the 

lack of a no effect level were identified 

as major areas of uncertainty. Both 

CalEPA and NYS DOH had an external 

peer review process and allowed for 

public comment before finalizing their 

respective assessments. The NYS DOH 

assessment was finalized in 2006 and 

the CalEPA assessment was finalized in 

2000. 

Non-cancer risk results were derived 

using the NYS DOH TCE air criterion as 

well as using the CalEPA value in the 

additional risk assessments completed 

since promulgation of the Halogenated 

Solvent Cleaning rule. The results of our 

additional risk assessments are 

summarized in section III of this 

preamble and the complete 

documentation is available in the docket 

for this rulemaking. In this action, we 

are providing this additional risk 

analysis and are soliciting comment on 

it, including comments on the use of the 

NYS DOH air criterion. We note that we 

received no comments recommending 

use of the NYS DOH TCE air criterion 

either in comment on the proposed rule, 

in comment on the NODA, or in any of 

the petitions for reconsideration 

submitted to the EPA. 

The additional risk assessment 

conducted in support of this proposal 

reaffirms our baseline risk analysis that 

was presented in the Halogenated 

Solvent Cleaning rule. The results are 

summarized in Table 1, below. 

Specifically, the analysis confirms that: 

(1) The baseline MIR for the entire 

source category is approximately 100-in1 million and (2) the total cancer 

incidence associated with the source 

category is approximately 0.55 cases per 

year. The updated population risk 

distribution at baseline emission levels 

shows that 100 people are exposed to 

risk levels at or above 100-in-1 million, 

82,000 people are estimated to have 

risks between 10-in-1 million and 100- 

in-1 million, and 8,000,000 people are 

estimated to have risks between 1-in-1 

million and 10-in-1 million. These 

values can be compared to the baseline 

risk estimates that we presented in the 

Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule, i.e., 

about 25 people exposed to risks at or 

above 100-in-1 million, about 22,000 

people at estimated risks between 10-in1 million and 100-in-1 million risk 

level, and about 4,000,000 people at 

estimated risks between 1-in-1 million 

and 10-in-1 million. 

Additionally, in our previous risk 

assessment for the Halogenated Solvent 

Cleaning rule, the maximum hazard 

index (HI) was 0.2 (this HI is associated 

with the compound TCA), and there 

were no facilities with a HI greater than 

1. However, if we were to use the NYS 

DOH air criterion for TCE mentioned 

above, rather than the CalEPA REL and 

apply the national scaling factor 18 we 

estimate that there are ten facilities with 

HI greater than 1 and a maximum HI of 

7. A chronic HI less than or equal to 1 

indicated that there is no appreciable 

risk of adverse effects. Although, a 

chronic HI greater than 1 raises concern 

over potential toxicity, the numerical 

magnitude of the HI must be interpreted 

in the context of the supporting 

information. Thus, we examined these 

ten HI values greater than 1 in the 

context of uncertainties and additional 

supporting information. In the risk 

assessment document used to support 

the August 2006 proposal, we stated 

that the approach used then (and in all 

subsequent risk analyses for this source 

category) was a reasonable one which 

was more likely to over-predict risks 

than under-predict them. When we 

consider the distribution of the 

population at different HI levels, we see 

that out of a total exposed population of 

approximately 6 million people living 

around the ten facilities, only 2,000 

people are estimated to be exposed to 

concentrations whose HI values exceed 

1. Further, when the underlying 

information for the NY value is 

considered, we see that the NYS DOH 

air criterion incorporates a significant 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

62392 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 203 / Monday, October 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

degree of health protection in its use of 

a composite uncertainty factor of 1000. 

The range of maximum HI values (0.2 to 

7) resulting from consideration of 

reference values from both CalEPA and 

NYS DOH is indicative of the range of 

uncertainty in the toxicity estimates for 

TCE. When the NYS DOH value is used, 

the maximum HI is 7; however, when 

the CalEPA value is used, the maximum 

HI becomes 0.2 and the 0.2 value is no 

longer driven by TCE emissions, but by 

TCA emissions. Thus, considering that 

our models would tend to overestimate 

risk, the limited number of people living 

around these ten facilities whose 

exposures correspond to HI values 

above 1, and the health-protective 

factors inherent in the derivation of the 

NY central nervous system value, we 

conclude that the chronic non-cancer 

risks estimated around these ten 

facilities using the NY criteria value and 

associated with the baseline scenario 

are, in this case, acceptable. We are 

seeking comment on whether the 

scaling factor applied to the narrow 

tubing facilities and population 

exposed, as discussed earlier, is 

appropriate in this case. 

We have not conducted any 

additional assessment of environmental 

risks for this source category. The record 

established in the Halogenated Solvent 

Cleaning rule is sufficient to conclude 

that ‘‘no adverse environmental effects,’’ 

as defined in CAA section 112(a)(7), are 

associated with the emissions from 

these sources. After considering all of 

these health risk measures and factors in 

this action, we are again concluding that 

the risks associated with the 1994 

NESHAP are acceptable. 

TABLE 1—ESTIMATED BASELINE CANCER RISK, POPULATION RISK DISTRIBUTION, AND ESTIMATED NUMBER OF FACILITIES

AT VARIOUS RISK LEVELS USING NEI 2002 DATA: SCALED TO NATIONAL LEVEL—ALL HALOGENATED SOLVENT

CLEANING FACILITIES

Cancer risk results Baseline 

no control 

Estimated maximum individual lifetime cancer risk (per million) 1 .................................................................................................. 100 

Estimated annual cancer incidence 2 .............................................................................................................................................. 0.55 

Estimated lifetime cancer risk (per million) # persons 

100 

≥ 10 to < 100 ................................................................................................................................................................................... 82,000 

≥ 1 to < 10 ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 8,000,000 

Total Pop ≥ 1 ................................................................................................................................................................................... 8,082,100 

Total Population Living within 50 km of any Halogenated Solvent Cleaner ............................................................................ 200,000,000 

Estimated lifetime cancer risk (per million) # facilities 

9 

≥ 10 to < 100 ................................................................................................................................................................................... 86 

≥ 1 to < 10 ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 394 

< 1 (only carcinogen emitters) ......................................................................................................................................................... 802 

< 1 (including sources emitting non-carcinogens) 3 ........................................................................................................................ 1,411 

Estimated total number of facilities 4 ........................................................................................................................................ 1,900 

1Estimated maximum individual lifetime cancer risks are rounded to one significant figure. 

2Estimated annual cancer incidence and population counts have been rounded to two or three significant figures where appropriate. 3 Includes facilities with cancer risk < 1 plus 609 (346 scaled up) of the Year 2002 facilities that emit only the non-carcinogen 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA). 4 Represents the total number of facilities in this category. This facility count should equal the sum of facilities with any MIR greater than or 

equal to 1 and the number of facilities with less than 1 (including sources emitting non-carcinogens). 

B. Decision on Ample Margin of Safety 

Petitioners raised a number of issues 

related to the approach and information 

that we used in making the ample 

margin of safety determination in the 

Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule. In 

the following sections we summarize 

and address these issues. In addition, 

the following sections present 

regulatory options that we are proposing 

in this action, as well as health 

information, cost information, and other 

relevant factors that support an ample 

margin of safety analysis for those 

options. Finally, this section provides 

reasons why EPA might choose one 

option over another in our final action. 

1. What is the approach used in making 

the ample margin of safety 

determination? 

Petitioners raised a number of issues 

pertaining to EPA’s overall approach to 

conducting ample margin of safety 

analyses and making ample margin of 

safety determinations, and we address 

these issues in this section of the 

preamble. The petitioners also raise a 

number of points directed at EPA’s 

obligations and discretion under the 

CAA, as well as our exercise of those 

obligations and that discretion. Issues 

raised by petitioners that pertain to 

more specific topics or analyses related 

to our ample margin of safety 

determination are addressed later in this 

notice. 

Several petitioners contend that our 

finding for facilities that manufacture 

narrow tubing that the 1994 NESHAP 

provides an ample margin of safety to 

protect public health is arbitrary and 

capricious because it rests on an 

‘‘erroneous assumption that the MIR 

from (narrow tubing) facilities is 70-in1 million’’ given that PADEP risk data 

indicated risks of 160-in-1 million 

associated with the same facilities in the 

Collegeville, PA area. As discussed in 

the previous section, we believe that the 

PADEP risk assessment is in error, and 

instead rely on our estimated baseline 

MIR for the narrow tubing industry of 

70-in-1 million. One petitioner also 

contended that ‘‘(d)espite the principle 

articulated by EPA in the Benzene 

NESHAP that residual risk standards 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 203 / Monday, October 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules 62393 

should ‘protect the greatest number of 

persons possible to an individual 

lifetime risk level no higher than 

approximately 1-in-1 million,’ ’’ the 

Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule 

failed to demonstrate that it reduced 

risk in this manner. Petitioners further 

claim that consideration of costeffectiveness of controls in making an 

ample margin of safety finding is 

unlawful and does not conform to the 

Benzene NESHAP approach. For 

example, one petitioner stated that 

‘‘EPA claims that ‘incremental’ 

reductions in risk that would result 

from the 40,000 kg/yr instead of the 

60,000 kg/yr are not cost-effective.’’ 

Petitioners argue that cost and costeffectiveness are different concepts and 

CAA section 112(f)(2)(B) does not 

contemplate basing the ample margin of 

safety analysis on cost-effectiveness. 

The petitioner stated that EPA’s reliance 

on cost-effectiveness changes the 

inquiry from whether the residual risk 

standards provide an ample margin of 

safety to protect public health, as 

intended by Congress, to a far more 

discretionary inquiry of whether 

controls measures are cost-effective. 

Petitioners claim that CAA section 

112(f)(2)(B) does not contemplate basing 

the ample margin of safety analysis on 

cost-effectiveness, suggesting that EPA 

inappropriately and impermissibly 

considered cost-effectiveness as well as 

incremental cost-effectiveness (as 

opposed to just cost) in making our 

ample margin of safety determination. 

EPA disagrees with the petitioners 

and contends that the CAA 

contemplates consideration of costeffectiveness in ample margin of safety 

determinations. The Benzene NESHAP, 

which is incorporated into CAA section 

112(f)(2) by reference, explains that in 

the second step of the ample margin of 

safety analysis we consider all of the 

health risks and other health 

information considered in the first 

step—determining what level of risk is 

acceptable. The Benzene NESHAP goes 

on to explain that in the second step; in 

the ample margin of safety decision, we 

consider additional factors relating to 

the appropriate level of control, 

including costs and economic impacts 

of controls, technological feasibility, 

uncertainties and other relevant factors. 

To reiterate, in the second step of the 

ample margin of safety determination, 

we adopt standards at the level that 

provides an ample margin of safety to 

protect public health. That level may be 

equal to or more stringent than the 

acceptable risk level. The EPA’s 

authority to consider such factors was 

affirmed in NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d. 

1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which 

stated: 

* * * subsection 112(f)(2)(B) expressly 

incorporates EPA’s interpretation of the 

Clean Air Act from the Benzene standard, 

complete with a citation to the Federal 

Register. In that rulemaking, EPA set forth its 

standard for benzene ‘‘at a level that provides 

an ‘ample margin of safety’ in consideration 

of all health information * * * as well as 

other relevant factors including costs and 

economic impacts, technological feasibility, 

and other factors relevant to each particular 

decision.’’ 54 FR 38045. (Emphasis in 

original). 

In discussing the second step of the 

ample margin of safety analysis in the 

Benzene NESHAP, the EPA stated that 

other relevant factors, aside from cost 

and feasibility, could include, but are 

not limited to, impact on the national 

economy, small business impacts, costeffectiveness, incremental costeffectiveness, or net benefits. Indeed, 

with regard to the consideration of costeffectiveness and incremental costeffectiveness, the Benzene NESHAP 

states that: 

Because the court (in Vinyl Chloride) has 

specifically sanctioned the consideration of 

costs as well as feasibility of controls, it is 

clear that Vinyl Chloride does not require 

imposition of the maximum feasible controls 

without regard to cost or effectiveness. (54 FR 

38057). 

The EPA further stated in the Benzene 

NESHAP that: 

* * * EPA concluded that all the relevant 

health, technological and economic 

information should be considered in making 

the ample margin of safety decision. 

Accordingly, EPA rejects the position that the 

maximum feasible control technologies 

should be applied in all cases and accepts the 

position that an analysis of incremental risk 

reduction benefits versus incremental costs 

of additional controls be performed to help 

determine if additional control is warranted. 

(54 FR 38061). 

Based on the foregoing, the EPA can 

consider, among other things, costeffectiveness and incremental costeffectiveness in the second step of the 

ample margin of safety decision. 

Petitioners contend that even if CAA 

section 112(f)(2)(B) allows for 

consideration of cost-effectiveness, the 

EPA failed to provide a reasoned 

explanation supporting its cost 

conclusions in the Halogenated Solvent 

Cleaning rule. In particular, the 

petitioners argue that the EPA has not 

explained why the cost and costeffectiveness values estimated by the 

EPA for options that were assessed in 

the rule, but ultimately rejected, were 

unacceptable. Petitioners also contend 

that in the past the EPA has 

promulgated other rules where 

estimates of cost or cost-effectiveness 

are within the range of those for options 

rejected in the Halogenated Solvent 

Cleaning rule. For example, Petitioners 

assert that a $3,600/ton costeffectiveness is well within range of 

cost-effectiveness that the EPA has 

found acceptable in the past for less 

toxic pollutants. Petitioners also 

question why a cost-effectiveness of 

$3,400/ton and $2,000/ton for facilities 

that use continuous web cleaning 

machines and aerospace manufacturing 

and maintenance facilities, respectively, 

is not reasonable. Petitioners further 

contend that a cost-effectiveness of 

$520/ton and annualized costs of $1.2 

million for the proposed 25,000 kg/yr 

MC equivalent limit and $74/ton and 

annualized costs of $130,000 for the 

proposed 40,000 kg/yr MC equivalent 

limit are well within the range of costs 

the EPA has found acceptable in the 

past. Some petitioners also contend that 

the EPA failed to calculate costs of 30 

percent TCE reduction as indicated in 

response to comments at proposal by 

one facility that manufactures narrow 

tubing. 

The EPA’s rationale supporting its 

ample margin of safety decision was set 

forth in the Halogenated Solvent 

Cleaning rule. Consistent with the 

Benzene NESHAP, after determining 

that risks were acceptable, the EPA 

weighed the health information 

evaluated in the acceptability 

determination and other relevant factors 

as specified in the Benzene NESHAP to 

determine the appropriate level of 

control to provide an ample margin of 

safety (e.g., see excerpts from the EPA’s 

analysis in the Halogenated Solvent 

Cleaning rule, below). As noted above, 

the Benzene NESHAP is inherently and 

necessarily flexible regarding what 

factors the EPA might consider, and 

how they might be weighed, in our 

ample margin of safety analysis, stating 

that ‘‘* * * EPA believes the relative 

weight of the many factors that can be 

considered in selecting an ample margin 

of safety can only be determined for 

each specific source category. This 

occurs mainly because technological 

and economic factors (along with the 

health-related factors) vary from source 

category to source category.’’ (54 FR 

38061). 

Concerning the petitioners’ assertion 

that the EPA did not explain why the 

magnitude of certain cost and costeffectiveness values that supported the 

EPA’s decision were unacceptable, and 

the petitioner’s contention that these 

values are in fact similar to values 

estimated for other pollutants in 

previous rulemakings, the EPA affirms 

that we conducted our analysis in 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

62394 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 203 / Monday, October 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

19Escalation in costs is calculated using the 

CPI–U (ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/ 

cpiai.txt). 

accordance with the framework 

established in the Benzene NESHAP. 

With regard to comparing cost or costeffectiveness values to values in past 

rules, the EPA points out that the 

Benzene NESHAP specifically 

discourages such a practice: ‘‘(EPA) 

does not intend to use ‘bright-line’ costeffectiveness ratios to make the ample 

margin of safety decision but rather will 

consider such information with all the 

other relevant information available for 

this decision.’’ (54 FR 38061). Further, 

as explained above, the Benzene 

NESHAP provides that the ample 

margin of safety analysis is a categoryspecific determination (‘‘the relative 

weight of the many factors that can be 

considered in selecting an ample margin 

of safety can only be determined for 

each specific source category’’) 

reflecting the consideration of a number 

of factors, all of which may be weighed 

differently for different source 

categories such that comparisons of the 

magnitudes of factors are rendered 

meaningless. 

The EPA also clearly explained how 

we determined ample margin of safety 

and why the minimal risk reductions 

achieved by the options we ultimately 

rejected in the Halogenated Solvent 

Cleaning rule did not warrant the 

disproportionate costs. For example, in 

addition to other detailed results, we 

stated in the Halogenated Solvent 

Cleaning rule that: 

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. (72 FR 

25146) 

and 

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 long-term 

cost savings, provides an ample margin of 

safety to protect public health and prevents 

adverse environmental effects. (72 FR 25145) 

and 

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 II, 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. 

(72 FR 25145) 

Moreover, contrary to the petitioners’ 

claims, an analysis such as the one we 

provided in the Halogenated Solvent 

Cleaning rule is consistent with, and 

more comprehensive than, similar 

analyses presented in the Benzene 

NESHAP. For example, one ample 

margin of safety analysis in the Benzene 

NESHAP offered the conclusion that: 

* * * this control option will reduce 

benzene emissions by 70 to 90 Mg/yr, which 

represents less than an additional one 

percent reduction over the uncontrolled 

level. The cost of this additional emission 

reduction (and consequent risk reduction) 

would be about $200,000/yr (1982 dollars). 

While this additional cost is small, it is 

disproportionately large in comparison to the 

small additional emission and risk reduction 

achieved. (54 FR 38050) 

While it is ultimately irrelevant (for the 

reasons stated above), the EPA notes 

that annualized costs rejected in the 

Benzene NESHAP itself—$200,000 per 

year in 1982 dollars, or approximately 

$430,000 19 per year in 2007 dollars— 

are even less than the cost estimates for 

options that the EPA rejected that are 

cited by the petitioners (e.g., see above 

where the petitioner cites $600,000; 

$630,000, and $700,000 per year). 

Petitioners cite to the Benzene 

NESHAP, arguing ‘‘that residual risk 

standards should ‘protect the greatest 

number of persons possible to an 

individual lifetime risk level no higher 

than approximately 1-in-1 million.’ ’’ 

Petitioners focus, however, on one facet 

of the Benzene NESHAP in isolation, 

without accounting for the fact that the 

EPA evaluates various factors as part of 

the ample margin of safety 

determination. Specifically, the Benzene 

NESHAP states that ‘‘* * * EPA strives 

to provide maximum feasible protection 

against risks to health from hazardous 

air pollutants by (1) protecting the 

greatest number of persons possible to 

an individual lifetime risk level no 

higher than approximately 1 in 1 

million and (2) limiting (maximum 

individual risk, the MIR) to no higher 

than approximately 1 in 10 thousand 

* * *’’ (54 FR 38044–38045). The 

Benzene NESHAP continues with an 

explicit statement that 

‘‘(i)mplementation of these goals is by 

means of a two-step standard-setting 

approach’’ (54 FR 38045), which the notice 

explains further in greater detail. As 

described in this preamble (and in the 

Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule), the EPA 

has implemented the two-step standardsetting approach to achieve these goals. As an 

additional note, the EPA points out that the 

Benzene NESHAP is unambiguous that 

‘‘* * * it is clear that * * * (the court) does 

not require imposition of the maximum 

feasible controls without regard to cost or 

effectiveness’’ (54 FR 38057). 

Petitioners further claim that 

category-wide residual risk standards 

must be set for the entire source 

category, but that the EPA’s rule 

exempted certain machines. First, the 

EPA would like to reiterate that we did 

not ‘‘exempt’’ machines in our 

Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule. The 

EPA implemented the statutorilymandated two-step Benzene NESHAP 

framework and ultimately re-adopted 

the 1994 NESHAP for certain segments 

of the source category. Our authority to 

re-adopt the NESHAP in our residual 

risk rulemaking was recently affirmed 

by the United States Court of Appeals 

for the District of Columbia Circuit in 

NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077 (D.C. Cir. 

2008). In that case, the court stated that 

‘‘If EPA determines that the existing 

technology-based standards already 

provide an ‘ample margin of safety,’ 

then the agency is free to readopt those 

standards during a residual risk 

rulemaking.’’ In this rule, we have 

adhered to the two-step approach set 

forth in the Benzene NESHAP, and we 

are proposing a range of regulatory 

options. 

2. Overview of Options Examined 

Similar to the approach taken in our 

August 2006 Proposal and discussed in 

the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule, 

we have evaluated a range of regulatory 

options and have assessed the residual 

risk reductions that could be achieved if 

post-MACT HAP emissions were 

controlled further. These options 

incorporate MC equivalent based 

emission limits because we continue to 

believe that such emission limits (e.g., 

as promulgated in the Halogenated 

Solvent Cleaning rule that is the subject 

of this reconsideration) may provide an 

opportunity for additional risk 

reduction. These options were derived 

from information on the availability and 

feasibility of specific emission control 

technologies or practices, and are 

expressed as maximum facility-wide 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 203 / Monday, October 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules 62395 

emission limits and requirements that 

would apply to the total emissions from 

all of a facility’s solvent cleaning 

machines that are subject to the 1994 

NESHAP. This proposal also reflects our 

investigations of information received 

subsequent to promulgation of the 

Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule and 

our belief based on that information that 

certain emission limits could be 

achieved through both solvent 

switching and traditional technologies 

and practices for some sectors of the 

category. We have produced additional 

risk and cost analyses to support the 

evaluation of these proposed regulatory 

options. 

We recognize that some commenters 

may either endorse aspects of one or 

more of the proposed regulatory options 

or advocate for a combination of the 

options in ways other than presented in 

this proposal. Specifically, comments 

that we receive may lead us to conclude 

that the most appropriate regulatory 

approach would be one that combines 

sector-specific alternatives from 

different options. This proposal seeks to 

allow such an approach by providing 

the risk (Table 3, section III) and cost 

(Table 5, section III) estimates that 

correspond to each of the sector-specific 

alternatives that make up the broader 

options (Options 1, 2, and 3) we are 

proposing. The estimated risk 

reductions and associated costs for 

Options 1, 2 and 3 are presented in 

Tables 2 and 4 below. This approach 

differs from our August 2006 Proposal 

where we explicitly solicited comments 

on only two co-proposed options, 

although we had also developed six 

emission levels to evaluate reductions 

in residual risk if post-MACT emissions 

(i.e., baseline emissions) were 

controlled further from this source 

category. Thus, we are soliciting 

comments on options 1 through 3, and 

any combination of the proposed sectorspecific options identified in this 

proposal. Our decision on the final 

regulatory approach will reflect the 

comments we receive. The options are 

summarized below: 

i. Proposed Option 1 

A 60,000 kg/yr MC equivalent limit 

would be applicable to sources 

associated with the general population 

of halogenated solvent cleaning 

machines. A 100,000 kg/yr MC 

equivalent limit would be applicable to 

halogenated solvent cleaning machines 

located at military maintenance and 

depot facilities. With respect to facilities 

that use continuous web cleaning 

machines, halogenated solvent cleaning 

machines used by facilities that 

manufacture narrow tubing, and 

halogenated solvent cleaning machines 

used by aerospace manufacturing and 

maintenance facilities, we are proposing 

to re-adopt the 1994 NESHAP under 

CAA section 112(f)(2) because we are 

proposing that the current level of 

control called for by the 1994 NESHAP 

reduces HAP emissions to levels that 

present an acceptable level of risk, 

provide an ample margin of safety to 

protect public health, and prevent any 

adverse environmental effects. (This 

option represents the standards 

promulgated in the Halogenated Solvent 

Cleaning rule.) 

ii. Proposed Option 2 

A 60,000 kg/yr MC equivalent limit 

would be applicable to sources 

associated with the general population 

of halogenated solvent cleaning 

machines and halogenated solvent 

cleaning machines used by facilities that 

manufacture narrow tubing. A 100,000 

kg/yr MC equivalent limit would be 

applicable to halogenated solvent 

cleaning machines located at military 

maintenance and depot facilities. With 

respect to facilities that use continuous 

web cleaning machines, and 

halogenated solvent cleaning machines 

used by aerospace manufacturing and 

maintenance facilities, we are proposing 

to re-adopt the 1994 NESHAP under 

CAA section 112(f)(2) because we are 

proposing that the current level of 

control called for by the 1994 NESHAP 

reduces HAP emissions to levels that 

present an acceptable level of risk, 

provide an ample margin of safety to 

protect public health, and prevent any 

adverse environmental effects. 

iii. Proposed Option 3 

A 60,000 kg/yr MC equivalent limit 

would be applicable to sources 

associated with the general population 

of halogenated solvent cleaning 

machines and halogenated solvent 

cleaning machines used by facilities that 

manufacture narrow tubing. A 100,000 

kg/yr MC equivalent limit would be 

applicable to halogenated solvent 

cleaning machines used by aerospace 

manufacturing and maintenance 

facilities and halogenated solvent 

cleaning machines located at military 

maintenance and depot facilities. 

Facilities that use continuous web 

cleaning machines that exceed 60,000 

kg/yr MC equivalent HAP emissions 

would have to achieve 80 percent 

overall control efficiency for those units. 

3. How Did the EPA Establish the 

Proposed Regulatory Options? 

This section describes our 

determination that the above proposed 

regulatory options are technically 

feasible. Additionally, section III 

discusses human health risks and costs 

associated with these options. Similar to 

our August 2006 Proposal and our May 

3, 2007 final rule, we have also reexamined and re-evaluated the impacts 

to small businesses associated with the 

alternative emission limits based on 

supporting information from the 

Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule 

(contained in the docket for that rule) 

and information we received after 

promulgation of the Halogenated 

Solvent Cleaning rule. Our discussion of 

the small business impacts of this action 

are presented in section VI of this 

preamble. 

Several petitioners contend that we 

did not evaluate all of the control 

options provided in response to our 

August 2006 Proposal and subsequent 

NODA. However, the EPA did carefully 

evaluate specific comments from 

commenters on costs, on results, on 

technical compatibility with products 

and technical feasibility. While 

commenters identified specific control 

options, most indicated implementing 

such controls were not feasible because 

of physical limitations of the facility or 

the proposed compliance timeframes. 

Petitioners also provided information 

indicating that certain manufacturers in 

the narrow tube industry, after the close 

of the comment period for our August 

17, 2006 proposal, either instituted or 

began planning the installation of 

various control measures that would 

have achieved the emission limitations 

that the EPA co-proposed in August 

2006 and contend that this information 

was of central relevance to the outcome 

of the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning 

rule. Petitioners further contend that we 

excluded available alternative control 

measures without providing an 

explanation in the Halogenated Solvent 

Cleaning rule, that we frequently set 

technology-forcing standards, and that 

recognizing the responses by the 

affected industries regarding 

compliance difficulty is not an excuse 

for our failure to set a standard. In the 

May 3, 2007 rule, the EPA set a final 

standard according to section 112(f)(2) 

and 112(d)(6) and provided 

explanations for that final standard. In 

response to the petitioners comment on 

setting technology-forcing standards, the 

EPA is bound by CAA section 112(f)(2) 

to make an ample margin of safety 

decision according to the Benzene 

NESHAP and not to extend this 

authority in setting technology-forcing 

standards. In summary, petitioners 

contend that the requirements 

promulgated in the Halogenated Solvent 

Cleaning rule were not a logical 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

62396 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 203 / Monday, October 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

outgrowth of the August 2006 Proposal 

and December 2006 NODA. 

As part of this reconsideration effort, 

we have re-analyzed our conclusions on 

risk, cost, technical feasibility, and 

compliance deadlines made in the 

Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule. In 

this action and in response to the 

petitions we reassessed the regulatory 

options for halogenated solvent cleaning 

machines used by facilities that 

manufacture narrow tubing, aerospace 

manufacturing and maintenance, 

military maintenance and depot 

facilities, facilities that use continuous 

web cleaning machines, and for all other 

halogenated solvent cleaning machines 

that are not included in these named 

sectors. 

This proposal is based on supporting 

data and information from the 

Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule 

(contained in the docket for that rule) 

and data and information received since 

promulgation of the Halogenated 

Solvent Cleaning rule. Data and 

information received since 

promulgation of the Halogenated 

Solvent Cleaning rule indicates the 

availability of control measures that 

would enable certain facilities in the 

narrow tube industry and certain 

facilities that use continuous web 

cleaning machines to achieve HAP 

emission reductions that we did not 

believe feasible when we finalized the 

Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule. In 

some cases, this proposal reflects a reevaluation of the information on 

availability of control measures that we 

received in response to both the August 

17, 2006 proposal and subsequent 

NODA, in light of information that we 

received since we promulgated the 

Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule. 

As in the final Halogenated Solvent 

Cleaning rule, today’s proposal 

recognizes that certain facilities might 

be able to use control measures that 

include retrofit technologies, such as a 

carbon adsorption device (CAD), and 

vacuum-to-vacuum machines, switching 

from HAP to non-HAP solvents, such as 

n-propyl bromide (nPB), changes to the 

manufacturing process, and instituting 

emission reduction programs. Further, 

this proposal recognizes and reflects the 

differences between facilities that use 

continuous web cleaning machines and 

batch cleaning machines, and 

acknowledges comments on the August 

2006 Proposal and subsequent NODA 

indicating that control efficiency 

requirements rather than straight 

emission limits are a preferable 

approach for expressing emission 

limitations for facilities that use 

continuous web cleaning machines 

because continuous web cleaning 

machines must control emissions at 

both entry and exit points. These 

comments from some facilities that use 

continuous web cleaning machines 

suggested that their emission capture 

systems could be modified within a 3- 

year period to achieve an 80 percent 

overall control efficiency, over 

uncontrolled emission levels. Control 

efficiency requirements rather than 

straight emission limits are a preferable 

approach for expressing emission 

limitations for facilities that use 

continuous web cleaning machines, 

which is the same conclusion that we 

made in the final Halogenated Solvent 

Cleaning rule. In this action, we also are 

soliciting comments on whether CAD or 

emission capture systems operating at 

high efficiency would provide an 

opportunity for facilities that use 

continuous web cleaning machines to 

control up to 80 percent of their 

emissions. We note that although the 

final Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule 

also considered, but ultimately rejected, 

such an option, the option in today’s 

proposal (described in more detail 

below) would restrict this requirement 

to facilities emitting over 60,000 kg/yr 

MC equivalent HAP emissions. 

i. Narrow Tube Manufacturing Facilities 

Petitioners contend that we failed to 

consider and evaluate various 

compliance options for the facilities that 

manufacture narrow tubing despite 

responses and comments we received 

on both our August 17, 2006 proposal 

and NODA. Specifically: 

• Petitioners cite comments and 

responses to both the August 17, 2006 

proposal and the subsequent NODA 

from several facilities that manufacture 

narrow tubing indicating the likelihood 

of 25 percent TCE emission reductions 

through installation of CAD and a 

capture and control system. The EPA 

considered this comment in our final 

rule (see 72 FR 25154) and concluded 

that while reductions may be obtained, 

the industry, through their comments, 

was unable to research, design and 

implement the necessary technological 

controls within the compliance period 

and the EPA’s proposed costs. 

• Petitioners cite responses by 

various facilities that manufacture 

narrow tubing indicating an ability to 

achieve emission reductions ranging 

from either 25–35 percent or 50–95 

percent through installation of emission 

control devices and changes in 

production processes. The EPA 

considered this comment in developing 

our final rule and concluded that while 

reductions may be obtained through 

solvent switching and installation of 

controls, the narrow tube manufacturing 

industry, through their comments, 

indicated that there was inadequate 

research available to the industry to 

warrant solvent switching. They 

indicated the research, design and 

implementation could not be 

accomplished within the EPA’s 

proposed compliance period and would 

exceed the EPA’s proposed costs. 

• Petitioners also cite responses 

indicating the ability of one particular 

facility to reduce TCE emissions from 

68.4 tons per year (tpy) to 52 tpy. The 

EPA considered this comment in 

developing our final rule (see 72 FR 

25154) and concluded that the industry, 

through their comments, was unable to 

research, design and implement the 

necessary technological controls within 

the compliance period and EPA’s 

proposed costs. Petitioners further argue 

that we should have investigated the 

feasibility of establishing a 100,000 kg/ 

yr MC equivalent emission limit given 

the response of one facility that 

manufactures narrow tubing indicating 

the ability to meet this level within five 

years of promulgation. The EPA did not 

develop this option for two reasons: 

First, Congress limits the EPA’s ability 

to impose compliance periods that 

exceed three years, and, second, the 

industrial sector commented that they 

simply could not implement the 

necessary technology within the 3-year 

compliance period permitted by 

Congress and within the cost parameters 

the EPA assumed in the August 17, 2006 

proposal. 

Subsequent to promulgation of the 

Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule, 

Petitioners provided information to the 

EPA indicating that this industrial 

sector may, in fact, be capable of 

complying with the co-proposed limits 

in our August 17, 2006 proposal within 

the 3-year compliance period provided 

in the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning 

rule. Petitioners also provided 

information indicating that subsequent 

to the close of the comment period of 

the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule 

various facilities that manufacture 

narrow tubing either installed control 

devices or were in advanced planning 

stages to install control devices that 

would enable them to achieve either of 

our August 17, 2006 co-proposed 

emission limits. Specifically, 

subsequent to promulgation of the 

Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule, one 

facility that manufactures narrow tubing 

has installed vacuum-to-vacuum 

machines. Two other facilities that 

manufacture narrow tubing have 

switched from solvent HAP to a nonHAP, nPB. One of these two facilities 

also indicated an ability to achieve eight 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 203 / Monday, October 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules 62397 

20EPA notes that in this case the facility’s permit 

does not identify a specific reformulated material 

that would be used to achieve 22 percent TCE 

emissions reduction. In addition, materials 

reformulation specified in the facility’s permit 

could be implemented to reduce TCE emissions 

from an activity that is not in the source category 

addressed in today’s notice. 

percent and 22 percent TCE emission 

reductions through reconfiguration of 

two flush degreasers and use of 

reformulated materials, respectively.20

Petitioners also provided information 

indicating that the other of the two 

facilities was in advanced installation 

stages for CAD and a capture and 

control system that would likely achieve 

30 percent TCE reduction. This 

information and supporting 

documentation have been placed in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

As explained earlier, our August 17, 

2006 proposal would have required all 

owners and operators of all halogenated 

solvent cleaning machines to comply 

with either 25,000 kg/yr or 40,000 kg/yr 

MC equivalent facility-wide emission 

limit. We assumed compliance with 

these limits could be achieved by 

installation of control technologies, 

such as vacuum-to-vacuum machines 

and CAD, and switching solvents, either 

from PCE to TCE or TCE to MC. We also 

assumed compliance would be achieved 

through retrofit technologies such as 

freeboard ratios, working mode covers 

and freeboard refrigeration devices. In 

commenting on our August 17, 2006 

proposal, various facilities that 

manufacture narrow tubing indicated 

that further HAP control that would be 

required by the co-proposed standards 

would likely be achieved only through 

installation of expensive technology, 

and that such technologies had yet to be 

proven either effective or reliable for 

their manufacturing processes. They 

also expressed concerns over the 

proposed compliance period. 

Additionally, several facilities that 

manufacture narrow tubing that use PCE 

indicated that solvent switching was an 

unsuitable compliance option because 

they were bound to their customers’ 

procedural requirements for the higher 

vapor temperature of PCE and thus, that 

both TCE and MC, which have lower 

vapor pressure temperature, would be 

inadequate for proper cleaning. 

Although some facilities that 

manufacture narrow tubing indicated 

the possibility of switching solvents 

from TCE to nPB, they also stated that 

it had yet to be proven as a degreaser 

and thus, had yet to be approved as an 

alternative solvent by many original 

equipment manufacturers. They further 

indicated that such approval processes 

would likely be beyond the proposed 2- 

year compliance period. Some facilities 

that manufacture narrow tubing also 

described their halogenated solvent 

cleaning machines as unique due to 

their large size and capacity and 

indicated the non-availability of 

vacuum-to-vacuum machines as a 

result. 

As explained above, subsequent to 

our evaluation of these comments, we 

issued a NODA that requested 

additional information on costs, 

compliance deadlines and technical 

feasibility for halogenated solvent 

cleaning at facilities that manufacture 

narrow tubing. In response, most 

facilities that manufacture narrow 

tubing reiterated and expanded upon 

the reasons why they were unable to 

comply with the 25,000 kg/yr and 

40,000 kg/yr MC equivalent co-proposed 

limits due to technological factors, costs 

and compliance deadline constraints. 

The facilities that manufacture narrow 

tubing did, as noted by the petitioners 

and described at the beginning of this 

section, outline those emission 

reduction measures they believed they 

could achieve. Because we were 

persuaded by their assertions, we found, 

after re-evaluating risks, associated 

compliance costs and availability of 

control measures, that the 1994 

NESHAP both reduces risk to acceptable 

levels and provides an ample margin of 

safety to protect public health for 

halogenated solvent cleaning machines 

used by facilities that manufacture 

narrow tubing. In the final Halogenated 

Solvent Cleaning rule the EPA also 

considered, but ultimately rejected in 

our ample margin of safety analysis, a 

compliance option that would have 

required a 10 percent reduction in HAP 

emissions from facilities that 

manufacture narrow tubing. We 

believed this reduction could feasibly be 

achieved by facilities that manufacture 

narrow tubing within the compliance 

period through installation of side 

chambers, however the estimated risk 

reductions were small in comparison to 

the cost. 

We are now aware, however, that 

since promulgation of the Halogenated 

Solvent Cleaning rule, at least four out 

of 17 facilities that manufacture narrow 

tubing have either implemented or 

instituted plans to install control 

measures and HAP reduction 

techniques that would likely achieve 

either of the August 17, 2006 coproposed limits, i.e., 25,000 kg/yr and 

40,000 k/yr MC equivalent limits. These 

control measures and HAP emission 

reduction techniques have been 

implemented within the compliance 

period—which earlier comments by the 

facilities indicated was not possible— 

and include: 

• Installing CAD and vacuum-tovacuum machines (installed by the 

facilities that manufacture narrow 

tubing that indicated uniqueness of 

their halogenated solvent cleaning 

machines due to size, in their comments 

on the August 17, 2006 proposal), 

• Switching to nPB (a non-HAP 

solvent), and 

• Manufacturing process changes 

such as cleaning smaller bundles of 

tubes and/or allowing product to remain 

in the machine for a longer duration to 

allow complete condensation of the 

solvent vapors before removal. 

These accomplishments are applauded 

by the EPA, yet appear to be in direct 

conflict with the comments submitted 

on the August 17, 2006 proposal and 

subsequent NODA. 

We are also aware that at least four 

facilities would not need to install any 

additional controls in order to comply 

with these proposed regulatory options. 

The remaining nine facilities continue 

to use HAP solvents and operate in 

accordance with the 1994 NESHAP. We 

believe the techniques and technologies 

employed by the four facilities that 

manufacture narrow tubing may be used 

by the remaining facilities to achieve 

further emission reductions to comply 

with the emission limit of 60,000 kg/yr 

MC equivalent. 

In light of the information that was 

otherwise not available to the EPA at the 

time of promulgation of the Halogenated 

Solvent Cleaning rule, we have 

reviewed and revised our conclusions 

on technical feasibility, the compliance 

deadline and compliance costs 

associated with meeting the August 17, 

2006 co-proposed limits. With the 

activities completed by these facilities 

that manufacture narrow tubing, we 

believe that the remaining facilities that 

manufacture narrow tubing nationwide, 

most with lower total emissions than 

the facilities mentioned above, could 

achieve reductions in emissions within 

a 2-year compliance period and at a 

potentially reasonable cost. Therefore, 

as discussed in section III of this 

Preamble, we are proposing two 

regulatory options that would be 

applicable to halogenated solvent 

cleaning machines in use at facilities 

that manufacture narrow tubing. We are 

soliciting comments on the proposed 

regulatory options as they relate to 

facilities that manufacture narrow 

tubing. 

ii. Aerospace Manufacturing and 

Maintenance Facilities 

Petitioners contend that the 

Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule does 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

62398 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 203 / Monday, October 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

21Continuous 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. They 

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. 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 are similar to emission 

points from other in-line cleaners. Also some 

continuous web machines have exhaust systems 

that are similar to those used with some in-line 

cleaners. 

not provide any explanation as to why 

vacuum-to-vacuum technology and 

retrofit technologies such as freeboard 

ratios, working mode covers and 

freeboard refrigeration devices cannot 

be used by aerospace manufacturing and 

maintenance facilities. One petitioner 

stated that there was no explanation for 

the rejection of vacuum-to-vacuum 

technology as a control option for 

aerospace manufacturing and 

maintenance facilities even though the 

Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule 

indicated that such technology was in 

use by ‘‘similar’’ aerospace 

manufacturing and maintenance 

facilities. 

In response to both our August 17, 

2006 proposal, and subsequent NODA, 

aerospace manufacturing and 

maintenance facilities indicated an 

inability to comply with our coproposed limits due to technical 

infeasibility, associated compliance 

costs and the limited proposed 

compliance deadline. Some facilities 

indicated a 5-year minimum compliance 

period would be required because they 

would need to investigate technology 

and protocol changes called for by the 

proposed 40,000 kg/yr MC equivalent 

limit. With regard to vacuum-to-vacuum 

technology, aerospace manufacturers 

indicated that vacuum-to-vacuum 

technology was extremely expensive 

and had not been proven effective or 

reliable for the operations at aerospace 

manufacturing and maintenance 

facilities. With regard to solvent 

switching, those aerospace 

manufacturing and maintenance 

facilities that use PCE stated that 

switching to either TCE or MC would be 

an unsuitable compliance option 

because of incompatibility issues and 

lower vapor pressure. Other facilities 

also stated that they may be able to 

switch from a HAP solvent to a nonHAP solvent such as nPB, but indicated 

that nPB solvent was untested in their 

industry. They also stated that changing 

solvents involved a rigorous approval 

process by the original equipment 

manufacturers and the Federal Aviation 

Administration in order to ensure that 

safety and quality criteria continue to be 

met and that such process would likely 

be beyond the 2-year proposed 

compliance deadline. We note, in 

general, that the bulk of comments 

indicated an inability to implement 

these control measures within the 

proposed 2-year compliance period at 

the costs presented in our August 17, 

2006 proposal. 

In the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning 

rule, we evaluated costs alone for the 

60,000 kg/yr MC equivalent emission 

limit and both risks and costs for the 

100,000 kg/yr and 250,000 kg/yr MC 

equivalent levels for aerospace 

manufacturing and maintenance, but 

rejected these options based on our 

conclusion that they were either not 

cost-effective or the costs were 

disproportionate given the emission 

reductions achieved. We also rejected 

these options because the industry 

strongly indicated necessary emission 

control actions could not be achieved 

within the compliance timeframe. 

Additionally, similar to the facilities 

that manufacture narrow tubing, we 

were persuaded by the industry’s 

responses and information, and after our 

re-evaluation of compliance costs, 

technical feasibility and risks, we 

determined that the current level of 

control provided by the 1994 NESHAP 

for the aerospace manufacturing and 

maintenance industry both reduces HAP 

emissions to levels that present an 

acceptable risk and provides an ample 

margin of safety to protect public health. 

Since receiving the petitions, we have 

re-evaluated our treatment of the 

responses to the NODA by aerospace 

manufacturing and maintenance 

facilities. Specifically, we have reevaluated responses we received from 

various aerospace manufacturing and 

maintenance facilities indicating the 

availability of compliance options that 

include various work practices and 

installing larger or additional CAD 

systems, and vacuum-to-vacuum 

machines and switching from a HAP 

solvent to nPB. We have also learned 

that certain aerospace manufacturing 

and maintenance facilities are testing 

nPB as a compliance approach to HAP 

emission reductions. We currently do 

not have sufficient information that 

would allow us to conclude definitively 

that nPB switching is a viable 

compliance option for this industry 

primarily because we are aware of 

material compatibility concerns. 

Therefore, we do not believe that we can 

extrapolate the use of nPB by facilities 

that manufacture narrow tubing to the 

aerospace manufacturing and 

maintenance facilities. We have thus 

calculated compliance costs for the 

aerospace manufacturing and 

maintenance facilities using HAP 

solvent switching, retrofitting of 

machines, vacuum-to-vacuum machines 

and CAD using the same assigned costs 

used in the Halogenated Solvent 

Cleaning rule, which were based on 

costs provided in public comments. As 

discussed in section III of this preamble, 

we are proposing a range of regulatory 

options that would be applicable on a 

facility-wide basis for all halogenated 

solvent cleaning machines in use at 

aerospace manufacturing and 

maintenance facilities. 

iii. Continuous Web Cleaning 

Machines 21

Petitioners also allege that the EPA 

failed to provide any explanation as to 

why several alternative reduction 

measures, such as either vacuum-tovacuum machines or solvent switching 

are not available control options for 

facilities that use continuous web 

cleaning machines. 

As explained earlier, in response to 

both our August 17, 2006 proposal, and 

subsequent NODA, the EPA received 

significant comments from some 

facilities that use continuous web 

cleaning machines identifying 

numerous compliance issues presented 

by the co-proposed limits. Responses 

included that switching from either PCE 

or TCE to MC was not an available 

compliance option due to the fact that 

MC is incompatible with certain metals, 

and production processes, has a lower 

boiling point, and stringent worker 

safety OSHA requirements. Some 

facilities also indicated that installation 

of vacuum-to-vacuum machines was not 

a compliance option due to the 

differences between the continuous web 

cleaning process and other batch 

cleaning operations. They stated that the 

1994 NESHAP, in recognition of these 

differences, prescribed compliance 

options for facilities that use continuous 

web cleaning machines that were 

different from other halogenated solvent 

cleaning machines. They requested that 

we set different compliance 

requirements that would be based on 

overall control efficiency rather than an 

emission limit, in light of the fact that 

they could not comply with either of the 

proposed emission limits in the August 

2006 proposed rule. They maintained 

that attaining a degree of control rather 

than meeting an emission limit was a 

more appropriate measure of their 

emission reduction capability. They also 

indicated that they had installed CAD, 

which can operate at about 99 percent 

control efficiency, and that they could 

possibly achieve an overall effectiveness 

of 80 percent control efficiency (the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 203 / Monday, October 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules 62399 

1994 NESHAP requires 70 percent 

overall control efficiency). 

Similar to our treatment of 

comparable assertions by both facilities 

that manufacture narrow tubing and 

aerospace manufacturing and 

maintenance facilities, we were 

persuaded by these assertions, and in 

the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule, 

we acknowledged that continuous web 

machines are designed differently from 

general halogenated solvent cleaning 

machines, i.e., batch cleaning machines, 

and that it would be both 

technologically infeasible and cost 

prohibitive for facilities that use 

continuous web cleaning machines to 

comply with our final promulgated 

emission limits. Further, we determined 

that their control choices were limited 

to installation of CAD, but that CAD 

would be insufficient for purposes of 

complying with either the proposed or 

final promulgated emission limits 

because they would likely achieve only 

a 10 to 30 percent overall emission 

reductions in facility-wide emissions. 

72 FR 25155. In our final Halogenated 

Solvent Cleaning rule we analyzed and 

discussed a regulatory alternative that 

would require 80 percent overall control 

efficiency for all facilities, but we 

ultimately concluded that for facilities 

that use continuous web cleaning 

machines the current level of control 

provided by the 1994 NESHAP both 

reduces HAP emissions to levels that 

present an acceptable risk and provides 

an ample margin of safety to protect 

public health. 

Since promulgation of the 

Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule, and 

receipt of the reconsideration petitions, 

we have also re-evaluated our 

assumptions on compliance options, 

and costs for additional emission 

reductions as it relates to facilities that 

use continuous web cleaning machines. 

In doing so, we have re-examined the 

comments submitted on the August 16, 

2006 proposal and NODA, where some 

facilities that use continuous web 

cleaning machines indicated their 

preference for tighter control efficiency 

as compared to a straight emission limit 

and more specifically their comments 

that indicated the ability to achieve 80 

percent overall control efficiency over 

uncontrolled emission levels within a 3- 

year compliance period. (These 

comments are in the docket for this 

rulemaking.) Facilities that use 

continuous web cleaning machines are 

currently required to achieve 70 percent 

overall control efficiency under the 

1994 NESHAP. 

This proposal reflects this reevaluation and our belief that a relative 

reduction limit is more suitable than an 

emission cap for facilities that use 

continuous web cleaning machines. 

Under one of the regulatory options 

presented in this proposal, six facilities 

would be required to reduce emissions 

by 33 percent, i.e., ((1 ¥ 70%) ¥ (1 ¥ 

80%)/(1 ¥ 70%) = 33%). To meet this 

proposed emission requirement, we 

assumed three facilities could switch 

their HAP solvent to nPB (based on the 

use of nPB in the narrow tubing 

industry). Based on the analysis we 

conducted to support the Halogenated 

Solvent Cleaning rule we also assumed 

that three facilities could install CAD or 

automated gates control to comply with 

the proposed option. Thus, as earlier 

discussed in section III of this preamble, 

we are proposing an option that 

includes an overall control efficiency of 

80 percent for facilities that use 

continuous web cleaning machines that 

exceed a 60,000 kg/yr MC equivalent 

limit. 

iv. Military Maintenance and Depot 

Facilities 

Petitioners also contend that the EPA 

announced a final rule that dramatically 

departed from the proposed rule by 

imposing a 100,000 kg/yr MC equivalent 

limit for halogenated solvent cleaning 

machines used by military maintenance 

and depot facilities. Petitioners contend 

that the public was deprived of the 

opportunity to comment on this 

standard and on the technical, legal and 

policy rationale the EPA proffered in the 

Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule. 

In response to both our August 17, 

2006 proposal and the NODA, military 

depot and maintenance facilities 

indicated an inability to comply with 

either co-proposed limits due to both 

technological and compliance deadline 

constraints. They indicated, however, 

an ability to comply with a 100,000 kg/ 

yr MC equivalent limit. Persuaded by 

these responses, we determined that the 

100,000 kg/yr MC equivalent limit for 

halogenated solvent cleaning machines 

used by military depot and maintenance 

facilities would provide an ample 

margin of safety in the Halogenated 

Solvent Cleaning rule. 

Since promulgation of the 

Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule, and 

receipt of the petitions, we have also reevaluated our assumptions on 

compliance options, and costs for 

additional emission reductions as they 

relate to military maintenance and 

depot facilities. In this action, as 

discussed in section III above, for 

halogenated solvent cleaning machines 

used by military maintenance and depot 

facilities we are re-proposing the 

100,000 kg/yr MC equivalent emission 

limit option that we finalized in the 

Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule. 

v. General Population of Halogenated 

Solvent Cleaning Machines 

Petitioners stated that the 60,000 kg/ 

yr MC equivalent level we promulgated 

for the general population of 

halogenated solvent cleaning machines 

was neither proposed nor made 

available for public comment. In 

reconsideration of the Halogenated 

Solvent Cleaning rule, we re-examined 

the proposed 40,000 kg/yr and 

promulgated 60,000 kg/yr MC 

equivalent levels of control for the 

general population, retaining the 

emission control assumptions (and thus 

the risk reduction and cost assumptions) 

used in the final rule. As in the 

Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule, our 

evaluation is based on the 2002 NEI 

data. 

Since promulgation of the 

Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule, we 

have received no new information that 

would lead us to change the facts and 

conclusions we presented for either the 

40,000 kg/yr MC equivalent level 

(which we rejected in the Halogenated 

Solvent Cleaning rule) or the 60,000 kg/ 

yr MC equivalent level. Therefore, in 

this action we are proposing a 60,000 

kg/yr MC equivalent emission limit as a 

regulatory option for the general 

degreasing units. 

4. Health Information for the Proposed 

Options 

As previously mentioned, we have 

performed additional risk assessments 

for this source category since the final 

rule was promulgated. In this section, 

we provide estimates of the health risk 

reductions achieved by each of the 

proposed regulatory options for each of 

the industry sectors. The estimates were 

derived using the same analytical 

methodologies which were used to 

derive the estimates for the Halogenated 

Solvent Cleaning rule, with two 

exceptions: (1) The health risk estimates 

were derived explicitly (rather than 

extrapolated, as was done for the 

Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule) for 

each industrial sector as well as for the 

total population of facilities; and, (2) in 

addition to our use of the CalEPA 

chronic REL for TCE, a chronic noncancer air criterion developed by the 

NYS DOH was used to characterize noncancer risks for TCE. 

While health risks were estimated 

using both the 1999 NEI and the 2002 

NEI, we only present those derived 

using the more recent emission 

inventory data. Additional details and 

results are provided in the docket for 

this rule. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

62400 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 203 / Monday, October 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

Table 2 presents a summary of cancer 

risk results for the entire source category 

at baseline levels and for each of the 

proposed control options, indicating 

both how the maximum individual 

cancer risk level and the population 

within various individual risk ranges 

vary from option to option. It also shows 

the projected emission reductions and 

cancer incidence levels associated with 

each option, as well as the estimated 

maximum non-cancer target organspecific HI values (indicated as a range, 

depending on which chronic reference 

value is used in the calculation). We 

note specifically that the range of 

exposures (as indicated by the HI 

values) for the baseline and Option 1 

scenarios are near the exposure level 

where we can say that there is no 

appreciable risk of non-cancer health 

effects (see previous discussion in this 

section). We believe that this result does 

not indicate that there should be 

concern; rather, we believe it is 

indicative of the range of values 

associated with the chronic non-cancer 

toxicity of TCE. We also note that using 

the CalEPA REL there are no facilities 

with an HI above 1; however, using the 

NYS DOH air criterion, which 

incorporates a significant degree of 

conservatism in its final estimate, the 

only HAP contributing to non-cancer HI 

values above 1 becomes TCE. The target 

organ system which is most sensitive for 

both the CalEPA REL and the NYS DOH 

air criterion is the central nervous 

system, with symptoms including 

dizziness, drowsiness, and confusion at 

high enough exposures. Effects to the 

liver and immune systems have also 

been observed in people at high enough 

TCE exposures. 

In response to one petitioner’s 

assertion that the Halogenated Solvent 

Cleaning rule omitted an analysis of the 

population exposed to lifetime cancer 

risks greater than 1-in-1 million, Table 

1, above, presents updated estimates of 

this information from the Halogenated 

Solvent Cleaning rule while Table 2, 

below, provides population risk 

information relevant to the different 

proposed regulatory options that we are 

seeking comment on in this action. 

TABLE 2—EFFECT OF THE PROPOSED OPTIONS ON RISK AND EMISSIONS

Options Baseline Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 

MIR (in-1 million) ............................................................................................. 100 ~50 ~50 ~50 

>100 in-1 million * ............................................................................................ 100 0 0 0 

≥10 to <100 in-1 million * ................................................................................. 82,000 7,500 6,600 5,700 

≥1 to <10 in-1 million * ..................................................................................... 8,000,000 2,100,000 2,087,500 1,946,500 

Emissions Reduced (tons/yr) ........................................................................... 0 1,681 2,601 3,188 

Emissions Remaining (tons/yr) ........................................................................ 4,200 2,535 1,615 1,028 

Maximum Non-cancer HI ................................................................................. 0.2–7.0 0.2–2.0 0.05–1.0 0.05–1.0 

Cancer Incidence (cases/yr) ............................................................................ 0.55 0.36 0.35 0.32 

* Number of people in the specified risk range 

Option 1: 60,000 kg/yr MC equivalent 

applicable to general population of 

halogenated solvent cleaning machines 

and 100,000 kg/yr MC equivalent for 

halogenated solvent cleaning machines 

in use at military maintenance and 

depot facilities. 

Option 2: 60,000 kg/yr MC equivalent 

applicable to facilities that manufacture 

narrow tubing and general population of 

halogenated solvent cleaning machines 

and 100,000 kg/yr MC equivalent for 

halogenated solvent cleaning machines 

in use at military maintenance and 

depot facilities. 

Option 3: 60,000 kg/yr MC equivalent 

applicable to general population and 

facilities that manufacture narrow 

tubing; 100,000 kg/yr MC equivalent 

applicable to aerospace manufacturing 

and maintenance facilities and military 

maintenance and depot facilities; and 80 

percent overall control efficiency for 

facilities that use continuous web 

cleaning machines that have emissions 

exceeding 60,000 kg/yr MC equivalent. 

Table 3 presents a summary of cancer 

incidence, cancer incidence reduction, 

and emission reductions for the general 

population and for each of the industrial 

sectors discussed above, for each of the 

control options being considered. 

TABLE 3—INCIDENCE AND EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FOR THE SECTOR-SPECIFIC COMPONENTS OF OPTIONS 1, 2, AND 3 

Industry group Emission limit 

Baseline 

incidence 

(cases/yr) 

Incidence after 

control 

(cases/yr) 

Cases avoided/ 

year Tons reduced 

General Degreaser Population (not 

in any other sector).

60,000 kg/yr ................................... 0 .45 0 .26 0 .19 1,592 

Narrow Tubing Manufacturing ....... 60,000 kg/yr ................................... 0 .02 0 .007 0 .013 920 

Continuous Web Cleaning Machines (>60,000 kg/yr).80 percent overall control efficiency.0 .03 0 .02 0 .01 263 

Aerospace Manufacturing and 

Maintenance.

100,000 kg/yr ................................. 0 .05 0 .03 0 .02 324 

Military maintenance and depot .... 100,000 kg/yr ................................. 0 .0003 0 .0001 0 .0002 89 

After promulgation of the 

Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule, we 

became aware that nPB, a non-HAP, had 

already been substituted for TCE in at 

least two facilities that manufacture 

narrow tubing and that it may be a 

suitable alternative solvent at other 

facilities. As a result, in this proposal 

we have assumed that nPB could and 

would be used in both the narrow tube 

manufacturing industry and facilities 

that use continuous web cleaning 

machines. Due to materials 

incompatibility, however, we do not 

believe we can extrapolate the use of 

nPB to the aerospace manufacturing and 

maintenance facilities. The HAP 

emission reductions, risk reductions, 

and costs projected under these’s 

proposed regulatory options 2 and 3 

rely, and are based, in part, on nPB 

substitution for TCE in a specific 

number of machines of specific sizes. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 203 / Monday, October 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules 62401 

22 Ichihara et al. 2004b. Neurological 

Abnormalities in Workers of 1-Bromopropane 

Factory, Environmental Health Perspectives 

published by the National Institute of 

Environmental Health Sciences, National Institute 

of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, June 2004. 

Ichihara et al. 2002. Neurological disorders in 

three workers exposed to 1-bromopropane. Journal 

of Occupational Health 44:1–7 (2002). 

23WIL. 2001. An Inhalation Two-Generation 

Reproductive Toxicity Study of 1–Bromopropane in 

Rats. Conducted by Stump D. G. at WIL Research 

Laboratories, Inc., Sponsored by Brominated 

Solvents Consortium. May 24, 2001. 

24The EPA has addressed the use of nPB as a 

solvent in industrial equipment for metals cleaning, 

electronics cleaning and precision cleaning under 

the Significant New Alternative Policy (SNAP) 

Program. Under SNAP, EPA reviews substitutes for 

ozone depleting substances to determine if a 

substitute would pose a substantially greater risk to 

human health or the environment than other 

substitutes that are available. See CAA section 

612(c), 40 CFR Part 82, subpart G. Specifically, 

based on evidence that in solvent cleaning worker 

exposure levels were consistently below levels of 

concern, EPA concluded that users could use nPB 

as safely as other available substitutes. Thus, EPA 

found nPB acceptable as a substitute for methyl 

chloroform and CFC–113, (72 FR 30142 May 30, 

2007). While under SNAP no restrictions were 

placed on the use of nPB in the solvent cleaning 

end uses addressed in the rule, SNAP approval does 

not relieve users from the obligation to comply with 

any other regulatory obligations, such as those that 

might apply under the 1994 NESHAP. 

Although nPB is not a HAP, there are 

known adverse health effects from 

exposures to high levels of nPB, 

including effects on the nervous system 

(headaches, dizziness, nausea, 

numbness in the lower body) based on 

studies of exposed workers,22 and 

effects on the liver and reproductive 

system based on animal tests.23 In its 

review of the use of nPB as an 

alternative to using solvents which 

deplete stratospheric ozone (72 FR 

30142, May 30, 2007), the EPA 

determined that nPB was an acceptable 

substitute in solvent cleaning 

applications, but recommended use of 

personal protective equipment and 

adherence to the capture and 

suppression guidelines in the NESHAP 

for halogenated solvent cleaning.24 For 

example, emission controls previously 

used for MC or TCE should remain in 

place for worker safety and general 

public safety reasons. 

In evaluating nPB in a specific use 

under the SNAP program, we evaluated 

the worst-case level of nPB emissions. 

We note that even though this worstcase emission level is higher, by at least 

a factor of 4, than the highest-emitting 

facility in the halogenated solvents 

category, the worst-case impact 

estimated under the SNAP program is 

still substantially below, by more than 

a factor of 10, the derived threshold for 

non-cancer effects. This leads us to 

conclude that the substitution of nPB for 

TCE and/or MC in halogenated solvent 

cleaners should not pose any health 

risks to the general population. 

The SNAP final rule stated that for 

non-aerosol solvent cleaning, facilities 

should follow the guidelines in the 

NESHAP for halogenated solvent 

cleaning if they are using nPB. The 

equipment and procedural changes 

described in the NESHAP for 

halogenated solvent cleaning can reduce 

emissions, reduce solvent losses and 

lower the cost of cleaning with organic 

solvents. 

Based on this information, we 

conclude that use of nPB to comply 

with the proposed emission limit is 

reasonable, and we recommend that 

those switching to nPB maintain use of 

their current emission controls for 

worker and general public safety. In this 

notice, we request comment on 

additional or new information which 

might suggest that this conclusion is 

incorrect. 

5. Costs and Other Relevant Factors for 

the Proposed Options 

As discussed earlier in sections I and 

III of this preamble, petitioners have 

raised several issues on our cost 

conclusions in the Halogenated Solvent 

Cleaning rule. Since promulgation of the 

Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule, we 

have become aware of certain facilities 

that manufacture narrow tubing that 

have voluntarily investigated and 

instituted HAP emission reductions by 

installing CAD, vacuum-to-vacuum 

machines, switching from HAP solvents 

to a non-HAP solvent and 

reconfiguration and changing 

production processes. 

Consequently, we have re-evaluated 

our conclusions on costs, availability of 

technology and the compliance deadline 

for the facility-wide limits in the 

Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule. As 

earlier explained in this section, 

existing information now leads us to 

conclude, in a change from the 

Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule, that 

certain affected sources in the narrow 

tubing industry can comply with the 

proposed limits and requirements 

through installation of CAD, vacuum-tovacuum machines, switching from HAP 

to non-HAP and improved work 

practices and manufacturing process 

changes. In addition, we extrapolated 

information on compliance measures 

that we obtained for the narrow tubing 

industry sector to facilities that use 

continuous web cleaning machines. 

Specifically, we assumed that facilities 

that use continuous web cleaning 

machines could substitute TCE for nPB. 

As noted earlier, however, due to 

concerns over materials incompatibility, 

we do not believe we can extrapolate 

the information on the use of nPB by 

facilities that manufacture narrow 

tubing to aerospace manufacturing and 

maintenance facilities. Finally, our cost 

estimates do not reflect any new 

information on available HAP emission 

reduction options for both the general 

population of halogenated solvent 

cleaning machines, the aerospace 

manufacturing and maintenance 

facilities and military maintenance and 

depot facilities. 

To estimate the costs of reducing 

emissions for individual facilities, the 

EPA first calculated the percent 

emission reductions necessary for each 

facility to comply with the levels being 

investigated. Then, control technologies 

were applied on a per unit basis to 

achieve the percent reduction necessary 

to achieve the level. The control 

technologies applied varied depending 

on the cleaning machine type, the 

solvent used, and the percent control 

required. As earlier stated, such control 

technologies include the replacement of 

existing units with vacuum-to-vacuum 

machines, solvent switching, and addon controls. This proposal reflects our 

investigation of these control options 

and a determination of the direct costs 

associated with these emission 

reduction measures. 

Prior to selection of the proposed 

emission limits and control efficiency 

requirements, we have considered the 

costs of each of the emission limits in 

providing various degrees of emission 

reductions, similar to our August 17, 

2006, proposal and our Halogenated 

Solvent Cleaning rule. The costs for an 

individual facility were then 

determined based on the costs 

associated with the controls needed to 

meet the level and taking into account 

any increase or decrease in solvent 

costs. We have determined facilities in 

each sector of industries engaging in 

halogenated solvent cleaning that would 

have to add technology measures to 

control emissions at the various 

emission limits discussed in this 

preamble. With regard to the narrow 

tube manufacturing industry, we have 

applied costs that were incurred by 

specific facilities in Pennsylvania for 

purposes of meeting various proposed 

emission limits. We have also 

extrapolated some of these costs to 

facilities that use continuous web 

cleaning machines (e.g., use of nPB as 

a substitute for TCE). We also assumed 

that the necessary controls were all high 

efficiency and costlier controls. We did 

not apply any mid-level controls and 

their associated costs for instances 

where we had direct compliance costs 

to use as examples. In other words, 

when estimating costs for the facilities 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

62402 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 203 / Monday, October 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

that manufacture narrow tubing, the 

EPA used cost information provided by 

facilities that manufacture narrow 

tubing that had already implemented 

control technologies, such as CAD, 

vacuum-to-vacuum machines, and 

switching to nPB. Additionally, costs 

and risk estimates were developed for 

the narrow tube manufacturing industry 

at various percent emission reduction 

levels and MC equivalent levels. We 

have then applied these associated 

direct costs to facilities that use 

continuous web cleaning machines 

because we have assumed that these 

associated direct costs would be a 

primary example of costs of complying 

with the various proposed emission 

limits for any facility with similar 

cleaning machines, similar solvent 

usage and similar HAP emission 

reduction. These applied assumptions 

are similar to our cost assumptions in 

the August 17, 2006, proposal. To more 

fully analyze the implications of the 

various emission limits, we recalculated the overall and incremental 

annualized cost per cancer case avoided 

for each proposed option. The results of 

our analyses are summarized in Table 4 

below. In general, we expect that 

facilities that use halogenated solvents 

with a higher URE, and as a result have 

lower emission limits, would likely 

incur higher costs to reduce emissions 

to the necessary limit. We are soliciting 

comments on these aspects of this 

proposal. 

TABLE 4—COST ANALYSIS FOR PROPOSED OPTIONS

Option 1 2 3 

Total Capital Costs (Millions) ................................................................................................. $15.65 $37.58 $49.89 

Net Annualized Costs (Millions) ............................................................................................ $1.50 $3.73 $5.19 

Operation and Maintenance Costs (Millions) ........................................................................ $0.76 $1.88 $2.61 

Solvent Savings (Millions) ..................................................................................................... ($3.65 ) ($4.00 ) ($4.96 ) 

Total Annual Costs * (Millions) ............................................................................................... ($1.38 ) $1.60 $2.83 

Emissions Reduced (tons/yr) ................................................................................................. 1,681 2,601 3,058 

Cancer Cases Avoided/yr ...................................................................................................... 0.19 0.20 0.23 

Cost Effectiveness of Control ($/ton) .................................................................................... ($821 ) $616 $927 

Incremental Cost effectiveness (compared to next least stringent option) (Millions $/case 

avoided) .............................................................................................................................. ($7.0 ) $293 $41 

* Net Annualized Costs plus O&M plus Solvent Savings. 

We are also presenting in Table 5 the 

associated costs and emission 

reductions for the sector-specific control 

options in light of the fact that we are 

soliciting comments on combinations of 

limits other than those represented by 

options 1 through 3 presented above in 

section III. 

TABLE 5—COST ANALYSIS FOR SECTOR-SPECIFIC COMPONENTS OF OPTIONS 1, 2, AND 3 

Emission limit 

60,000 kg/yr 

MC equivalent 

for general 

degreaser population (does 

not include 

named sectors) 

60,000 kg/yr 

MC equivalent 

for narrow tubing 

80 percent 

overall control 

for continuous 

web cleaning 

machines at facilities emitting 

>60,000 kg/yr 

100,000 kg MC 

equivalent for 

aerospace manufacture and 

maintenance 

100,000 kg/yr 

MC equivalent 

for military 

maintenance 

and depot 

Total Capital Costs (Millions) ..................................... $15.7 $21.92 $3.29 $9.02 $0.54 

Net Annualized Costs (Millions) ................................. $1.45 $2.23 $0.63 $0.87 $0.06 

Operation and Maintenance Costs (Millions) ............ $0.72 $1.11 $0.31 $0.44 $0.04 

Solvent Savings (Millions) .......................................... ($3.50 ) ($0.36 ) ($0.34 ) ($0.68 ) ($0.16 ) 

Million Thousand Thousand Thousand Thousand 

Total Annual Costs * (Millions) ................................... ($1.32 ) $2.97 $0.60 $0.63 $0.06 

Emissions Reduced (tons/yr) ..................................... 1,621 920 290 324 89 

Cost of Control ($/ton) ............................................... ($832 ) $3,238 $2,774 $1,933 ($625 ) 

Cost per Case Avoided (Millions) .............................. ($7.0 ) $596 $177 $31 ($56 ) 

* Net Annualized Costs plus O&M plus Solvent Savings. 

Other factors relevant to our ample 

margin of safety determination include 

(but are not limited to) impact on the 

national economy, small business 

impacts, cost-effectiveness, incremental 

cost-effectiveness, or net benefits. 

All economic impact estimates 

incorporate the scale-up factor of 1.76 

applied to affected source populations 

and costs. Option 1 is expected to affect 

120 ultimate parent entities, and 40 of 

these parent entities (one-third of the 

total number of ultimate parent entities 

affected) are small as defined by the 

Small Business Administration (SBA) 

small business size standards. Of these 

40 small entities, none have an 

annualized cost of greater than one 

percent of their sales. Option 2 is 

expected to affect 148 ultimate parent 

entities, and 52 (or 35 percent) of these 

entities are small. Of these 52 small 

entities, three have an annualized cost 

of greater than one percent of their sales. 

Finally, Option 3 is expected to affect 

181 ultimate parent entities, and 56 (or 

31 percent) of these entities are small. 

Of these 56 small entities, three have an 

annualized cost of greater than one 

percent of their sales. 

6. Ample Margin of Safety Rationale for 

Each of the Proposed Options 

This section provides the results of 

our reconsideration analysis and the 

options that the EPA believes suitable 

for proposal considering the issues 

raised by the petitioners and the 

capabilities of the industries affected by 

the source category NESHAP 

regulations. Specifically, Option 1 

proposes the same limits promulgated 

in the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning 

rule that is the subject of this 

reconsideration. Option 2 introduces 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 203 / Monday, October 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules 62403 

more stringent emission limits (60,000 

kg/yr MC equivalent) for the narrow 

tube manufacturing industry. Finally, 

Option 3 introduces more stringent 

limits for aerospace manufacturing and 

maintenance facilities (100,000 kg/yr 

MC equivalent) and facilities that use 

continuous web cleaning machines 

(80% overall control efficiency for units 

at facilities emitting greater than 60,000 

kg/yr MC equivalent). 

We recognize that there are significant 

differences between these options in 

terms of the level of emission 

reductions, the number of cancer cases 

avoided per year, and the associated 

costs of control, but we believe that each 

of the options presented provides an 

ample margin of safety consistent with 

the Benzene framework. We specifically 

solicit comment on the information 

included in Table 4 above and any other 

information relevant to our ample 

margin of safety determination. 

i. What is our rationale for Option 1? 

A 60,000 kg/yr MC equivalent limit 

would be applicable to sources 

associated with the general population 

of halogenated solvent cleaning 

machines. A 100,000 kg/yr MC 

equivalent limit would be applicable to 

halogenated solvent cleaning machines 

located at military maintenance and 

depot facilities. With respect to facilities 

that use continuous web cleaning 

machines, and halogenated solvent 

cleaning machines used by facilities that 

manufacture narrow tubing and 

aerospace manufacturing and 

maintenance facilities, we are proposing 

to readopt the 1994 NESHAP under 

CAA section 112(d)(6) and (f)(2) 

because, as discussed below, we are 

proposing that the current level of 

control called for by the 1994 NESHAP 

reduces HAP emissions to limits that 

present an acceptable level of risk, 

provide an ample margin of safety to 

protect public health, and prevent any 

adverse environmental effects. (This 

option represents the standards 

promulgated in the Halogenated Solvent 

Cleaning rule). 

Under this option, the total HAP 

emissions would be reduced by 1,681 

tpy. We anticipate that about 82 

facilities and 98 halogenated solvent 

cleaning machines would be affected by 

this proposed option. Facilities would 

reduce their emissions to meet this 

proposed regulatory option by selecting 

control options that might include one 

or more of the following: (1) Solvent 

switching from a HAP solvent with a 

higher URE to a HAP solvent with a 

lower URE, such as switching from PCE 

or TCE to MC; (2) solvent switching 

from a HAP solvent to a non-HAP 

solvent; (3) retrofitting additional 

freeboard; (4) installing CAD; or (5) 

installing vacuum-to-vacuum machines. 

We are proposing to conclude that 

Option 1 reduces HAP emissions to 

levels that present an acceptable level of 

risk, provides an ample margin of safety 

to protect public health, and prevents 

any adverse environmental effects. 

When Option 1 is applied to the 

facilities in the 2002 NEI database we 

estimate that the MIR decreases to about 

50-in-1 million with an estimated 

reduction in cancer incidence of about 

0.19 cases annually, with an annualized 

cost savings of $1.3 million, or a cost 

savings of about $822 per ton. The 

maximum chronic noncancer HI is 

lower than the baseline, ranging from 

0.2 to 2.0 depending on which 

noncancer toxicity value is used in the 

assessment. Specifically, using the 

CalEPA chronic REL to assess TCE 

noncancer hazard, emissions from no 

facilities would result in exposures 

exceeding an HI of 1. Using the NYS 

DOH noncancer criterion to assess TCE 

noncancer hazard, emissions from the 

five narrow tube manufacturing 

facilities would result in exposures 

exceeding an HI of 1, the HI value is 2 

for each of these facilities. The HIs for 

the five other facilities that are above 1 

in the baseline using the NYS DOH 

noncancer criterion would fall below 1 

under this option. In addition, 

considering the discussion of the 

conservatism associated with the 

chronic non-cancer toxicity of TCE 

using the NYS DOH criterion (discussed 

previously in section III), along with the 

additional cost and risk factors 

discussed above, we propose that this 

option provides an ample margin of 

safety to protect public health. 

ii. What is our rationale for Option 2? 

A 60,000 kg/yr MC equivalent limit 

would be applicable to sources 

associated with the general population 

of halogenated solvent cleaning 

machines and halogenated solvent 

cleaning machines used by facilities that 

manufacture narrow tubing. A 100,000 

kg/yr MC equivalent limit would be 

applicable to halogenated solvent 

cleaning machines located at military 

maintenance and depot facilities. With 

respect to facilities that use continuous 

web cleaning machines, and 

halogenated solvent cleaning machines 

used by aerospace manufacturing and 

maintenance facilities, we are proposing 

to re-adopt the 1994 NESHAP under 

CAA section 112(d)(6) and (f)(2) 

because, as discussed below, we are 

proposing that the current level of 

control called for by the 1994 NESHAP 

reduces HAP emissions to levels that 

present an acceptable level of risk, 

provide an ample margin of safety to 

protect public health, and prevent any 

adverse environmental effects. We 

anticipate that about 105 facilities and 

150 halogenated solvent cleaning 

machines would be subject to this 

proposed option. Facilities would 

reduce their emissions by selecting 

control options that might include one 

or more of the following: (1) Solvent 

switching from a HAP solvent with a 

higher URE to a HAP solvent with a 

lower URE, such as switching from PCE 

or TCE to MC; (2) solvent switching 

from a HAP solvent to a non-HAP 

solvent; (3) retrofitting additional 

freeboard; (4) installing CAD or; (5) 

installing vacuum-to-vacuum machines. 

We are proposing to conclude that 

Option 2 reduces HAP emissions to 

levels that present an acceptable level of 

risk, provides an ample margin of safety 

to protect public health, and prevents 

any adverse environmental effects. 

When Option 2 is applied to the 

facilities in the 2002 NEI database, the 

MIR decreases to about 30-in-1 million 

with an estimated reduction in cancer 

incidence of about 0.20 cases annually, 

and annualized costs of $1.6 million, or 

annual costs of about $615 per ton. The 

maximum chronic noncancer HI is 

reduced from the baseline, to a range of 

0.05 to 1 depending on which 

noncancer toxicity value is used in the 

assessment. The incremental annualized 

cost of control options 1 and 2 is about 

$3 million. The incremental emission 

reduced from Option 1 to Option 2 is 

920 tons. Therefore the incremental 

cost-effectiveness between Options 1 

and 2 is nearly $3,200/ton/year. The 

incremental cancer incidence reduction 

between options 1 and 2 is 0.01. The 

incremental cost-effectiveness/cancer 

case avoided is nearly $293 million. 

iii. What is our rationale for Option 3? 

A 60,000 kg/yr MC equivalent limit 

would be applicable to sources 

associated with the general population 

of halogenated solvent cleaning 

machines and halogenated solvent 

cleaning machines used by facilities that 

manufacture narrow tubing. A 100,000 

kg/yr MC equivalent limit would be 

applicable to halogenated solvent 

cleaning machines used by aerospace 

manufacturing and maintenance 

facilities and halogenated solvent 

cleaning machines located at military 

maintenance and depot facilities. 

Facilities that use continuous web 

cleaning machines that exceed 60,000 

kg/yr MC equivalent HAP emissions 

would have to achieve 80 percent 

overall control efficiency for those units. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

62404 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 203 / Monday, October 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

We anticipate that about 130 facilities 

and 260 halogenated solvent cleaning 

machines would be subject to this 

proposed option. Facilities would 

reduce their emissions by selecting 

control options that might include one 

or more of the following: (1) Solvent 

switching from a HAP solvent with a 

higher URE to a HAP solvent with a 

lower URE, such as switching from PCE 

or TCE to MC; (2) solvent switching 

from a HAP solvent to a non-HAP 

solvent; (3) retrofitting additional 

freeboard; (4) installing CAD; or (5) 

installing vacuum-to-vacuum machines. 

We are proposing to conclude that 

Option 3 reduces HAP emissions to 

levels that present an acceptable level of 

risk, provides an ample margin of safety 

to protect public health, and prevents 

any adverse environmental effects. 

When Option 3 is applied to 130 

facilities in the 2002 NEI database, the 

MIR decreases to about 30-in-1 million 

with an estimated reduction in cancer 

incidence of about 0.23 cases annually, 

and annualized costs of $2.8 million, or 

annual costs of about $887 per ton. The 

incremental annualized cost of control 

Options 2 and 3 is about $1.2 million. 

The incremental emission reduced from 

Option 2 to Option 3 is 587 tons. 

Therefore the incremental costeffectiveness/tons emissions reduced 

between Options 2 and 3 is nearly 

$2,100/ton/year. The incremental cancer 

incidence reduction between Options 2 

and 3 is 0.03. The incremental costeffectiveness/cancer case avoided is $41 

million. 

C. Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(6) 

Review 

Petitioners also contend that the 

Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule does 

not satisfy our obligations under CAA 

section 112(d)(6). Several petitioners 

state that our review of the 1994 

NESHAP failed to consider the 

availability of current control 

technology, such as CAD, and capture 

and control system that could achieve 

upwards of 35 percent TCE emissions 

reduction by facilities that manufacture 

narrow tubing. Petitioners also identify 

CAD, and vacuum-to-vacuum machines, 

and other control options, such as 

solvent switching as compliance options 

for halogenated solvent cleaning 

machines used by facilities that 

manufacture narrow tubing that became 

available subsequent to promulgation of 

the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule. 

Further, petitioners allege that we failed 

to provide any explanation as to why 

several alternative emission reduction 

measures, such as either vacuum-tovacuum machines or solvent switching 

were not available control options for 

facilities that use continuous web 

cleaning machines. 

CAA section 112(d)(6) requires the 

EPA to review and revise, as necessary 

(taking into account developments in 

practices, processes, and control 

technologies), emission standards 

promulgated under CAA section 112(d) 

no less often than every eight years. In 

light of the petitions, we have reassessed the issue of whether there have 

been developments in practices, 

processes and control technologies since 

issuance of the 1994 NESHAP. We have 

also reviewed the information 

concerning compliance options 

included in the various petitions, as 

some of that information was not 

available to the EPA at the time of 

promulgation of the Halogenated 

Solvent Cleaning rule. Additionally, we 

have held discussions with industry 

representatives on the availability of 

control measures and the potential for 

additional emission reductions. 

We believe that there have been some 

developments in control technologies, 

practices and processes for the facilities 

that manufacture narrow tubing. The 

control technologies include the use of 

vacuum-to-vacuum technology and 

CAD. Other measures include, for 

example, switching from HAP to nonHAP cleaners, such as nPB and 

manufacturing process changes. We 

solicit comment on the extent to which 

these control approaches represent 

advances in the control of halogenated 

solvents for the entire source category or 

whether they are relevant only to certain 

sectors within the category. 

Section 112(d)(6) grants EPA much 

discretion to revise the standards ‘‘as 

necessary.’’ Thus, although the 

specifically enumerated factors that EPA 

should consider all relate to technology 

(e.g., developments in practices, 

processes and control technologies), the 

instruction to revise ‘‘as necessary’’ 

indicates that EPA is to exercise its 

judgment in this regulatory decision, 

and is not precluded from considering 

additional relevant factors, such as costs 

and risk. EPA has substantial discretion 

in weighing all of the relevant factors in 

arriving at the best balance of costs and 

emissions reduction and determining 

what further controls, if any, are 

necessary. This interpretation is 

consistent with numerous rulings by the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit 

regarding EPA’s approach to weighing 

similar enumerated factors under 

statutory provisions directing the 

agency to issue technology-based 

standards. See, e.g. Husqvarna AB v. 

EPA, 254 F.3d 195 (DC Cir. 2001). After 

weighing all relevant factors, we are 

proposing the same regulatory options 

described above for our 112(f)(2) 

residual risk analysis. Based on the 

information analyzed for the regulatory 

options, and discussed in detail above, 

we are proposing three options for 

emissions standards to satisfy the 

requirements of section 112(d)(6) 

review: 

Proposed Option 1: A 60,000 kg/yr 

MC equivalent limit would be 

applicable to sources associated with 

the general population of halogenated 

solvent cleaning machines. A 100,000 

kg/yr MC equivalent limit would be 

applicable to halogenated solvent 

cleaning machines located at military 

maintenance and depot facilities. With 

respect to facilities that use continuous 

web cleaning machines, halogenated 

solvent cleaning machines used by 

facilities that manufacture narrow 

tubing, and halogenated solvent 

cleaning machines used by aerospace 

manufacturing and maintenance 

facilities, we are proposing to re-adopt 

the 1994 NESHAP under CAA section 

112(f)(2). 

Proposed Option 2: A 60,000 kg/yr 

MC equivalent limit would be 

applicable to sources associated with 

the general population of halogenated 

solvent cleaning machines and 

halogenated solvent cleaning machines 

used by facilities that manufacture 

narrow tubing. A 100,000 kg/yr MC 

equivalent limit would be applicable to 

halogenated solvent cleaning machines 

located at military maintenance and 

depot facilities. With respect to facilities 

that use continuous web cleaning 

machines, and halogenated solvent 

cleaning machines used by aerospace 

manufacturing and maintenance 

facilities, we are proposing to re-adopt 

the 1994 NESHAP under CAA section 

112(f)(2). 

Proposed Option 3: A 60,000 kg/yr 

MC equivalent limit would be 

applicable to sources associated with 

the general population of halogenated 

solvent cleaning machines and 

halogenated solvent cleaning machines 

used by facilities that manufacture 

narrow tubing. A 100,000 kg/yr MC 

equivalent limit would be applicable to 

halogenated solvent cleaning machines 

used by aerospace manufacturing and 

maintenance facilities and halogenated 

solvent cleaning machines located at 

military maintenance and depot 

facilities. Facilities that use continuous 

web cleaning machines that exceed 

60,000 kg/yr MC equivalent HAP 

emissions would have to achieve 80 

percent overall control efficiency for 

those units. 

We solicit comments on these 

proposed options. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 203 / Monday, October 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules 62405 

25These sources include halogenated solvent 

cleaning machines used by facilities that 

manufacture narrow tubing, facilities that 

manufacture specialized products requiring 

continuous web cleaning, and aerospace 

manufacturing and maintenance facilities. 

26These sources include halogenated solvent 

cleaning machines at military maintenance and 

depot facilities and the general population of 

halogenated solvent cleaning machines. 

D. Compliance Schedule 

As discussed in section II, one 

petitioner stated that the 3-year 

compliance period appeared for the first 

time in the Halogenated Solvent 

Cleaning rule, making it impracticable 

to raise objections during the period 

provided for public comment. One 

petitioner argued that our assumption 

that facilities that manufacture narrow 

tubing could only achieve a 10 percent 

emission reduction within a 3-year 

compliance period was unsupported by 

the record and unexplained. Another 

petitioner argued that CAA section 

112(f)(4) is the controlling provision 

that addresses compliance deadlines for 

existing sources with regard to 

standards promulgated under CAA 

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

At proposal, we determined that CAA 

section 112(i) was the controlling 

provision that addressed compliance 

deadlines for existing sources with 

regard to standards promulgated under 

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

existing sources, we proposed a 2-year 

compliance deadline from the effective 

date of the rule. We were persuaded, 

however, by comments on our August 

17, 2006 proposal and subsequent 

NODA, indicating that additional time 

beyond the proposed 2-year compliance 

deadline would be needed, and in the 

Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule, we 

set a 3-year compliance period for 

existing sources, finding that this period 

was more appropriate given the time 

necessary to implement control 

approaches necessary to meet the 

emission requirements. Thus, we 

promulgated a 3-year compliance 

deadline for existing sources from the 

effective date of the Halogenated 

Solvent Cleaning rule. 

In this action, for existing sources that 

were not subject to the emission 

reduction requirements in the 

Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule,25

we are proposing a 2-year compliance 

deadline from the date of publication of 

the final rule in the Federal Register. As 

to those sources that were subject to 

emission reduction requirements in the 

Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule,26 if 

the final rule on reconsideration 

changes those requirements 

significantly and makes them more 

stringent, we propose that these sources 

have two years from the date of 

publication of the final rule to comply 

with the requirements of the final rule. 

We believe that such an extension is 

appropriate to allow the affected 

facilities time to meet the more stringent 

emission limitations. 

In the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning 

rule, we identified a conflict between 

section 112(i) and section 112(f)(4) of 

the Act. To avoid a conflict in these 

provisions addressing compliance 

deadlines, we interpreted the more 

specific and comprehensive set of 

provisions in section 112(i) as governing 

both CAA section 112(d) and (f) 

standards. We maintain this 

interpretation in this rule. We note, 

however, that the 2-year compliance 

deadline proposed in this action is 

consistent with an alternative 

interpretation of the Act, which 

petitioners endorse, that the provisions 

of CAA section 112(f)(4) control. CAA 

section 112(f)(4) would allow us to grant 

a 2-year extension of the compliance 

deadline for existing sources, in 

addition to the 90-day compliance date 

otherwise applicable. We believe that 

the proposed 2-year compliance 

deadline is necessary for the installation 

of controls at existing sources, and 

section 112(f)(4) would allow us to grant 

such an extension for the installation of 

controls. The proposed 2-year 

compliance deadline takes into account 

that the sources that have already 

installed controls appear to have done 

so within a two year period. Thus, we 

believe that this proposal falls within 

the 2-year plus 90-day period that 

would be allowed under CAA section 

112(f)(4)(A)–(B) and is therefore within 

the permissible range of CAA section 

112(f)(4), even if that section applies. 

We are also soliciting comments on this 

aspect of this proposal. 

IV. Proposed Regulatory Text 

Given that we are proposing a range 

of regulatory options, we have not 

prepared proposed regulatory text for 

each option. The regulatory text for 

Option 1 is, however, set forth in the 

Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule. If 

we elect to finalize options 2 or 3 or 

some combination thereof, the 

regulatory text will follow the 

framework set forth in the Halogenated 

Solvent Cleaning rule. 

V. Impacts 

For the general population degreasing 

sources required to comply with the 

60,000 kg/yr MC equivalent emission 

limit, the national capital costs to reach 

compliance are estimated to be 

$15,000,000 with annualized cost 

savings of $1.3 million (2007 dollars). 

The capital costs for individual facilities 

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

with an average cost of about $190,000. 

More than 60 percent of the facilities 

implementing a control technology 

would recognize a cost savings 

primarily from solvent savings. 

Controlling solvent use 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 50 and 20-in-1 

million, depending on the control 

option selected. The options outlined 

here are expected to reduce cancer 

incidence from a source category wide 

baseline of 0.55 cases annually to 0.33 

for Option 1, with reductions to 0.33 

when continuing to Option 3, resulting 

in a range of reduction in cancer 

incidence from between 0.19 to 0.22 

cases annually, depending upon the 

option selected. Additionally, Option 1 

is expected to reduce the range of 

possible chronic noncancer HI values 

from 0.2 to 7 at the baseline, to 0.2 to 

2, depending on which noncancer 

toxicity value is used in the assessment. 

Both Options 2 and 3 result in a 

reduction of the range of possible 

maximum chronic noncancer HI values 

from between 0.2 and 7 at the baseline, 

to between 0.05 and 1, depending on 

which noncancer toxicity value is used 

in the assessment. 

The EPA estimates that to comply 

with the 100,000 kg/yr MC equivalent 

emission limit, military maintenance 

and depot 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 6-in-1 

million to 3-in-1 million. The emission 

limit for military maintenance and 

depot facilities is expected to reduce 

cancer incidence by 0.0002 cases 

annually. 

The EPA also estimates that to comply 

with the 100,000 kg/yr MC equivalent 

emission limit, aerospace manufacturing 

and maintenance facilities are expected 

to incur $9 million in capital costs with 

annualized costs of about $626,000. 

Using the 2002 NEI database, this 

emission limit for aerospace 

manufacturing and maintenance 

facilities is expected to reduce cancer 

incidence by 0.03 cases annually. 

The EPA also estimates that to comply 

with the 60,000 kg/yr MC equivalent 

emission limit, facilities that 

manufacture narrow tubing are expected 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

62406 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 203 / Monday, October 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

to incur $22 million in capital costs 

with annualized costs of about $3 

million. Using the 2002 NEI database, 

this emission limit for facilities that 

manufacture narrow tubing is expected 

to reduce cancer incidence by 0.005 

cases annually. 

The EPA further estimates that to 

comply with the 80 percent overall 

control efficiency, facilities that use 

continuous web cleaning machines with 

total emissions over the 60,000 kg/yr 

MC equivalent thresholds are expected 

to incur $3 million in capital costs with 

annualized costs of about $601,000. 

Using the 2002 NEI database, this 

emission limit for facilities that use 

continuous web cleaning machines is 

expected to reduce cancer incidence by 

0.003 cases annually. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 

(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 

action is a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action.’’ 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 EO, 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. The 

analysis, which is briefly summarized in 

section III of this Preamble, is contained 

in the Costs Analyses Memorandum, 

and has been placed in the docket for 

this action. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose any new 

information collection burden. Owners 

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 

NESHAP. Owners or operators subject 

to the 1994 NESHAP continue to 

maintain records and retain them for at 

least five 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 

2006 proposed amendments, as well as 

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. 

1652.06. OMB has previously approved 

the 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. The OMB control numbers for 

EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed 

in 40 CFR part 9. 

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 impacts 

of this rule 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-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

The companies owning the affected 

facilities using halogenated solvents can 

be grouped into small and large 

categories using SBA general size 

standard definitions. Size standards are 

based on industry classification codes 

(i.e., North American Industrial 

Classification System, or NAICS) that 

each company uses to identify the 

industry or industries in which they 

operate. SBA defines a small business in 

terms of the maximum employment, 

annual sales, or annual energygenerating capacity (for electricity 

generating units) of the owning entity. 

These thresholds vary by industry and 

are evaluated based on the primary 

industry classification of the affected 

companies. In cases where companies 

are classified by multiple NAICS codes, 

the most conservative SBA definition 

(i.e., the NAICS code with the highest 

employee or revenue size standard) was 

used. 

As mentioned earlier in this 

preamble, facilities across a large 

number of industries use halogenated 

solvents, therefore a number of size 

standards are utilized in this analysis. 

For the 41 industries identified at the 6- 

digit NAICS code represented in this 

analysis, the employment size standard 

varies from 500 to 1,500 employees. The 

annual sales standard is as low as four 

million dollars and as high as 150 

million dollars. The specific SBA size 

standard is identified for each affected 

industry within the small entity 

database created for this economic 

analysis. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this action on small entities, 

we have concluded that this action will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. This certification is based on 

the economic impact of this action on 

all affected small entities in the entire 

halogenated solvent cleaning source 

category. Option 1 is expected to affect 

120 ultimate parent entities, and 40 of 

these parent entities (one-third of the 

total number of ultimate parent entities 

affected) are small as defined by SBA 

small business size standards. Of these 

40 small entities none have an 

annualized cost of greater than one 

percent of their sales. Option 2 is 

expected to affect 148 ultimate parent 

entities, and 52 (or 35 percent) of these 

entities are small. Of these 52 small 

entities, three have an annualized cost 

of greater than one percent of their sales. 

Finally, Option 3 is expected to affect 

181 ultimate parent entities, and 56 (or 

31 percent) of these entities are small. 

Of these 56 small entities, three have an 

annualized cost of greater than one 

percent of their sales. More information 

on these impacts can be found in the 

economic impact analysis for this 

proposed rule, a document available in 

the public docket for this action. 

Although this proposed rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities, 

EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the 

impact of this rule on small entities. 

When developing the proposed rule, we 

took special steps to ensure that the 

burdens imposed on small entities were 

minimal. We conducted several 

meetings with industry trade 

associations to discuss regulatory 

options and the corresponding burden 

on industry, such as recordkeeping and 

reporting. 

Following publication of the proposed 

rule, copies of the Federal Register 

notice and, in some cases, background 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 203 / Monday, October 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules 62407 

documents, will be publicly available to 

all industries, organizations, and trade 

associations that have had input during 

the regulation development, as well as 

State and local agencies. 

We continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of this proposed rule 

on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no Federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538 for State, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector. The 

action imposes no enforceable duty on 

any State, local or tribal governments or 

the private sector. [The term 

‘‘enforceable duty’’ does not include 

duties and conditions in voluntary 

Federal contracts for goods and 

services.] Therefore, this action is not 

subject to the requirements of sections 

202 or 205 of the UMRA. 

This action is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order (EO) 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 EO 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 proposed action 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 EO 

13132. None of the affected halogenated 

solvent cleaning facilities are owned or 

operated by State or local governments. 

Thus, EO 13132 does not apply to this 

proposed action. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, 

and consistent with EPA policy to 

promote communications between EPA 

and State and local governments, EPA 

specifically solicits comment on this 

proposed rule from State and local 

officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This proposed action does not have 

tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000). 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 EO 13175. Thus, Executive 

Order 13175 does not apply to this 

proposed action. 

EPA specifically solicits additional 

comment on this proposed rule from 

tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997) as applying to 

those regulatory actions that concern 

health or safety risks, such that the 

analysis required under section 5–501 of 

the Order has the potential to influence 

the regulation. This action is not subject 

to EO 13045 because it is based solely 

on technology performance. 

This proposed action is not subject to 

the EO because it is not economically 

significant as defined in EO 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 

This proposed action 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 proposed action will have 

a negligible impact on energy 

consumption because about 10 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 this proposed action 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 

proposed action 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 proposed action does not involve 

technical standards. Therefore, we are 

not considering the use of any voluntary 

consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

Feb. 16, 1994) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

62408 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 203 / Monday, October 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it increases the level of 

environmental protection for all affected 

populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on any population, including any 

minority or low-income population. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: October 3, 2008. 

Stephen L. Johnson, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E8–24013 Filed 10–17–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2