Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0009-0132
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: National Air Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Halogenated Sovent Cleaning
Posted Date: 2007-05-03T04:00Z

[Federal Register: May 3, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 85)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 25137-25159]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr03my07-9]                         

[[Page 25137]]

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

Part III

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 63

 National Air Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 
Halogenated Solvent Cleaning; Final Rule

[[Page 25138]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0009; FRL-8303-6]
RIN 2060-AK22

 
National Air Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 
Halogenated Solvent Cleaning

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is promulgating revised standards to limit emissions of 
methylene chloride (MC), trichloroethylene (TCE) and perchloroethylene 
(PCE) from facilities engaged in halogenated solvent cleaning. On 
December 2, 1994, EPA promulgated technology-based emission standards 
to control HAP emissions of halogenated solvents from halogenated 
solvent cleaning. Pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA) section 112(f), 
EPA has evaluated the remaining risk to public health and the 
environment following implementation of the technology-based rule and 
is promulgating more stringent standards in order to provide an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health. These final standards will 
provide further reductions of MC, PCE, and TCE beyond the 1994 national 
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP), through 
application of a facility-wide total MC, PCE, and TCE emission 
standard. In addition, EPA has reviewed the standards as required by 
section 112(d)(6) of the CAA and has determined that, taking into 
account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies, 
no further action beyond what is required under CAA section 112(f) is 
necessary at this time.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective May 3, 2007.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0009. All documents in the docket are listed on the 
http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available (e.g., Confidential Business 
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 
by statute). Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will 
be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically through 
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 B-102, 1301 
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. This Docket Facility is open 
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays. The Docket telephone number is (202) 566-1744, and the 
telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1742. 
EPA visitors are required to show photographic identification and sign 
the EPA visitor log. After processing through the X-ray and 
magnetometer machines, visitors will be given an EPA/DC badge that must 
be visible at all times.
    Informational updates will be provided via the EPA Web site at 
http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm as they are available.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about the final rule 
amendments, contact Mr. H. Lynn Dail, EPA, Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Natural 
Resources and Commerce Group (E143-03), Research Triangle Park, NC 
27711; telephone number (919) 541-2363; fax number (919) 541-3470; e-
mail address: dail.lynn@epa.gov. For questions on the residual risk 
analysis, contact Mr. Dennis Pagano, EPA, Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division, 
Sector Based Assessment Group (C539-02), Research Triangle Park, NC 
27711; telephone number (919) 541-0502; fax number (919) 541-0840; e-
mail address: pagano.dennis@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities. Categories and entities 
potentially regulated by the final rule include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Examples of
          Category               NAICS \1\ code          potentially
                                                     regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry....................  Any of numerous       Operations at
                               industries using      sources that are
                               halogenated solvent   engaged in solvent
                               cleaning, primary     cleaning using MC,
                               affected industries   PCE, or TCE.
                               include those in
                               NAICS Codes
                               beginning with: 331
                               (primary metal
                               man.), 332
                               (fabricated metal
                               man.), 333
                               (machinery man.),
                               334 (computer and
                               electronic product
                               man.), 335
                               (electrical
                               equipment,
                               appliance, and
                               component man.);
                               336 (transportation
                               equipment man.);
                               337 (furniture and
                               related products
                               man.); and 339
                               (misc. man.).
Federal, State, local, and    ....................  Operations at
 tribal government.                                  sources that are
                                                     engaged in solvent
                                                     cleaning using MC,
                                                     PCE, or TCE.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by the final 
rule. This final rule directs an owner or operator of a facility that 
is subject to the 1994 NESHAP for Halogenated Solvent Cleaning (40 CFR 
63.460 of subpart T), to determine whether today's final standards 
require the facility additionally to operate under the certain specific 
emission limits. If you have any questions regarding the applicability 
of the final rule to a particular entity, consult the person listed in 
the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Docket. The docket number for the National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Halogenated Solvent Cleaning (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart T) is Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0009.
    Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, 
an electronic copy of the final rule is also available on the http://WWW. 

Following the Administrator's signature, a copy of the final rule will 
be posted on EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN) policy and 
guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg.
 The TTN provides information and technology 

exchange in various areas of air pollution control.
    Judicial Review. Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act 
(CAA), judicial review of the final rule is available only by filing a 
petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit by July 2, 2007. Under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), only 
an objection to the final rule that was raised with

[[Page 25139]]

reasonable specificity during the period for public comment can be 
raised during judicial review. Moreover, under CAA section 307(b)(2), 
the requirements established by this final action may not be challenged 
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to 
enforce these requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides a mechanism for 
EPA to convene a proceeding for reconsideration, ``if the person 
raising the objection can demonstrate to the EPA that it was 
impracticable to raise such an objection [within the period for public 
comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period 
for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) 
and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the 
rule.'' Any person seeking to make such a demonstration to the EPA 
should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the 
Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the 
person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section, and the Associate General Counsel, Air and Radiation Law 
Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004.
    Outline. The information presented in this Preamble is organized as 
follows:

I. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. What is halogenated solvent cleaning?
    C. What are the health effects of halogenated solvent cleaning?
    D. What does the 1994 halogenated solvent cleaning NESHAP 
require?
II. Summary of the Proposed Rule
    A. Issuance of the Notice of Data Availability (NODA)
III. Summary of the Final Rule
    A. What does the final rule require?
    1. What are the requirements for halogenated solvent cleaning 
machines?
    2. What are the requirements for halogenated solvent cleaning 
machines at military depot maintenance facilities?
    3. What are the requirements for continuous web cleaners and 
halogenated solvent cleaning machines at narrow tube manufacturing 
and aerospace industries?
    B. What is the rationale for the final rule?
    1. Revision of the Baseline Risk Estimate
    2. Rationale for the 60,000 kg/yr MC Equivalent Emission Limit
    3. Rationale for the Requirements for Halogenated Solvent 
Cleaning Machines at Military Depot Maintenance Facilities.
    4. Rationale for Our Decisions Regarding Continuous Web Cleaners 
and Halogenated Solvent Cleaning Machines at Narrow Tube 
Manufacturing and Aerospace Facilities
    C. What is the compliance schedule?
    D. What is the final decision on the applicable unit risk value?
    E. What is EPA's finding on the Section 112(d)(6) review 
requirements?
IV. Responses to Significant Comments
    A. Significant Comments on the Proposal
    1. Emission Limit Option 1 or Option 2
    2. Equation for MC Equivalents
    3. Use of CalEPA or OPPTS URE for Implementation of the Emission 
Limit
    4. Compliance Deadline
    5. Applicability of Control Requirements
    6. Costs Associated With Compliance
    7. General Comments
V. Responses to Significant Comments on EPA's December 14, 2006, 
Notice of Data Availability (NODA)
    A. Emission Limits
    B. Cost Impacts
    C. Compliance Schedule
VI. Impacts
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Congressional Review Act

I. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    Section 112 of the CAA establishes a comprehensive regulatory 
process to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from 
stationary sources. In accordance with CAA section 112(c), EPA 
identifies categories and subcategories of sources emitting one or more 
of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b). CAA section 112(d) then 
requires us to promulgate national technology-based emission standards 
for each category of sources that emits or has the potential to emit 
any single HAP at a rate of ten tons or more per year or any 
combination of HAP at a rate of 25 tons or more per year (known as 
``major sources''), as well as for certain area sources emitting less 
than those amounts. For major sources, these technology-based standards 
must reflect the maximum reductions of HAP achievable (after 
considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air health and 
environmental impacts) and are commonly referred to as maximum 
achievable control technology (MACT) standards. For area sources, CAA 
section 112(d)(5) provides that the standards may reflect generally 
available control technology or management practices in lieu of MACT, 
and are commonly referred to as generally available control technology 
(GACT) standards.
    In what we refer to as the ``technology review'', CAA section 
112(d)(6) then requires EPA to review the CAA section 112(d) standards 
and to revise them ``as necessary, taking into account developments in 
practices, processes and control technologies,'' no less frequently 
than every 8 years.
    The residual risk review is described in section 112(f) of the CAA. 
EPA prepared a Report to Congress discussing (among other things) 
methods of calculating risk posed (or potentially posed) by sources 
after implementation of the MACT standards, the public health 
significance of those risks, the means and costs of controlling them, 
actual health effects to persons in proximity to emitting sources, and 
recommendations as to legislation regarding such remaining risk. The 
EPA prepared and submitted this report (``Residual Risk Report to 
Congress,'' EPA-453/R-99-001) in March 1999. The Congress did not act 
on any of the recommendations in the report; thereby, triggering the 
second stage of the standard-setting process, the residual risk phase.
    CAA section 112(f)(2) requires us to determine whether additional 
standards are ``required in order to provide an ample margin of safety 
to protect public health.'' If the MACT standards for a HAP 
``classified as a known, probable, or possible human carcinogen do not 
reduce lifetime excess cancer risks to the individual most exposed to 
emissions from a source in the category or subcategory to less than 1-
in-a-million,'' EPA must promulgate residual risk standards for the 
source category (or subcategory) as necessary to provide an ample 
margin of safety. EPA's framework for making ample margin of safety 
determinations under CAA section 112(f)(2) is provided in the Benzene 
NESHAP (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989) which was codified by Congress 
in CAA section 112(f)(2)(B). The EPA also must promulgate more 
stringent standards to prevent an adverse environmental effect (defined 
in CAA section 112(a)(7) as ``any significant and widespread adverse 
effect * * * to wildlife, aquatic life, or other natural resources, 
including adverse impacts on populations of endangered or threatened 
species or significant degradation of environmental quality over broad

[[Page 25140]]

areas.''), but must consider costs, energy, safety, and other relevant 
factors in doing so.

B. What is halogenated solvent cleaning?

    Halogenated solvent cleaning machines use the halogenated solvents 
methylene chloride (MC), perchloroethylene (PCE), trichloroethylene 
(TCE), or 1,1,1,-trichloroethane (TCA) and halogenated solvent blends 
or their vapors to remove soils such as grease, oils, waxes, carbon 
deposits, fluxes, and tars from metal, plastic, fiberglass, printed 
circuit boards, and other surfaces. Halogenated solvent cleaning is 
typically performed prior to processes such as painting, plating, 
inspection, repair, assembly, heat treatment, and machining. Types of 
solvent cleaning machines include, but are not limited to, batch vapor, 
in-line vapor, in-line cold, and batch cold solvent cleaning machines. 
Buckets, pails, and beakers with capacities of 7.6 liters (2 gallons) 
or less are not considered solvent cleaning machines.
    Halogenated solvent cleaning does not constitute a distinct 
industrial category, but is an integral part of many major industries. 
The five 3-digit NAICS Codes that use the largest quantities of 
halogenated solvents for cleaning are NAICS 337 (furniture and related 
products manufacturing), NAICS 332 (fabricated metal manufacturing), 
NAICS 335 (electrical equipment, appliance, and component 
manufacturing), NAICS 336 (transportation equipment manufacturing), and 
NAICS 339 (miscellaneous manufacturing). Additional industries that use 
halogenated solvents for cleaning include NAICS 331 (primary metals), 
NAICS 333 (machinery), and NAICS 334 (electronic equipment 
manufacturing). Non-manufacturing industries such as railroad (NAICS 
482), bus (NAICS 485), aircraft (NAICS 481), and truck (NAICS 484) 
maintenance facilities; automotive and electric tool repair shops 
(NAICS 811); and automobile dealers (NAICS 411) also use halogenated 
solvent cleaning machines. We estimated that there were approximately 
16,400 batch vapor, 8,100 in-line, and perhaps as many as 100,000 batch 
cold cleaning machines in the U.S. prior to promulgation of the MACT 
standards. More recent information shows that the current number of 
cleaning machines is much lower than these pre-MACT estimates. We 
currently estimate the number of sources in this source category to be 
about 3,800 cleaning machines located at 1,900 facilities in the U.S. 
This estimate is based on information we collected in 1998 and reflects 
the decreases in HAP emissions and demand that were expected due to 
implementation of MACT control technologies and work practice 
standards. Information suggesting that further decreases in solvent 
usage and therefore, solvent emissions, have occurred in the post-MACT 
implementation years may reflect that either the number of sources in 
the source category have declined or that sources are implementing 
methods to recycle more solvent, resulting in reduced emissions and 
some cost savings.
    ``Solvent cleaning machine'' is defined in the Federal Register, 40 
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Sec.  63.461. Solvent cleaning 
machine types such as batch cleaners and in-line cleaners are also 
described. Both cleaner types can be designed to use either solvent at 
room temperature (cold cleaners) or solvent vapor (vapor cleaners).
    Continuous web cleaners are a subset of in-line cleaners that are 
used to clean products such as films, sheet metal, and wire in rolls or 
coils. The workload is uncoiled and conveyorized throughout the 
cleaning machine at speeds in excess of 11 feet per minute and recoiled 
or cut as it exits the machine. Emission points from continuous 
cleaners are similar to emission points from other inline cleaners. 
Continuous cleaners are semi-enclosed, with emission points where the 
workload enters and exits the machine. Squeegee rollers reduce carry 
out emissions by removing excess solvent from the exiting workload. 
Some continuous machines have exhaust systems similar to those used 
with some other in-line cleaners.

C. What are the health effects of halogenated solvent cleaning?

    MC, PCE, TCA, and TCE are the primary halogenated solvents used for 
solvent cleaning. The health effects of these four solvents were 
described in the proposed rule of August 17, 2006 (71 FR 47680), which 
is available for review in docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0009. All four 
produce acute and/or chronic non-cancer health effects at sufficient 
concentrations; three of the four have been classified as probable or 
possible human carcinogens by either EPA or other governmental or 
international agencies. Carbon tetrachloride and chloroform are no 
longer used as degreasing solvents; therefore, their health effects 
were not discussed in the proposed rule.
    The Agency's Integrated Risk Information System's (IRIS) 
toxicological reviews of PCE, TCE and MC are currently being developed 
or revised. The current schedule indicates that the new or final IRIS 
toxicological reviews of the carcinogens PCE, TCE and MC are not 
expected until late 2008 for PCE, mid 2009 for MC, and late 2010 for 
TCE. A publicly available draft revised toxicological review of the 
non-carcinogenic HAP TCA, has been released for external peer review. A 
final revised IRIS toxicological review of TCA is not expected until 
late 2007. The National Research Council (NRC) released a report in 
2006 that described their findings after a comprehensive review of the 
health effects of TCE, focusing on critical issues in developing an 
objective, realistic, and scientifically based health risk assessment 
for TCE. This report is available at http://www.nas.edu/catalog/11707.html.
 Toxicity or status information for the four HAPs may be 

obtained from the following Web sites: EPA's Toxicity database at 
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/toxsource/table1.pdf shows the benchmarks 

for the four HAPs used in the risk assessment. Specific information 
underlying the values used may be found at the following locations: 
California EPA's Web site at http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/index.html
 has the background information on PCE and TCE used to 

develop the cancer potency values.
    The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry's Web site at 
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxpro2.html has the background information 

used to develop the non-cancer values for MC and PCE.
    EPA's IRIS Web site at http://www.epa.gov/iris/index.html provides 

the information supporting the cancer potency value for MC.
    Status reports for IRIS chemical reassessments, (i.e., TCA) are 
available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/iristrac/index.cfm.

D. What does the 1994 halogenated solvent cleaning NESHAP require?

    On December 2, 1994, we promulgated national emission standards for 
halogenated solvent cleaning (59 FR 61801, (December 2, 1994)) and 
required existing sources to comply with the national emission 
standards by December 2, 1996.
    The promulgated standards in 40 CFR Subpart T include multiple 
alternatives to allow owners or operators maximum compliance 
flexibility. The final rules for the halogenated solvent cleaning 
source category are available in the docket, EPA-HA-OAR-2002-0009.

II. Summary of the Proposed Rule

    The August 17, 2006 proposed rule would have required all owners 
and

[[Page 25141]]

operators of halogenated solvent cleaning machines that are subject to 
the 1994 NESHAP (40 CFR Part 63, subpart T), except for cold batch area 
source cleaning machines subject to GACT, to comply with a facility-
wide solvent emission limit, summarized in Table 1 of this Preamble. As 
proposed, the standards would be in addition to the requirements of the 
1994 NESHAP.
    Specifically, we co-proposed two facility-wide emission limits for 
facilities that use multiple HAP solvents, 25,000 kg/yr and 40,000 kg/
yr of MC equivalent emissions, and solicited comments on which of these 
two options would be the most appropriate. We developed a method for 
facilities using multiple HAP solvents to determine their emission 
limit by calculating their MC-equivalent emissions using the toxicity-
weighting equation, which is shown as equation 1, below. We proposed 
that where more than one halogenated solvent is used at a facility, the 
owner or operator would be required to calculate the facility's 
weighted halogenated solvent cleaning emissions using equation 1 and to 
comply with the limit in the last row of Table 1 of this Preamble. For 
owners or operators of facilities that use a single halogenated solvent 
(MC, TCE or PCE), we proposed that the owner or operator of each 
affected facility would be required to ensure that its emissions of the 
single halogenated solvent would not exceed the single-solvent limits 
specified in Table 1 of this Preamble.

                     Table 1.--Summary of the Proposed Facility-Wide Annual Emission Limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Proposed facility-wide   Proposed facility-wide
                       Solvents emitted                          annual emission limits   annual emission limits
                                                                   in kg/yr--option 1       in kg/yr--option 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PCE only......................................................   \a\ 3,200 \b\ (26,700)   \a\ 2,000 \b\ (16,700)
TCE only......................................................                   10,000                    6,250
MC only.......................................................                   40,000                   25,000
Multiple solvents--Calculate the MC-weighted emissions using                     40,000                  25,000
 equation 1...................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ PCE emission limit calculated using California EPA (CalEPA) Unit Risk Estimate (URE).
\b\ PCE emission limit calculated using the EPA Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPPTS)
  Unit Risk Estimate (URE).

    Equation 1:

(kgs/yr of PCE emissions x A)+(kgs/yr of TCE emissions x B) + (kgs/yr 
of MC emissions) = MC weighted emissions in kgs/yr

    In equation 1, the facility emissions of PCE and TCE are weighted 
according to their carcinogenic potency relative to that of MC. Thus, 
``A'' in the equation is the ratio of the cancer unit risk estimate 
(URE) for PCE to the URE for MC, and the ``B'' in the equation is the 
ratio of the URE for TCE to the URE for MC. Because the IRIS assessment 
for PCE is in process, we requested comment on the use of the CalEPA 
URE, the OPPTS URE, or other values in deriving the PCE emission limit 
for the final rule. See 71 FR 47680. As explained in our proposal, the 
value of ``A'' would be 1.5 or 12.5, depending on whether we used the 
OPPTS URE or the CalEPA URE value for PCE. The value for ``B'' is 4.25. 
At proposal, we stated that there may be other approaches for deriving 
emissions standards for facilities that use multiple HAP. We requested 
comment on other possible methods for establishing emission limits at 
facilities using more than one of the listed HAP solvents.
    Further, at proposal we presented and discussed our evaluation of 
four other emission limits that would reduce residual risk. These 
emission limits are summarized below:
     100,000 level--Sources would reduce MC-equivalent 
emissions to no more than 100,000 kg/yr (220,000 lbs/yr).
     60,000 level-- Sources would reduce MC-equivalent 
emissions to no more than 60,000 kg/yr (132,000 lbs/yr).
     15,000 level-- Sources would reduce MC-equivalent 
emissions to no more than 15,000 kg/yr (33,000 lbs/yr).
     6,000 level--Sources would reduce MC-equivalent emissions 
to no more than 6,000kg/yr (13,200 lbs/yr).

See 71 FR 47680-81 for further discussion of these four emission 
levels.
    We proposed a compliance deadline of two years after the effective 
date of the final rule for existing sources by resolving the seemingly 
conflicting provisions of section 112(f)(4)(A) and 112(i), and by 
determining that CAA section 112(i) was the controlling provision for 
compliance deadlines for existing sources with regard to standards 
promulgated under CAA section 112(f)(2). This proposal was based on our 
belief that the proposed compliance date was realistic for any affected 
facility that has to plan a control strategy, purchase and install the 
control device(s), and bring the control device(s) online.
    See 71 FR 47683-84 for a complete discussion of the proposed 
facility-wide solvent emission limit, compliance options, and our 
rationale for proposing the facility-wide solvent emission limit.

A. Issuance of the Notice of Data Availability (NODA)

    We received comments on the proposed rule from industry, states, 
solvent manufacturers, industry associations and district air 
associations. Industry's comments were primarily submitted by four 
specific sectors: Narrow tubing manufacturing facilities, facilities 
that manufacture specialized products requiring continuous web 
cleaning, aerospace manufacturing and maintenance facilities, and 
military depot maintenance facilities. Additional comments were 
submitted by facilities that use multiple halogenated solvent cleaning 
machines. Comments and data submitted by the four industry sectors 
focused on the unique nature and size of the halogenated solvent 
cleaning machines they use in their cleaning operations. These data and 
information were otherwise not available to EPA at proposal. The 
commenters expressed concern about their ability to comply with the 
proposed emission limits because of technical and economic 
difficulties. They also expressed an inability to meet the proposed 
compliance deadline. Based on these comments and our desire to 
reconcile these concerns, we issued a Notice of Data Availability 
(NODA) on December 14, 2006 (71 FR 75182). In addition, in order to 
have adequate time to address these concerns, we asked for and received 
an extension of our December 15, 2006 court-ordered promulgation 
deadline to April 16, 2007. The NODA was intended to gather more 
information, especially from these four industry sectors, on the 
availability of technology or methods to meet the proposed emission 
limits, the costs to achieve the proposed emission limits, and the time 
required to achieve the proposed emission limits.

[[Page 25142]]

    As a result of the NODA, EPA received significant comments from 
responders associated with the above-noted industries, industry 
associations, and commenters that were not associated with the above-
noted industries. They provided additional data and information that 
were directly relevant to the promulgation of the proposed facility-
wide emission limits. These data and information were otherwise not 
available to EPA at proposal. A more complete description of the 
comments received may be found in section V of this Preamble and in the 
docket for this rule.

III. Summary of Final Rule

A. What does the final rule require?

    Using the data from comments on the proposal and NODA, we re-
evaluated the costs and technical feasibility of complying with the 
proposed emission limits. The re-analysis resulted in a final rule that 
changed from what we proposed, especially for four industry sectors: 
narrow tubing manufacturing facilities, facilities that manufacture 
specialized products requiring continuous web cleaning, aerospace 
manufacturing and maintenance facilities, and military depot 
maintenance facilities.
1. What are the requirements for Halogenated Solvent Cleaning Machines?
    EPA is promulgating a facility-wide emission limit of 60,000 kg/yr 
MC equivalent, as shown in Table 2 of this Preamble, applicable to all 
existing halogenated solvent cleaning machines with the exception of 
halogenated solvent cleaning machines used by the following industries: 
Facilities that manufacture narrow tubing, facilities that manufacture 
specialized products requiring continuous web cleaning, aerospace 
manufacturing and maintenance facilities, and military depot 
maintenance facilities.
    This final rule also requires owners or operators of halogenated 
solvent cleaning machines that use any one of the halogenated solvents 
covered by this rule (i.e., MC, PCE or TCE), with the exception of the 
halogenated solvent cleaning machines used by the above-noted 
industries, to ensure that facility-wide solvent emissions from all 
halogenated solvent cleaning activities are less than or equal to the 
limit for the single halogenated solvent specified in Table 2 of this 
Preamble.
    This final rule also requires halogenated solvent cleaning machines 
that are constructed or reconstructed after August 17, 2006, with the 
exception of halogenated solvent cleaning machines associated with the 
above-noted industries, to comply with the 60,000 kg/yr MC equivalent 
emission limit upon the effective date of this rule or upon startup, 
whichever occurs later. The revised requirements apply in addition to 
the 1994 NESHAP.
    For area sources subject to the 1994 NESHAP and constructed or 
reconstructed after August 17, 2006, the final rule revisions add to 
the previous 1994 NESHAP by requiring implementation of the 60,000 kg/
yr MC equivalent facility-wide emission limit upon the effective date 
of this rule or upon startup, whichever occurs later. This final rule 
also limits the use of any one of the halogenated solvents covered by 
this rule (i.e., MC, PCE or TCE), at area sources, to the limits for 
the single halogenated solvent specified in Table 2 of this Preamble. 
The area sources in the halogenated solvent cleaning source category 
that are subject to GACT are not subject to these additional standards. 
These area sources are cold batch cleaning machines.
    When a facility's total halogenated solvent emissions from its 
degreasing operations exceed the applicable emission limits, the 
facility must implement means to comply with these amended standards. 
In addition, under this final rule, the 1994 NESHAP requirements for 
all halogenated solvent cleaning machines remain applicable. Compliance 
with the 60,000 kg/yr MC equivalent emission limit is demonstrated by 
determining the annual PCE, TCE, and MC emissions for all cleaning 
machines at the facility, using Equation 1 as necessary, and comparing 
to the emission limits in Table 2.
    There are no other additional equipment monitoring or work practice 
requirements associated with the facility-wide annual emissions limit. 
Annual emissions of PCE, TCE, and MC are determined based on records of 
the amounts and dates of the solvents added to cleaning machines during 
the year, the amounts and dates of solvents removed from cleaning 
machines during the year, and the amounts and dates of the solvents 
removed from cleaning machines in solid waste. Records of the 
calculation sheets showing how the annual emissions were determined 
must be maintained. A facility will determine compliance with the 
standards by comparing their annual MC-equivalent emissions to the 
limits specified in Table 2 of this final rule.

                          Table 2.--Summary of the Facility-Wide Annual Emission Limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Final general
                                                                  halogenated solvent         Final military
                       Solvents emitted                          cleaning facility-wide   maintenance facility-
                                                                 annual emission limits    wide annual emission
                                                                        in kg/yr             limits in kg/yr
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PCE only......................................................                    4,800                    8,000
TCE only......................................................                   14,100                   23,500
MC only.......................................................                   60,000                  100,000
Multiple solvents--Calculate the MC-weighted emissions using                     60,000                  100,000
 equation 1...................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Equation 1:

(kgs/yr of PCE emissions x A)+(kgs/yr of TCE emissions x B) + (kgs/yr 
of MC emissions) = MC weighted Emissions in kgs/yr

    In this equation, the facility emissions of PCE and TCE are 
weighted according to their carcinogenic potency relative to that of 
MC. Thus, ``A'' in the equation is the ratio of the URE for PCE to the 
URE for MC, and the ``B'' in the equation is the ratio of the URE for 
TCE to the URE for MC. The value of ``A'' is 12.5 (see section C 
below). The value for ``B'' is 4.25.
2. What are the requirements for halogenated solvent cleaning machines 
at military depot maintenance facilities?
    For existing halogenated solvent cleaning machines in use at 
military depot maintenance facilities where multiple halogenated 
solvents are emitted, the final rule sets a facility-wide emission 
limit of 100,000 kg/yr of MC equivalent emissions as indicated in Table 
2 of this Preamble. This final rule also limits the use of any one of 
the halogenated solvents covered by this rule (i.e., MC, PCE or TCE), 
to the limits for the single halogenated solvent specified in Table 2 
of this Preamble. In

[[Page 25143]]

addition, the 1994 NESHAP requirements remain applicable.
    For halogenated solvent cleaning machines that are constructed or 
reconstructed after August 17, 2006 and that are used at military depot 
maintenance facilities, the final rule revisions add to the previous 
1994 NESHAP by requiring implementation of the 100,000 kg/yr MC 
equivalent emission limit upon the effective date of this rule or upon 
startup, whichever occurs later.
    Military Depot Maintenance Facilities are Government-owned 
industrial centers that operate solely for the purpose of repairing, 
modifying, converting and refitting worn and/or damaged military assets 
for redistribution to military units and are subject to the 1994 
NESHAP. Depot level maintenance includes the repair, fabrication, 
manufacture, rebuilding, assembly overhaul, modification, 
refurbishment, test, analysis, repair-process design, in-service 
engineering, upgrade, painting and disposal of parts, assemblies, 
subassemblies, software, components, or end items that require 
industrial shop facilities, tooling, support equipment, and/or 
personnel of higher technical skills, or processes beyond the military 
installation's organizational level capability.
3. What are the requirements for continuous web cleaners and 
halogenated solvent cleaning machines at narrow tube manufacturing and 
aerospace facilities?
    The requirements set forth in this final rule are not applicable to 
continuous web cleaning machines, halogenated solvent cleaning machines 
that are located at narrow tubing manufacturing facilities, and the 
aerospace manufacturing and maintenance industry and facilities. Narrow 
tube manufacturing facilities primarily engage in the production of 
small diameter (mechanical and hypodermic size) cold drawn metallic, 
seamless tubes from materials such as stainless steel, nickel alloys, 
titanium and its alloys, and alloys of zirconium with a portion of the 
outside diameters 1/4'' or less (a subset of NAICS 331210), and are 
subject to the 1994 NESHAP. Aerospace manufacturing and maintenance 
facilities manufacture, rework, or repair aircraft such as airplanes, 
helicopters, missiles, rockets, and space vehicles, and are subject to 
the 1994 NESHAP. The 1994 NESHAP requirements remain applicable to all 
the continuous web and halogenated solvent cleaning machines associated 
with the above-noted facilities.
    For the above-noted facilities, we are adopting no changes to the 
1994 NESHAP under CAA Section 112(f) because the current level of 
control called for by the existing NESHAP reduces HAP emissions to 
levels that present an acceptable level of risk, protects public health 
with an ample margin of safety, and prevents any adverse environmental 
effects. The finding regarding an ``ample margin of safety'' is based 
on a consideration of the additional costs of further control as 
represented by compliance with emissions limits adapted for each 
industry sector, considering availability of technology, costs and time 
to comply with further controls (see Section III.B., below for a 
discussion of our rationale for this final rule).

B. What is the rationale for the final rule?

    Based on comments and data received on both the proposal and the 
NODA, we re-evaluated the risk, the technical feasibility, the costs of 
the proposed options, and the compliance time needed to implement the 
proposed options. This re-analysis focused especially on the four 
industry sectors discussed above. Additionally, in response to public 
comments we updated the risk assessment for the entire source category 
using the 2002 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) database, which was 
not available for the proposal. The following rationale presents the 
results of our re-analysis of the data.
1. Revision of the Baseline Risk Estimate
    Based on public comment, we used the 2002 NEI inventory to re-
analyze the risk from this source category. The resulting re-analysis 
of risk at the baseline emission level (i.e., the level of emissions 
allowed by the 1994 MACT) indicated that the maximum individual cancer 
risk (MIR) associated with this source category is 100-in-a-million 
with an annual cancer incidence of 0.55. This is as compared to the 
200-in-a-million MIR and 0.40 annual cancer incidence level that we 
presented at proposal, which was based on the 1999 NEI database. We 
consider both MIR values to be acceptable levels of maximum individual 
risk considering the number of people exposed at these levels and the 
absence of other adverse human and environmental health effects. We 
note that the MIR of 100-in-a-million (calculated using the 2002 NEI 
data) is the same regardless of the URE for PCE chosen for the risk 
analysis (i.e., the CalEPA value or the OPPTS value, which results were 
contrasted at proposal). This is because PCE is not the only driver of 
the MIR risk level for the highest risk facilities.
    Given the uncertainties associated with the development of emission 
inventories, neither the 1999 nor the 2002 NEI inventory should be 
considered as correct in an absolute sense or as suggesting temporal 
trends in degreasing machine populations or emissions. Rather, we 
consider them to be ``snapshots'' of the true long-term inventory of 
emissions for this source category, each carrying its own degree of 
uncertainty. As such, the derived risk assessment results compared 
above should be regarded as ranges within which the true risk metrics 
are likely to fall.
    The revised population risk distribution at baseline emission 
levels shows that about 25 people are exposed to the MIR risk level, 
about 22,000 people are at estimated risks of >= 10-in-a-million risk 
level, and about 4,000,000 people are at estimated risks of >= 1-in-a-
million. This is compared to approximately 90 people exposed to risks 
at the MIR level (200-in-a-million), about 42,000 people at estimated 
risks of >= 10-in-a-million risk level, and about 6,000,000 people at 
estimated risks of >= 1-in-a-million that we presented at proposal. 
Similar to the MIR and annual cancer incidence metrics, these values 
may be an indication of the uncertainty presented by the databases 
because, as earlier explained, both inventories are ``snapshots'' of 
the industry rather than an absolute reflection of the ``current'' 
state of the industry.
    We did not reassess the environmental risks using the 2002 NEI 
inventory but believe that no ``adverse environmental effects,'' as 
defined in CAA section 112(a)(7), would occur given the similarities of 
the human health risk results between the 1999 NEI data and 2002 NEI 
data and the fact that we showed in the proposal that no adverse 
environmental effects would likely occur using the 1999 NEI inventory.
2. Rationale for the 60,000 kg/yr MC Equivalent Emission Limit
    EPA is promulgating a facility-wide emission limit of 60,000 kg/yr 
(MC equivalent emissions) applicable to emissions from all new and 
existing halogenated solvent cleaning machines that are subject to the 
1994 NESHAP, with the exception of halogenated solvent cleaning 
machines used by the following industry sectors: Narrow tubing 
manufacturing, facilities that manufacture specialized products 
requiring continuous web cleaning, aerospace manufacturing and 
maintenance, military depot

[[Page 25144]]

maintenance operations, and cold batch cleaning machines (which are 
subject to GACT). Area sources operating halogenated solvent cleaning 
machines that are subject to GACT also are not required to comply with 
the facility-wide emission limits. This final rule reflects our 
decision that the 60,000 kg/yr MC equivalent emission limit from the 
August 17, 2006 proposal provides an ample margin of safety to protect 
public health and prevents adverse environmental effects.
    In response to public comments received on our proposal and 
subsequent NODA, we re-examined the data and assumptions used to 
estimate the risk and compliance costs presented in the Preamble to our 
proposed rule. We determined that certain significant data and 
assumptions that we used to develop our cost estimates at proposal were 
either no longer relevant, not reflective of more recent inventory 
data, or not valid. As a result, we re-evaluated risks using the more 
recent inventory data and modified our cost estimates in response to 
public comment. The most important change we made is that we re-
analyzed the risk metrics and costs using the halogenated solvent 
cleaning facilities in the finalized 2002 NEI, but removing facilities 
in four specific industry sectors--aerospace manufacture and 
maintenance facilities, narrow tube manufacturing facilities, 
facilities using continuous web cleaning machines, and military 
equipment maintenance facilities--from the database for the purpose of 
estimating the risks and compliance costs associated with the remaining 
facilities (Sections III.A.3 and III.B.3 explain our rationale for 
removing the facilities in these industry sectors from this analysis).
    Other changes we made to our cost estimates in response to public 
comment are as follows:
     We used the finalized 2002 NEI database containing 
facility and emissions data as the source of our baseline emissions 
estimates. We removed aerospace manufacture and maintenance facilities, 
narrow tube manufacturing facilities, facilities using continuous web 
cleaning machines, and military equipment maintenance facilities from 
the database for the purpose of estimating the compliance costs for the 
remaining facilities. (Sections III.A.3 and III.B.3 explain our 
rationale for removing these facilities from this analysis.)
     We changed our assumptions about the percent reductions in 
emissions that can be achieved by vacuum-to-vacuum machines from 97 
percent to 95 percent.
     In the proposal, we assigned no operation and maintenance 
cost to vacuum-to-vacuum machines. Based on public comment, our cost 
estimates for this final rule incorporate annual operation and 
maintenance costs of $18,832 for each machine.
     We updated the cost per gallon of PCE and TCE based on 
information provided by commenters representing manufacturers of 
solvents and the narrow tube manufacturing industry.
     We added a carbon adsorption device (CAD) option that 
assumes a 30 percent control in emissions. We did not have this option 
in the cost assumptions we made at proposal. We received comments that 
this option may be available for some industries but that it is at 
least ten times more expensive than the retrofit options we costed for 
the proposal.
     We reduced the number of units for which solvent switching 
could be a compliance option from 30 percent, used in the proposal, to 
15 percent. We also corrected our method for calculating the emission 
reduction impacts and solvent savings associated with solvent 
switching.
    After re-assessing the risk and calculating revised cost estimates, 
we re-examined our decision as to what level of control is necessary to 
provide an ample margin of safety to protect human health and to 
prevent adverse environmental effects, as required by the second step 
of the residual risk process under CAA section 112(f)(2). We considered 
the re-assessed risk estimates and the other health information along 
with additional factors consistent with the 1989 Benzene NESHAP (54 FR 
38044, September 14, 1989), such as cost, technological feasibility, 
uncertainties and other relevant factors as discussed at proposal. We 
re-analyzed the risk metrics using the halogenated solvent cleaning 
facilities in the 2002 NEI, but removing aerospace manufacture and 
maintenance facilities, narrow tube manufacturing facilities, 
facilities using continuous web cleaning machines, and military depot 
maintenance facilities.
    At proposal we had presented two options for emission limits that 
would apply to all facilities in the category subject to the 1994 MACT 
standards--25,000 kg/yr MC equivalent and 40,000 kg/yr MC equivalent. 
We estimated that the 25,000 kg/yr limit would result in an emissions 
reduction of 6,778 tons/year, thereby reducing the MIR to 10-in-a 
million and reducing cancer incidence by 0.14-0.27 cases annually 
(depending on which URE we use for PCE), at an annual cost savings of 
$4.9 million annually or a cost savings of $724/ton HAP reduced. 
Comments received included support for and against this level of 
emissions reduction. Similarly, at proposal we estimated that applying 
the 40,000 kg/yr limit to facilities in the entire source category 
would result in an emissions reduction of 5,911 tons/yr, reducing the 
MIR to 20-in-a million and reducing cancer incidence by 0.12-0.23 cases 
annually, at an annual cost savings of $5.9 million annually or a cost 
savings of $1,000/ton HAP reduced.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In considering these revised cost estimates, it should be 
noted that there may be inherent uncertainties or anomalies in the 
availability of information that underlie our costs for our options, 
regardless of whether the estimates be positive costs or net cost 
savings. There may also be other factors that are not reflected in 
these estimates, however. For example, these estimates are largely 
based on a 15-year equipment life for existing affected cleaners 
(20-year for new cleaners) and a discount rate of 7 percent. If 
industry determines that a shorter equipment life for the controls 
considered in this analysis is appropriate based on perceived 
uncertainty of future availability of these solvents, then the 
opportunity cost of capital will be higher and our estimates of net 
cost savings may be altered. If these controls are in operation 
longer than expected by industry, however, then a longer equipment 
life would be appropriate and our estimates of costs, which may be 
net costs or net savings, may also be altered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In developing the final rule, we initially re-examined the 25,000 
kg/yr and 40,000 kg/yr levels of control for the subset of the category 
that excludes the four specific industry sectors identified above, 
using costing assumptions revised based on public comment as described 
above. This re-analysis uses the 2002 NEI data rather than the 1999 NEI 
data used in the proposal. We observed that although the overall 
reductions in MIR and cancer incidence at these levels would be similar 
to those estimated at proposal for the entire category, the substantial 
cost savings estimated at proposal would change to a net cost for both 
emission limits. This is a result of both our use of certain cost 
assumptions at proposal that have been amended for analyzing the cost 
of the final rule and the fact that four industry sectors are now being 
considered separately in this final rule. Specifically, for the 25,000 
kg/yr limit, our analysis of the subset of the category that excludes 
the four specific industry sectors shows the same reduction in MIR (to 
10-in-a-million) and similar estimated reduction in cancer incidence, 
0.24 cases annually, as we showed at proposal. In contrast, our cost 
analysis for this subset of the source category shows a total 
annualized cost (not savings) of about $1.2 million, or a cost of about 
$520 per ton HAP reduced (we estimate 2,351 tons HAP reduced at this 
level). Similarly, for the 40,000 kg/yr limit, our revised analysis 
shows the

[[Page 25145]]

same reduction in MIR (to 20-in-a-million), and a similar estimated 
reduction in cancer incidence, 0.21 cases annually, as we showed at 
proposal, but at an annualized cost (not savings) of $130,000, or a 
cost of about $74 per ton HAP reduced (we estimate 1,759 tons HAP 
reduced at this level). The incremental tons of HAP reduced is nearly 
600 tons with the incremental cost of about $1,800 per ton HAP reduced.
    Because we estimated that the cost of achieving the 25,000 kg/yr 
and 40,000 kg/yr emissions limits would be considerably greater than 
what we had projected for this rulemaking at proposal, we additionally 
evaluated the next less stringent emission limit that was considered 
and presented in the proposal, but not selected as one of our two 
proposed options for limiting emissions from the entire category--a 
60,000 kg/yr MC equivalent facility-wide emission limit. For the subset 
of the category that excludes the four specific industry sectors, we 
estimated that the 60,000 kg/yr level reduces the MIR to between 20-in-
a million and 50-in-a million and reduces cancer incidence by about 
0.19 cases/yr. These risk reductions are estimated to be achieved at 
total annualized cost savings of just over $1.3 million, or a savings 
of $832/ton of HAP reduced (we estimate 1,594 tons HAP reduced at this 
level).
    To more fully analyze the implications of the various emission 
limits, we calculated the overall and incremental annualized cost per 
cancer case avoided. In this case, we compared the proposed 40,000 kg/
yr option and the next less-stringent alternative, the 60,000 kg/yr MC 
equivalent emission limit. Given the overall reduction in incidence 
from the baseline of 0.21 cancer cases/yr at the 40,000 kg/yr level and 
the total annualized cost of $130,000, the overall cost per cancer case 
avoided is about $620,000.\2\ For the 60,000 kg/yr level, there is an 
estimated overall reduction in incidence of 0.19 cases/yr and a total 
annualized cost savings of just over $1.3 million, resulting in an 
overall savings of almost $7 million per cancer case avoided. While 
these cost estimates for the overall reductions from current levels of 
control appear to be modest (given the estimated cost savings of 
intermediate control levels), the incremental reduction in emissions 
and risk of going from the 60,000 kg/yr to the more stringent 40,000 
kg/yr level are small and the corresponding cost-effectiveness 
estimates of these incremental reductions are unacceptably high. The 
incremental incidence avoided between the 40,000 kg/yr level and the 
60,000 kg/yr level is 0.02 cases. The annualized incremental cost 
between the two levels is about $1.5 million, with resulting 
incremental cost per cancer case avoided of about $73 million. (Annual 
operation and maintenance and annualized capital costs of $1.9 million 
per year and an estimated costs savings for solvent recovery of $0.4 
million per year.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For comparison purposes, we estimated that compliance with 
the requirements of the National Perchloroethylene Air Emission 
Standards for Dry Cleaning Facilities Final Rule (71 FR 42727, July 
27, 2006), would result in an annualized cost of about $7 million to 
achieve a cancer incidence reduction of 2 cancer cases per year. 
This yields a cost of $3.5 million per cancer case avoided based on 
the CalEPA unit risk estimate for PCE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering revisions to the risk and cost estimates 
presented at proposal, we believe that the 60,000 kg/yr MC equivalent 
emission limit for those halogenated solvent cleaning machines not 
identified as being in use by one of the four sectors discussed in 
Section III.A.3., above, protects public health with an ample margin of 
safety and prevents adverse environmental effects. Specifically, the 
60,000 kg/yr level reduces 90 percent of the HAP emissions reduced at 
the 40,000 kg/yr level. The 60,000 kg/year emission limit achieves 
reductions in MIR and cancer incidence that are similar to those 
expected at the 25,000 kg/yr and 40,000 kg/yr emission levels. The 
incremental reduction in emissions with a 40,000 kg/yr level instead of 
60,000 kg/yr imposes an incremental cost of $1.5 million per year. The 
incremental cost per ton of this reduction is roughly $9,000/ton. 
Moreover, in comparing the 40,000 kg/yr and the 60,000 kg/yr emission 
limits, the incremental cost per cancer case avoided, $73 million/case, 
is substantial, supporting our conclusion that the $60,000 kg/yr 
emission limit provides an ample margin of safety consistent with the 
Benzene NESHAP.
3. Rationale for the Requirements for Halogenated Solvent Cleaning 
Machines at Military Depot Maintenance Facilities
    For halogenated solvent cleaning machines in use at military depot 
maintenance facilities, the final rule sets a facility-wide emission 
limit of 100,000 kg/yr (MC equivalent emissions). In addition, the 1994 
NESHAP requirements remain applicable.
    For halogenated solvent cleaning machines at these facilities that 
are constructed or reconstructed after August 17, 2006, the final rule 
revisions add to the previous 1994 NESHAP by requiring implementation 
of the 100,000 kg/yr MC equivalent emission limit upon the effective 
date of this rule or upon startup, whichever occurs later.
    We based this decision on comments received from one such facility 
that we considered representative of these types of military facilities 
that maintain and restore military weapons systems. They indicated an 
increase in maintenance and restoration levels due to current worldwide 
military activities and that they could not meet either of the proposed 
emission limits within the proposed two-year compliance period. In 
additional comments in response to the NODA, and in subsequent meetings 
with the Agency, they indicated that they could meet the 100,000 kg/yr 
emission limit within a three-year compliance timeframe. We then 
projected that implementation of the 100,000 kg/yr MC equivalent 
emission limit will reduce the MIR from halogenated solvent cleaning 
machines associated with a military depot maintenance facility from 
about six-in-a-million to about three-in-a-million with an estimated 
reduction in annual cancer incidence of 0.002 cancer cases per year. An 
analysis of the costs for only this facility which was based on 
information from the 2002 NEI shows that the annual cost effectiveness 
of complying with this limit results in a cost savings of about $625/
ton with annualized cost savings of approximately $55,761. Therefore, 
we believe that a requirement for these facilities to meet a 100,000 
kg/yr MC equivalent emission limit is technically feasible, provides an 
annual and long-term cost savings, provides an ample margin of safety 
to protect public health and prevents adverse environmental effects.
4. Rationale for Our Decisions Regarding Continuous Web Cleaners and 
Halogenated Solvent Cleaning Machines at Narrow Tube Manufacturing and 
Aerospace Facilities
    The requirements set forth in this final rule are not applicable to 
continuous web cleaning machines, halogenated solvent cleaning machines 
that are associated with the narrow tubing manufacturing industry, and 
aerospace manufacturing and maintenance industry and facilities. The 
requirements of the 1994 NESHAP and its subsequent amendments (where 
relevant) remain applicable to all the continuous web and halogenated 
solvent cleaning machines associated with the above-noted facilities.
    We received comments from these three sectors on the proposal, in 
response to the NODA, and in subsequent meetings with

[[Page 25146]]

representatives of these industries. They submitted information that 
stressed the unique nature of their cleaning operations, the technical 
infeasibility, the uncertainty of our original cost estimates, the 
processes involved, including review of their process changes by other 
federal agencies such as FDA and FAA (see Section IV.A. for additional 
discussion), and the difficulty they would experience in complying with 
the proposed emission limits within the proposed timeframe. Based on 
new information they provided in response to the NODA, including new 
cost information, we re-analyzed the costs for each of these three 
sectors and estimated the annual cost effectiveness of complying with 
emission limits they provided in comments.
    For the Aerospace sector, we estimated an MIR of 30-in-a-million 
and an annual cancer incidence of 0.066 at their baseline emission 
level. We then projected that implementation of the 100,000 kg/yr MC 
equivalent limit (the maximum reduction we discussed in the proposal) 
would reduce the MIR from halogenated solvent cleaning machines 
associated with this sector to about 20-in-a-million with a reduction 
to their annual cancer incidence to about 0.03 cancer cases annually. 
Our revised cost estimate showed a cost effectiveness of $2,000/ton 
with a total annualized cost of nearly $630,000.
    For the narrow tube manufacturers, we estimated an MIR of 70-in-a-
million with an annual cancer incidence of 0.08 at their baseline level 
of emissions. Based on comments from this industry indicating that they 
could reasonably accomplish a 10 percent reduction in their current 
emission levels within a three-year compliance time, we developed risk 
and cost estimates for that level of reduction. We have estimated that 
the MIR would decrease to approximately 60-in-a-million with very 
little change expected in the annual cancer incidence. The annual cost 
effectiveness for complying with an overall 10 percent reduction in 
total emissions limit would be a cost of over $3,600/ton with total 
annualized costs of nearly $700,000.
    For the continuous web cleaners, we estimated a baseline MIR risk 
level of about 30-in-a-million with an annual cancer incidence of 0.03 
cases. Comments from this industry suggested they could achieve an 80 
percent overall control efficiency compared to their current emission 
levels, within a three-year compliance period. The current NESHAP limit 
requires a 70 percent overall control efficiency. To achieve the 80 
percent overall efficiency, facilities would be required to reduce 
emissions by 33 percent ((1-70%) - (1-80%) / (1-70%) = 33%). We 
developed risk and cost estimates for that level of reduction. We have 
estimated that under this scenario, the MIR would decrease to 
approximately 20-in-a-million with and the annual cancer incidence 
would decrease to 0.02 cases annually. The annual cost effectiveness of 
complying with the 80 percent overall emission control efficiency rate 
is over $3,400/ton with a total annualized costs of over $600,000.
    In summary, we are adopting no changes to the 1994 NESHAP, under 
CAA Section 112(f) for the halogenated solvent cleaning machines used 
by the above-noted specific industry sectors (i.e., aerospace, narrow 
tube manufacturers, and the facilities that use continuous web cleaning 
machines) because the current level of emissions control called for by 
the existing NESHAP both reduces risk to acceptable levels and provides 
an ample margin of safety to protect public health. Further, additional 
standards are not necessary to prevent adverse environmental effects. 
The finding regarding an ``ample margin of safety'' is based on a 
consideration of the relatively small reductions in health risks likely 
to result from the feasible emission reductions we evaluated, the 
additional costs required to achieve further control, the lack of 
technically feasible control options for these sectors, and the time 
required to comply with any requirements.

C. What is the compliance schedule?

    In this final rule, in accordance with CAA section 112(i)(3), we 
are promulgating a compliance deadline of three years from the 
effective date of this final rule for all existing halogenated solvent 
cleaning machines and for all existing halogenated solvent cleaning 
machines at military depot maintenance facilities. Facilities described 
in Section III.A.3 above are not subject to further requirements beyond 
the 1994 NESHAP.
    At proposal, we determined that CAA section 112(i) was the 
controlling provision that addresses compliance deadlines for existing 
sources with regard to standards promulgated under CAA sections 
112(d)(6) and 112(f)(2). See 71 FR 47684-86. We hereby incorporate our 
discussion by reference. In the NODA, we asked for comments on the 
issue of whether a two year compliance deadline was sufficient time to 
comply with the co-proposed facility-wide emission limits. We received 
significant comments on this compliance deadline issue.
    We are persuaded by the commenters representing the general 
population that use halogenated solvent cleaning machines that existing 
sources will need more than 2 years to comply with the final revised 
standards. Affected facilities would have to plan their control 
strategy, purchase and install the control device(s), and subsequently, 
bring the control device(s) online. We, therefore, believe that for the 
remaining halogenated solvent cleaning facilities, this final 
compliance deadline of three years is more reasonable and realistic 
than the proposed two year compliance deadline.

D. What is the final decision on the applicable unit risk value?

    At proposal, we explained that the Agency's IRIS health assessment 
for PCE is currently being revised. Therefore, we requested comment on 
the use of the CalEPA URE,\3\ the OPPTS URE,\4\ or other values in 
deriving the PCE emission limit for the final rule (71 FR 47680). We 
received comments both supporting and opposing our use of the CalEPA 
URE for PCE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ California Department of Health Services (CDHS), Health 
Effects of Tetrachloroethylene (PCE), Berkeley, CA, April 1992. 
(Available in the rulemaking docket.)
    \4\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cleaner Technologies 
Substitutes Assessment: Professional Fabricare Processes (EPA 744-B-
98-001), June 1998. (Available at http://www.epa.gov/dfe/pubs/garment/CTSA/.
)

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

    For those situations where a particular chemical does not have a 
cancer potency value in IRIS, we have established a prioritization 
process for accessing other health assessment information (as described 
in our ``Residual Risk Report to Congress'' on pages 56 through 58). 
This hierarchy includes peer reviewed cancer potency values from EPA as 
well as from other agencies that conduct chemical carcinogenicity 
assessments such as the California Environmental Protection Agency 
(CalEPA). See also our responses to comments on this issue in the final 
Coke Oven Batteries NESHAP (70 FR 19998-20000, (April 15, 2005)). In 
this final rulemaking, we have chosen to use the CalEPA URE in 
preference to the OPPTS value for a number of reasons. CalEPA's PCE 
cancer unit risk value was derived using two different approaches for 
estimating the metabolized dose in humans, whereas the OPPTS value 
incorporated a single model of metabolism. Additionally, while the 
CalEPA approach allowed for the consideration of variability and 
uncertainty, the OPPTS approach did not. We have used both the CalEPA 
and OPPTS UREs for PCE in the risk

[[Page 25147]]

characterizations for the dry cleaning residual risk rulemaking (71 FR 
42723) and for this rulemaking (71 FR 47670; see also the risk document 
in the rulemaking docket). However, for the purposes of this 
rulemaking, we have chosen to use the CalEPA URE to implement the 
facility emission limits. Explicit consideration of variability and 
uncertainty is more consistent with EPA's current approach for 
conducting risk assessments. EPA also uses the CalEPA URE in the 1999 
National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment (available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata1999/
), in Superfund cleanup decisions, and in EPA's Air 

Toxics Risk Assessment Reference Library (available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/fera/risk_atra_main.html
; dose-response values in 

Appendix C at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/fera/data/risk/vol_1/appendix_c.pdf
.

    We have the authority to revisit (and revise, if necessary) any 
rulemaking if there is sufficient evidence that changes within the 
affected industry or significant improvements to the science suggest 
that the public might experience significantly more or less risk than 
estimated in the risk assessment prepared for the rulemaking (See CAA 
section 301). In particular, it may become necessary at some time in 
the future to revise the facility emission limits if the pending IRIS 
assessments result in significant changes to the UREs for PCE, TCE, or 
MC.
    Additionally, while we have chosen to use the CalEPA URE for PCE 
for implementing this rule, this should not be interpreted as a 
precedent for all future rules. As was stated earlier, in the dry 
cleaning residual risk rulemaking (71 FR 42723) and in this rulemaking, 
we used both the CalEPA and OPPTS values to characterize the risk. When 
there is uncertainty, it is EPA's preference to provide a range of 
values. However, for the purposes of this rulemaking, a single value 
was needed to implement the facility emission limits. EPA's choice of 
the CalEPA value does not mean that this is the only value to be 
considered while the EPA IRIS assessment is pending.

E. What is EPA's finding on the CAA section 112(d)(6) review 
requirements?

    We stated in the proposal that in the technology review under CAA 
section 112(d)(6) we did not identify any additional control 
technologies beyond those that are already in widespread use within the 
source category (e.g., freeboard refrigeration devices, extended 
freeboards, working mode and downtime covers). We concluded that the 
proposed rule changes would satisfy both CAA section 112(d)(6) and 
112(f)(2). See 71 FR 47685.
    Since the August 17, 2006 proposal, we have not identified any 
significant developments in practices, processes, or control 
technologies. We have discovered, however, that affected industries are 
researching the development of halogenated solvent cleaning machines 
and alternate cleaning technologies. At some time in the future these 
technologic developments could lead to significant technologies 
relevant to the CAA section 112(d)(6) analysis, but we understand that 
to date the engineering and implementation of such technology has not 
been proven to satisfy the performance needs of the industry coupled 
with the low-emission directives of the agency. We therefore conclude 
that the final facility-wide emissions limits we are promulgating today 
satisfy our obligations under both CAA sections 112(d)(6) and 112 
(f)(2).

IV. Responses to Significant Comments

A. Significant Comments on the Proposal

    During the public comment period, EPA received significant 
comments, new data, and information concerning program elements for 
which we specifically sought public comments. We received favorable and 
unfavorable comments on both proposed emission limits. Commenters 
provided substantial information on the use of the methylene chloride 
equivalency equation. We received significant comments on the 
implementation of the emission limits from commenters representing 
narrow tube manufacturing facilities, aerospace manufacturing and 
maintenance facilities, military depot maintenance facilities, 
facilities that use multiple solvent cleaning machines, and facilities 
that use continuous web cleaning machines.
    All of the comments, information, and data submitted by commenters 
are compiled in the Response to Comments document available in the Air 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0009. Some of the more significant 
comments are discussed below.
1. Emission Limit Option 1 or Option 2
    Comment: While four commenters supported the proposed Option 1 
(40,000 kg/yr MC equivalent emission limit), other commenters 
encouraged EPA to set relative standards. Another commenter, an 
association of state air program administrators, believed that Option 2 
(25,000 kg/yr of MC equivalent emission limit) still presented 
unacceptably high risks; but noted that it was preferable to Option 1. 
Three commenters supported our proposed Option 2. According to the 
commenters, Option 2 would provide significant emissions reductions and 
greater protection of public health, safety, and welfare. In addition 
to lowering the potential cancer and non-cancer chronic health risk 
associated with exposure to the three HAPs, the additional reductions 
of trichloroethylene (TCE) under Option 2 would likely augment the 
State's efforts to reach attainment with the 8-hour ozone standard 
since TCE is identified as an ozone precursor.
    One commenter recognized the reductions in the number of people 
exposed to cancer risk and the capital costs between Option 1 and the 
more stringent Option 2. The commenter stated that under Option 2 the 
numbers of affected sources are greater than the number of affected 
sources under Option 1, but that EPA determined that those affected 
sources complying with Option 2 would still save money because the 
annual solvent savings were projected to exceed the annualized capital 
and operating costs. The commenter added that even at a financial cost, 
Option 2 would be warranted, and that given the financial savings, 
Option 2 was the only reasonable choice. One commenter stated that the 
proposed facility-wide emission limits would leave source owners only 
two compliance options: (1) Establish internal production restrictions 
or (2) install add-on capture and control equipment to ensure operating 
flexibility. Another commenter requested that EPA exempt batch cold 
cleaning machines operating with capture and control devices that are 
subject to federally-enforceable monitoring conditions in a Title V 
permit.
    Response: As stated in Section II of the Preamble, we presented and 
discussed our evaluation of four other emission limits that would 
reduce residual risk. These emission limits were 100,000 kg/yr, 60,000 
kg/yr, 15,000 kg/yr and 6,000 kg/yr (71 FR 47680-81). In this final 
rule, as stated in Section II.A. of the Preamble, we are promulgating 
the 60,000 kg/yr facility-wide MC equivalent emission limit. EPA's risk 
assessment for the proposal and an updated risk assessment for the 
final rule using data from EPA's 2002 NEI database show that the 
maximum individual risk (MIR) and population risks associated with the 
majority of halogenated solvent cleaning machines would be reduced by 
adopting the 60,000 kg/yr MC-equivalent emission limit. Based on the 
more recent assessment using the 2002 NEI, the MIR

[[Page 25148]]

would be reduced from 100-in-a-million to between 20 and 50-in-a-
million and the total number of people with risks greater than 1-in-a-
million would also be reduced from 4,000,000 people to between 500,000 
and 1,000,000. Our cost analyses at proposal and the more recent 
revisions to the cost estimates based on the 2002 NEI show that these 
emission and risk reductions are technically feasible within the three-
year time for compliance, and facilities would experience a cost 
savings implementing the emission limit. Therefore, we believe that the 
60,000 kg/yr facility-wide emission limit (expressed as MC equivalent 
emissions) applied to the halogenated solvent cleaning machines, except 
where noted, provides an ample margin of safety to protect the public's 
health because it significantly reduces cancer risks, prevents adverse 
environmental effects, and given the level of the risk reductions, is 
technically feasible and can be accomplished at reasonable costs. EPA 
is not exempting batch cold cleaning machines that operate with capture 
and control devices that are subject to Title V permitting 
requirements.
2. Equation for MC Equivalents
    Comment: Two commenters supported EPA's toxicity-weighted approach 
for calculating the facility-wide annual emission limits for affected 
sources, except where otherwise noted, that use more than one of the 
three HAPs subject to the proposed Subpart T residual risk rule. This 
toxicity-weighted calculation was proposed as Equations 1 and 9 in the 
Preamble, and proposed 40 CFR 63.471(a)(2), respectively. In our August 
17, 2006 proposal, EPA requested comment on this methodology (71 FR 
47675). Another commenter was concerned about the use of the methylene 
chloride equivalent. The commenter stated that the use of this term was 
somewhat misleading because rather than a toxic equivalent, this 
methodology reflects a weighted-emission approach using toxicity-
weighted emission rates. The commenter further stated that while EPA 
conservatively added the cancer and noncancer toxicity-weighted 
emissions rates, the scaling factors we used were simply the ratio of 
the cancer unit-risk estimates and noncancer reference concentrations 
multiplied by the post-MACT emission rate or exposure level. The 
commenter also stated that because EPA did not specifically conduct 
toxicological comparisons (common mode of action and metabolites and 
possible synergistic interactions among the components of the mixture) 
for PCE, TCE and MC, we should be careful not to use the term 
``methylene chloride equivalent'' as a ``toxic equivalent,'' because 
the latter is a specific term associated with a supporting body of 
literature and a documented methodology. Another commenter noted that 
because the current recordkeeping and annual reports requirements, 
under 40 CFR 63.467 and 63.468 (f-g), were inapplicable to batch cold 
cleaning machines, our proposed methodology may not be suitable for all 
batch cold cleaning machines and requested flexibility in calculating 
emissions so long as the alternate methodology was scientifically sound 
and documented.
    Response: In this final rule, we are finalizing as proposed the use 
of Equation 1 (and Equation 9) to calculate the MC equivalent for 
implementing the 60,000 kg/yr emission limit or the 100,000 kg/yr 
emission limit. EPA believes this methodology will facilitate the use 
of an annual emissions limit for multiple HAPs and allow flexibility in 
reducing the facility-wide emissions to meet this emissions limit. For 
cold batch cleaning machines at area sources, the requirements in the 
final rule do not apply.
3. Use of CalEPA or OPPTS URE for Implementation of the Emission Limit
    Comment: Some commenters that use large halogenated solvent 
cleaning machines recommended that EPA not promulgate either Option 1 
or 2 of the proposed rule, but rather defer promulgation of a final 
rule until completion of the IRIS re-evaluations of the URE for PCE.
    One commenter believed that EPA included two different facility-
wide annual emission limits for PCE because the IRIS URE was not 
available and will not be available before 2008. The commenter 
supported the use of CalEPA URE because it was clearly more health 
protective and more appropriate than the OPPTS URE value.
    One commenter stated several reasons why EPA should use the CalEPA 
URE: (1) EPA's Air Toxics Risk Assessment Reference Library recommended 
the use of the CalEPA URE for PCE, (2) the EPA Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards (OAQPS) recommended the use of the CalEPA URE in 
situations in which there are no IRIS data available (see EPA's 
``Prioritization of Data Sources for Chronic Exposure'' Web site), and 
(3) OAQPS used the CalEPA URE for PCE when conducting the 1999 risk 
assessment for the National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment. They believed 
that EPA has an established precedent for use of the CalEPA URE and 
recommended that it be used for this residual risk standard as well.
    Three commenters, one identifying itself as operating two 
continuous web cleaning lines in the world's largest integrated 
production of aluminum and aluminum semi-fabricated products stated 
that the two PCE UREs differ by a factor of ten and that EPA's 
selection of the applicable URE would obviously have a significant 
impact on control options available to their facility. They expressed 
concern that EPA would finalize an emissions limit by selecting an 
inappropriate URE and prior to completion of the IRIS reassessment for 
PCE. According to the commenter, the fact that the final IRIS URE ``may 
be different from both the CalEPA and OPPTS values'', means that 
inappropriate or unnecessary emission reduction strategies could be 
required as a result of EPA's promulgating the wrong PCE facility-wide 
limit in a final rule.
    Another commenter suggested that EPA delay promulgation of this 
final rule until completion of IRIS assessments for PCE and TCE. One 
commenter stated that while EPA referenced both the OPPTS and the 
CalEPA UREs, there was little or no mention made of other URE studies 
conducted for PCE which would potentially indicate a different URE. The 
commenter stated the same is believed to be true regarding the URE for 
TCE.
    Response: EPA has explained that when a particular chemical does 
not have a cancer potency value in IRIS, we have established a 
prioritization process for assessing other health assessment 
information (as described in our ``Residual Risk Report to Congress'' 
on pages 56 through 58). This hierarchy includes peer reviewed cancer 
potency values from EPA as well as from other agencies that conduct 
chemical carcinogenicity assessments such as CalEPA. See also our 
response to comments on this issue in the final Coke Oven Batteries 
NESHAP (70 FR 19998-20000, (April 15, 2005)).
    Because we have not yet issued a final IRIS health assessment for 
PCE, we are using the CalEPA unit risk estimate (URE) of 5.9 X 
10-6 (ug/m3)-1 to implement the 
emission limit for PCE in this final rule. See section III.D. of this 
Preamble for further discussion of our decision to use the CalEPA 
cancer URE.
    We also have the authority to revisit (and revise, if necessary) 
any rulemaking if sufficient evidence becomes available that changes 
within the affected industry or significant improvements to the 
underlying science suggest that the public is exposed to significantly 
more or less risk than

[[Page 25149]]

estimated in the risk assessment prepared for this rulemaking (See CAA 
section 301). See also Ethylene Oxide Emissions Standards for 
Sterilization Facilities Residual Risk Rules (71 FR 17712, 17715, 
(April 7, 2006). In particular, it may become necessary at some time in 
the future to revise the facility emission limits if the pending IRIS 
assessments result in significant changes to the UREs for PCE, TCE, or 
MC.
    Additionally, while we have chosen to use the CalEPA URE for PCE 
for implementing this rule, this should not be interpreted as a 
precedent for all future rules. As was stated earlier, in the dry 
cleaning residual risk rulemaking (71 FR 42723) and in this rulemaking, 
we used both the CalEPA and OPPTS values to characterize the risk. When 
there is uncertainty, it is EPA's preference to provide a range of 
values. However, for the purposes of this rulemaking, a single value 
was needed to implement the facility emission limits. EPA's choice of 
the CalEPA value does not mean that this is the only value to be 
considered while the EPA IRIS assessment is pending.
4. Compliance Deadline
    Comment: The majority of facilities that use halogenated solvent 
cleaning machines suggested that EPA should allow at least three years 
for existing sources to comply with the new requirements. Two 
commenters contended that EPA should be consistent with the HON rule 
\5\ and provide affected facilities three years after the effective 
date of the promulgated standard to comply. Another commenter stated 
that the narrow tubing manufacturers could not comply with the proposed 
compliance period because compliance would require between one and two 
years to evaluate non-regulated solvents and an additional two to three 
years to obtain FDA and air permit approvals and implement the 
necessary equipment modifications. All commenters stated that sources 
subject to this new rule would need time to evaluate their compliance 
options; conduct feasibility testing (for solvent substitution) to 
ensure they can still achieve customer specifications; and design, 
build, and/or install any equipment or facility modifications 
potentially required. They stated that our proposed two year compliance 
deadline would be insufficient time for the regulated sources to 
comply. Two commenters stated that the proposed two year compliance 
time frame was not sufficient time for the installation of vacuum-to-
vacuum machines. The commenters stated that even if the technology 
existed, that in order to meet the proposed two year compliance 
deadline, they would be required to take the following measures: (1) 
Conduct initial research and development effort to determine a control 
strategy; (2) perform a pilot study using the selected control 
strategy; (3) demonstrate to their customers that the resulting product 
meets contract specifications; (4) get acceptance by their customers 
that the change meets contract specifications; (5) design engineering 
work to develop the selected equipment and apply for air pollution 
control and other permits; (6) obtain permits to install the selected 
equipment; (7) order the equipment; (8) fabricate the equipment; (9) 
prepare the shop floor for installation of equipment; (10) receive and 
install the equipment; and (11) place the equipment in operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous Air 
Pollutants from the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing 
Industry, (71 FR 76603) (December 21, 2006)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Three other commenters believed that the proposed two years 
compliance schedule did not provide sufficient time for the affected 
facilities to fully assess the impacts and develop approved 
alternatives. The commenters requested an extension of the compliance 
period. They stated that EPA has authority to allow up to three years 
for affected facilities to comply and that permitting authorities have 
authority to grant an additional one year for compliance purposes, 
under CAA section 112(i).
    A large military depot maintenance facility commented that the 
proposed compliance time allowed in the proposed rule was inadequate. 
They also agreed with the Preamble discussions as to whether EPA could 
allow up to three years for existing sources to comply with the 
proposed limits. The commenter recommended that EPA allow a three-year 
compliance deadline.
    Two commenters supported EPA's proposed two-year compliance 
deadline. One of the commenters, however, pointed out that existing 
solvent cleaning machines could receive a one year extension of time 
from permitting authorities. The commenter believed that the 
Congressional intent behind the compliance deadlines in CAA section 
112(f) was to insure an expedited compliance schedule (90 days with a 
possible two-year extension) for controlling emissions from facilities 
that result in unacceptable risk levels. Two States provided comments 
supporting the proposed two year compliance deadline and one commenter 
advocated a 90-day compliance period.
    Response: In this final rule, in accordance with CAA section 
112(i)(3), EPA is promulgating a three-year compliance deadline from 
the effective date of this rule for all the existing affected sources. 
As explained in Section III.C. of the Preamble, we believe that CAA 
section 112(i) is the controlling provision addressing compliance 
deadlines for existing sources with regard to standards promulgated 
under CAA sections 112(d)(6) and (f)(2). EPA believes this will give 
owners or operators of solvent cleaning machines the necessary time to 
evaluate technologies for controlling emissions and possible 
alternatives to halogenated HAP solvent cleaning.
    Comment: One commenter stated that proposed Sec.  63.460(i) would 
allow sources that only have existing halogenated solvent cleaning 
machines two years to comply, but if they construct or reconstruct a 
single machine after August 17, 2006, they would lose the two-year 
compliance period. The commenter recommended that any facility that has 
existing halogenated solvent cleaning machines and that exceeds the 
proposed facility wide emission limits should be allowed two years from 
the date of the final rule to comply with the standard, even if one or 
more halogenated solvent cleaning machines are constructed or 
reconstructed after August 17, 2006.
    Another commenter stated that if the Agency finalized the proposed 
rule, the compliance schedule should be amended to (1) Require new 
facilities constructed after the date of promulgation to be in 
compliance upon startup; (2) consider new facilities constructed prior 
to the date of promulgation to be existing facilities; (3) allow 
existing degreasing facilities that installed new equipment after the 
date of proposal, but prior to the date of promulgation, ten years to 
come into compliance with any new requirements consistent with CAA 
section 112(i)(7), and (4) allow the maximum amount of time possible 
for existing Halogenated Solvent Cleaning facilities to come into 
compliance. This commenter alluded to a three-year timeframe. The 
commenter cited one example of where the installation of new equipment 
at an existing facility would require additional or redesigned floor 
space and thus would require additional time for compliance.
    Response: As stated in the earlier response, and in Section III.C. 
of this Preamble, we believe that it is reasonable to conclude that CAA 
section 112(i) is the controlling provision

[[Page 25150]]

addressing compliance deadlines for existing sources with regard to 
standards promulgated under CAA section 112(d)(6) and 112(f)(2). Thus, 
in this final rule, in accordance with CAA section 112(i)(3), EPA is 
promulgating a three-year compliance deadline from the effective date 
of this rule for existing sources. Further, for purposes of today's 
rule, existing sources are affected facilities (as defined in Sec.  
63.461) on which construction or reconstruction began on or before 
August 17, 2006. New sources are affected facilities that commence 
construction or reconstruction after August 17, 2006. This is 
consistent with CAA Section 112(i)(1)-(3). Additionally, 
``construction'' and ``reconstruction,'' are defined at 40 CFR 63.2. 
However, changes to the emission controls at a facility made to comply 
with existing source standards in today's rule do not trigger the 
reconstruction threshold.
5. Applicability of Control Requirements
    Comment: One commenter that uses continuous web cleaning machines 
stated that it had installed two carbon adsorption devices (CAD) to 
address the TCE reductions required by the 1994 NESHAP. According to 
the commenter, even an upgrade of the systems would likely not enable 
the facilities to achieve either proposed emissions limit. The 
commenter suggested that for facilities that use continuous web 
cleaning machines, EPA should evaluate a range of emission reduction 
limits. The commenter stated that this method would have been 
consistent with the alternative standards set for the continuous web 
cleaning machines by the 1994 NESHAP.
    Response: In light of this and similar comments by the aerospace 
and narrow tubing industries, EPA issued a NODA to gather specific data 
on the technical feasibility and costs of complying with the proposed 
emission limits, if feasible, and the period of time required to comply 
with the proposed emissions limit (71 FR 75184, (December 14, 2006)). 
EPA has re-evaluated the technical feasibility, costs and other factors 
that relate to facilities operating continuous web cleaning machines. 
Consequently, in this final rule, we are not promulgating any facility-
wide emission limits for facilities that operate continuous web 
cleaning machines, facilities that operate halogenated solvent cleaning 
machines for the aerospace manufacturing and maintenance industry, and 
the narrow tubing manufacturing industry.
    Comment: Numerous commenters from both the narrow tubing 
manufacturing industry that use MC, PCE and TCE, and airline 
maintenance facilities and aerospace industry that use PCE stated that 
switching to TCE or MC would be an unsuitable compliance option. They 
stated that facilities have procedural requirements for the higher 
vapor temperature of PCE and that TCE and MC's vapor temperature is 
inadequate for proper cleaning. The commenters stated that many 
original equipment manufacturers have not approved the use of 
alternative degreasing solvents. The commenters also stated that 
changing solvents involved a rigorous approval process by the original 
equipment manufacturers and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 
in order to ensure that safety and quality criteria are met. The 
commenters stated that such an approval process could take more than 
two years.
    The commenter also stated that EPA's proposed retrofit options for 
freeboard ratios, working mode covers and freeboard refrigeration 
devices are not expected to be sufficient to enable the facility to 
comply with the proposed facility-wide emission limits of the proposed 
rule. The commenter also stated that there are few manufacturers of 
vacuum-to-vacuum degreasing machines and they were not aware of this 
technology effectively cleaning parts of specific types and sizes. 
According to the commenter, similar facilities that installed the 
technology incurred costs of over $1 million with new annualized costs 
of approximately $80,000 per year. The commenter was concerned that 
compliance with the proposed standards would be achieved by using 
expensive technology, that has high capital costs and operating costs 
and that may not be proven effective or reliable for the operations of 
subject facilities.
    Response: In response to this comment and certain comments 
discussed below, EPA issued a NODA (71 FR 75184, (December 14, 2006)) 
to gather more information pertinent to the halogenated solvent 
machines used by the aerospace industry, narrow tubing manufacturing 
industry, and the facilities that use continuous web cleaning machines. 
Responses to the NODA provided significant data and information that 
have led EPA to determine that it is both technologically infeasible 
and not cost effective for these industries to implement any further 
emission controls or requirements. Consequently, as stated in Section 
III.A.3., of the Preamble, we are not promulgating any facility-wide 
emission limits for halogenated solvent cleaning machines used by the 
aerospace manufacturing and maintenance industry, the narrow tubing 
manufacturing industry and for continuous web cleaning machines.
    Comment: Two commenters associated with the aerospace industry 
stated that the FAA, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC) guidelines for safety and quality control 
often dictate the types of solvents and materials that may be used in 
aerospace operations. According to the commenters, solvent cleaning 
criteria determined the quality of adhesion between aircraft assemblies 
and components and the various coatings, primers, sealants, and 
adhesives later applied to their surfaces, and improper degreasing 
could cause loss of coating adhesion and ultimate failure of specific 
aircraft component parts. The commenters also stated that they had 
explored solvent alternatives such as aqueous cleaners, and had 
encountered incompatibilities with FAA guidelines, such as inability to 
meet the degree of cleaning required, incompatibility of the parts 
being cleaned with the cleaning solution, longer required cleaning 
time, and problems associated with moisture left on parts being 
cleaned. The commenter stated that these regulatory and product 
specifications frequently dictated or otherwise limited aerospace 
cleaning options to PCE or TCE. However, some aerospace facilities 
maintain their PCE cleaning capacity because certain, very specific 
aerospace parts cannot be processed with MC or alternative solvents.
    Response: In response to this comment, as earlier explained, EPA 
issued a NODA (71 FR 75184, (December 14, 2006)) to gather more 
information pertinent to the halogenated solvents cleaning machines 
used by the aerospace industry, narrow tubing manufacturing industry, 
and the facilities that use continuous web cleaning machines. Responses 
to the NODA provided significant information that has led EPA to 
conclude that it is both technologically infeasible and not cost 
effective for the above-noted facilities to implement any further 
emission controls or requirements. (See Section III.A.3. of the 
Preamble on costs of compliance). EPA is also persuaded that some 
halogenated solvent cleaning processes for the aerospace and narrow 
tubing industry are controlled by FAA, FDA, the NRC guidelines, and 
from protocols of original equipment manufacturers. Therefore, EPA is 
concluding in this final rule that solvent switching from PCE or TCE to 
MC may not be a viable option in some instances for the aerospace 
industry.

[[Page 25151]]

Consequently, as stated earlier in Section III.A.3., of this Preamble, 
EPA is not promulgating facility-wide emission limits for halogenated 
solvent machines used by the aerospace manufacturing and maintenance 
industry, the narrow tubing manufacturing industry and for continuous 
web cleaning machines.
    Comment: Commenters from the narrow tube manufacturing industry 
stated that they use ``one of a kind'' machines in their degreasing 
operations. They described these machines as very large, some with 
dimensions approaching 110 ft. long by 10 ft. deep and 42 inches wide, 
with a capacity of 7,000 gallons of solvent. According to the 
commenters, these machines also heat the solvent, usually TCE, to its 
boiling point while condenser coils prevent evaporation by forming a 
cold air blanket over the cleaning machine in order to limit emissions. 
In addition, they explained that these machines are covered when not in 
use.
    They also stated that the installation of vacuum-to-vacuum cleaning 
machines is not a feasible option because of their products' sizes and 
the lack of engineering information to establish whether machines of 
such size can be engineered and produced. They stated that EPA's 
proposed requirements would require them to design, obtain permits, 
develop and install these systems within two years.
    Response: In response to this comment, as earlier explained, we 
issued a NODA (71 FR 75184, (December 14, 2006)) to gather more 
information pertinent to the halogenated solvent cleaning machines used 
by the aerospace industry, narrow tubing manufacturing industry, and 
the facilities using continuous web cleaning machines. Responses to the 
NODA provided significant information that has led EPA to determine 
that it is both technologically infeasible and not cost effective for 
the above-noted facilities to implement any further emission controls 
or requirements. EPA is also persuaded that it may be quite difficult 
for the above-noted industries to reduce emissions through chemical or 
physical means and technology applications to the levels required by 
our final promulgated emissions limits. Accordingly, due to the costs 
associated with compliance, technical feasibility, and other factors, 
EPA has determined that the current MACT requirements provided for the 
narrow tubing manufacturing industry both reduce HAP emissions to 
levels that both pose acceptable risk and protect public health with an 
ample margin of safety. As stated earlier in Section III.A.3., of the 
Preamble, EPA is not promulgating facility-wide emission limits for 
halogenated solvent cleaning machines used by the narrow tubing 
industries.
    Comment: Two commenters stated that switching from PCE and/or TCE 
to MC (indicated as being lower risk) as a compliance alternative under 
the proposed revisions would likely result in an increased danger to 
public health and, more specifically, potentially increase the danger 
from employee exposure to MC emissions. The commenter stated that 
because employee exposure to MC is specifically regulated by the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), switching to MC 
would be an error. According to the commenter, this is because 
applicable OSHA regulations would limit and/or restrict MC and would 
lead to increased employer costs, a fact the commenter believed EPA did 
not consider. One commenter stated that some halogenated solvent 
cleaning machines may have the potential for undetected fugitive 
emissions. The commenter added that the necessary monitoring for 
adequate employee protection from overexposure to MC would be far more 
expensive, more extensive, and more difficult to implement than 
monitoring for TCE.
    Response: Before proposal, EPA was aware of the requirements of the 
Occupational Health and Safety Administration concerning worker safety 
when MC is used. 29 CFR part 1910, which are the applicable OSHA 
regulations, require employers to make an initial determination of each 
employee's exposure to MC. If the employer determines that employees 
are exposed below the action level, employers are required to make a 
record of the determination. Conversely, if the employees are exposed 
to MC above the action levels, employers are required to perform 
exposure monitoring.
    In addition, EPA did not consider any costs associated with MC 
monitoring at proposal. EPA believes, however, that a facility would 
not incur costs if MC emissions do not exceed the OSHA levels. If a 
facility experiences worker exposure of MC emissions over the OSHA 
level, the facility incurs costs to develop a control plan for fugitive 
emissions and possibly implement an employee medical monitoring plan. 
To account for the possibility of increased costs, we reduced the 
number of units assumed to use solvent switching.
6. Costs Associated With Compliance
    Comment: Seven commenters, from the aerospace and narrow tube 
manufacturing sectors, stated that EPA had underestimated its cost 
basis for vacuum-to-vacuum technology in the proposed rule. One 
commenter stated that because EPA's estimation used the costs for small 
halogenated solvent cleaning machines and applied the credit for cost 
reduction from recovered solvent to the large halogenated solvent 
cleaning machines with large amounts of recovered solvent, the estimate 
erroneously yielded a false return on investment. The commenter stated 
that discussions with manufacturers of available vacuum-to-vacuum units 
suggested costs approximately five times higher than the assumptions 
used by EPA for each unit, and this was assuming that the manufacturers 
could develop scaled-up units suitable for narrow tubing manufacturers. 
The commenter stated that because the larger size of their products 
would require construction of the new unit while maintaining operation, 
facilities would need to undergo building expansion. The commenter 
anticipated that installation costs, including building and required 
utilities and infrastructure, would likely be approximately three times 
the equipment cost. According to the commenter, assuming the technology 
was successful, EPA's capital cost basis was approximately fifteen 
times below its likely cost range. The commenter further stated that 
EPA's assumption of 97 percent solvent recovery was unlikely with 
regard to hypothetical future large units that would require storage 
and movement of solvent between storage tanks, solvent cleaning 
machines and other ancillary equipment. The commenter concluded that 
EPA's assumptions of the project payback were unrealistic both for 
large operations, whose capital cost was underestimated, and for small 
operations, whose solvent recovery payback would be smaller than the 
average figures used in the analysis.
    Response: In response to this comment, as explained earlier, EPA 
issued a NODA (71 FR 75184, (December 14, 2006)) to gather more 
information on the costs of complying with the proposed standards by 
the aerospace industry, narrow tubing manufacturing industry, and the 
facilities that use continuous web cleaning machines. Responses to the 
NODA provided significant information that has led EPA to determine 
that it is both technologically infeasible and not cost effective for 
the above-noted facilities to implement any further emission controls 
or requirements.
    As earlier stated, EPA is also persuaded that some solvent cleaning 
processes for the aerospace and narrow tubing industry are controlled 
by protocols from the FAA, FDA, NRC and

[[Page 25152]]

from protocols to satisfy original equipment manufacturers' 
specifications. As earlier stated, EPA has also concluded in this final 
rule that solvent switching from PCE or TCE to MC may not be a viable 
option in some instances for the aerospace industry. As also explained 
earlier in Section III.B. of the Preamble, EPA has re-analyzed the cost 
assumptions made at proposal for the aerospace industry separate from 
the halogenated solvent cleaning machines that are covered by this 
final rule, and has determined that due to costs, technical 
feasibility, and other factors requiring additional controls, would not 
be feasible at this time. Consequently, as stated earlier in section 
III.A.3 of the Preamble, we are not promulgating facility-wide emission 
limits for halogenated solvent cleaning machines used by the narrow 
tubing and aerospace manufacturing and maintenance industries.
    Comment: Commenters that use continuous web cleaning machines 
stated that EPA's analysis of the technology and cost impacts of the 
two proposed emission limits failed to consider the impacts on 
continuous web machines. The commenters stated that while EPA 
identified numerous compliance options, solvent switching from PCE to 
TCE or MC would be the sole compliance option for continuous web 
cleaning machines. The commenters further stated that EPA was correct 
to conclude that neither retrofits nor machine replacement would be an 
available compliance option for continuous web cleaners; however, the 
commenters stated that ``EPA should not have concluded that solvent 
switching would be an available option for continuous web cleaners.'' 
The commenters further stated that switching from TCE to MC is not an 
available option because ``MC reacts with chemically active metals such 
as aluminum.'' The commenters also stated that MC is incompatible with 
some of the gaskets and seals in pumps, ports and manifold systems. The 
commenters added that MC is less stable as a continuous web cleaning 
solvent and would require additional monitoring and probably additional 
stabilization control systems. Additionally, the commenters stated that 
MC is not readily adsorbed by the carbon in carbon adsorption devices 
and, as such, solvent switching would require reconfiguration and 
possibly rebuilding of the carbon adsorption devices. According to the 
commenters, MC requires longer dwell time in the carbon beds, which 
would in turn require a greater carbon surface area and larger carbon 
filtration systems. The commenters also stated that quantities of TCE 
would react with MC and that facilities would need to conduct a 
complete purging of systems in order to prevent cross contamination. 
The commenters further stated that such purging would include the 
removal of significant production line components, which would lead to 
increased compliance costs.
    The commenters also stated that EPA estimated a 29 percent increase 
in solvent consumption if switching from TCE to MC. The commenters, 
however, expected much higher increases. The commenters explained that 
because steel that is placed in cleaning machines is slightly heated 
above ambient temperature, any slight temperature elevation would cause 
MC to vaporize more readily than TCE. The commenters claimed that 
increases in solvent consumption rate would ultimately create elevated 
vapor concentrations in the carbon adsorption device thereby making 
recovery more difficult. The commenters further claimed that even 
though MC is cheaper per unit volume, more MC would be required to 
achieve the same level of cleaning.
    The commenters also maintained that add-on control equipment, 
retrofits and machine replacement technologies identified in the 
proposed rule are for the typical halogenated solvent cleaning machines 
that were subject to the 1994 NESHAP, and not continuous web cleaning 
machines or systems. The commenters stated that modifications such as 
modifying freeboard ratios, adding working mode covers, or retrofitting 
freeboard refrigeration devices are inapplicable because no freeboard 
exists in continuous web cleaning machines, which are enclosed, with 
the exception of entrance and exit points during normal operations. The 
commenters further stated that vacuum-to-vacuum machines are only 
appropriate for batch cleaners. Because of these technical issues, the 
commenters stated that EPA did not evaluate the costs and technological 
feasibility of the facility-wide emission limits for the continuous web 
cleaning machines.
    Response: In response to this comment, as stated earlier, EPA 
issued a NODA (71 FR 75184, (December 14, 2006)) to gather more 
information on the costs of complying with the proposed standards by 
the aerospace industry, narrow tubing manufacturing industry, and the 
facilities using continuous web cleaning machines. As also stated 
earlier, responses to the NODA-provided significant information has led 
EPA to re-evaluate costs of installing CADs and vacuum-to-vacuum 
machines. EPA has determined that compliance by continuous web cleaning 
machines with either the proposed 40,000 kg/yr limit or the 60,000 kg/
yr MC equivalent limit would not be cost effective and either limit may 
be technically infeasible in some instances. Consequently, as stated in 
Section III.A.3 of this Preamble, EPA is not requiring continuous web 
cleaning machines to comply with the facility-wide emission limits we 
are promulgating for this final rule. EPA is concluding that the 
current level of control by the existing NESHAP both reduces HAP 
emissions to levels that present an acceptable risk and provides an 
ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevent adverse 
environmental effects.
    Comment: One commenter, an industry association representing 
producers and users of halogenated solvents, indicated that MC is not 
compatible with some substrates because of its aggressive nature. In 
addition, the commenter stated that MC's low boiling point shortens the 
effective cleaning time and makes it ineffective for light-gauge metals 
where incomplete rinsing action may cause staining. According to the 
commenter, the low boiling point of MC also makes it less effective on 
stubborn soils, including high-melting point waxes and pitches and 
grossly contaminated parts. The commenter stated that PCE's higher 
boiling point makes it ideal for these applications. According to the 
commenter, PCE is also a popular choice for closed-loop equipment, 
where PCE's inherent stability reduces the possibility of hydrolysis.
    The commenter also stated that while MC has the lowest vapor loss 
rate from an idling halogenated solvent cleaning machine, its low vapor 
density makes it the most difficult to control in a working degreaser 
where air movements generally increase losses. The commenter also 
stated that MC has the lowest vapor recovery rates in carbon adsorption 
systems used to collect solvents from many web and in-line machines. In 
addition, the commenter stated that MC users are subject to a 
comprehensive OSHA standard that requires a medical surveillance and 
removal program not required for PCE and TCE users.
    Response: EPA recognizes that there are chemical and physical 
limitations when considering solvent switching as a method to reduce 
emissions in compliance with both the proposed and final facility-wide 
emission limits we are promulgating in this final rule. In the proposed 
rule, EPA assumed 30

[[Page 25153]]

percent of facilities would switch to a less potent solvent; however, 
significant comments have led us to re-evaluate these assumptions. 
Consequently, with regard to our solvent switching analysis, for this 
final rule, EPA has reduced the number of units for which solvent 
switching is an option from 30 percent to 15 percent. The cost analysis 
in Section III.B. of the Preamble to this final rule reflects this 
change.
7. General Comments
    Comment: A number of commenters stated that the 1999 NEI data did 
not reflect current emission levels and were not a sufficient basis for 
assessing technical or economic feasibility. Some believed that the 
1999 NEI database was obsolete and provided an incomplete emission 
database when used as a primary source of data for halogenated solvent 
emissions. The commenter stated that the industry had changed since 
1999 due to local, regional, and State regulatory pressures. The 
commenter indicated that the most significant change since 1999 was the 
phase out of TCA manufacture for emissive use, which effectively 
eliminated its use for solvent cleaning. The commenters pointed out 
that EPA had access to the 2002 NEI database and encouraged EPA to re-
evaluate the risk assessment using the updated database.
    Response: In response to public comments we received on the August 
17, 2006 rule proposal, we reassessed the risks associated with the 
halogenated solvent source category using the 2002 NEI inventory. The 
proposal was based on the 1999 inventory. These data were not available 
at the time the proposal was being developed.
    Comment: One commenter stated that EPA established a MACT standard 
for the continuous web subcategory in December 1999 and therefore, 
Section 112(f) risk analysis for the subcategory is not required until 
December 2007. The commenter stated that the continuous web subcategory 
was established five years after the standard for the other halogenated 
solvent machines. According to the commenter EPA's proposed rule fails 
to recognize that under this requirement EPA has eight years from 
December 3, 1999 (or by December 3, 2007) to conduct the residual risk 
evaluation for the continuous web subcategory.
    Response: Section 112(f)(2)(A) requires the Administrator to 
promulgate applicable standards ``within 8 years after promulgation of 
standards,'' under section 112(d). We read this provision as allowing 
for our promulgation of standards, under section 112(f), within 8 years 
of the effective date of section 112(d) requirements, rather than 
within 8 years of the compliance date of the section 112(d) 
requirements. (See for example, section 112(f)(3) (``the Administrator 
shall establish a compliance date or dates * * * which shall provide 
for compliance as expeditiously as practicable but in no event later 
than three years after the effective date of such standard.'' (Emphasis 
added)). The effective date of the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning NESHAP 
is December 2, 1994, and not December 3, 1999, as suggested by the 
commenter, although we subsequently made certain clarifications and 
amendments to these requirements. Our obligation to promulgate residual 
risk standards for this source category is therefore past, and we are 
now operating under a consent decree that required our promulgation of 
today's rule on or before December 15, 2006, subsequently extended to 
April 16, 2007. We also believe that there is nothing in the Act that 
precludes our completion of the residual risk review prior to 8 years 
after promulgation of section 112(d) standards.
    Comment: One commenter stated that EPA had used a very simplistic 
model to perform the emissions evaluations which may be acceptable for 
an initial screening, but that the Agency had failed to provide 
information to either validate its approach or any indication as to 
whether the presented risk levels exceed the upper bound limit of 100-
in-a-million using the correct facility information such as stack 
parameters. The commenter requested that EPA review the seven 
facilities with an estimated cancer risk greater than 100-in-a-million 
to determine whether the use of average stack parameters was 
appropriate and to revise the proposed rule accordingly. The commenter 
also requested that EPA add an option allowing facilities to conduct 
site-specific emission modeling to determine if a facility meets or 
exceeds the allowable MIR, which would depend on which option EPA 
finalized. Subsequently, EPA could use this modeling to set a site-
specific facility limit that is higher than either proposed options.
    Response: The choice of the proposed emission limits and the final 
emission limit is based on the level of risk reduced, cost and 
technical feasibility to achieve a particular emission limit. While we 
acknowledge the uncertainty inherent in the NEI data used, its effect 
on risk is not the only consideration for the proposed emission limits. 
In spite of the fact that perhaps 50 percent of the release parameters 
in the 1999 NEI database may be defaults, our understanding of this 
source category and our best engineering judgment suggested the data 
were reasonable to use in our risk assessment, (e.g., the range of 
stack heights was appropriate for these sources). We also acknowledged 
that while our risk assessment was likely to overestimate risks, this 
overestimate was not likely to be large because of the many variables 
and assumptions used in the assessment that would yield lower estimated 
risk levels, (e.g., the use of a probabilistic method for evaluating 
population risks). Therefore, a focused evaluation of the release 
parameters of a few facilities at the upper end of the risk spectrum, 
while possibly having some effect on their individual risk levels, is 
not likely to affect our overall conclusions about the level of risk 
from the entire source category.
    Concerning the site specific emission modeling, EPA did not 
incorporate in the proposed rule an approach that would allow site 
specific modeling. Instead, EPA assessed risk on a source category 
basis. EPA also did not incorporate in the proposed rule an approach a 
low-risk alternative for compliance.

V. Responses to Significant Comments on EPA's December 14, 2006, Notice 
of Data Availability (NODA)

A. Emission Limits

    Comment: Two commenters from the aerospace industry submitted 
available compliance options for the 40,000 kg/yr MC equivalent 
emission limit. One option involved switching from HAP chlorinated 
solvents to n-propyl bromide. Another option involved the facilities 
switching to an alkaline degreasing system with ultrasonic wash tanks.
    One aerospace facility, which had a large operation with multiple 
halogenated solvent cleaning machines, submitted very detailed 
descriptions of each machine, the options available and the associated 
costs of implementation. For their multiple machines, they presented 
twelve emissions reduction options, five of which reduced their 
emissions to below the 40,000 kg/yr MC equivalent limit. The compliance 
options include a combination of machine covers, extension areas, 
additional drain time for parts, installing larger or additional carbon 
absorption systems and switching some current machines with vacuum-to-
vacuum machines. The commenter indicated that completing these

[[Page 25154]]

compliance options would take six years or more.
    Response: EPA recognizes that a few small aerospace facilities may 
operate with emissions at or below both the proposed and final 
promulgated emission limits. In the proposal, EPA assumed solvent 
switching and other technologies could be applied at a reasonable cost. 
EPA has discovered, however, that this industry is bound to the use of 
chlorinated solvents and solvent switching is not a viable option for 
compliance. As earlier stated, EPA also recognized that the affected 
facilities cannot undertake all the necessary modifications within the 
three-year compliance period. EPA also notes that all these 
considerations are true for the final promulgated 60,000 kg/yr emission 
limit.
    Comment: Two commenters that use continuous web cleaning machines 
maintained that they could not comply with either of the proposed 
emission limits. Both facilities stated that they had installed carbon 
absorption devices, which operated at about 99 percent control 
efficiency, but that most of their emissions could not be captured by 
these devices because of the nature of continuous web cleaning 
machines. According to the commenters, fugitive emissions occur in 
different locations along production lines and along the cleaning 
process. The commenters provided some possible additions to their 
cleaning systems that would achieve additional reductions, but they did 
not provide information on the emission levels they could attain. The 
commenters stated that there are limited available technologies to 
capture emissions and that it would be technically difficult for them 
to capture a significant portion of their emissions. The commenters 
also maintained that attaining a degree of control rather than meeting 
an emission limit is a more appropriate measure of their emission 
reduction capability.
    Response: EPA recognizes that continuous web machines are designed 
differently from general halogenated solvent cleaning machines, i.e., 
batch and in-line cleaning machines. As explained in earlier responses, 
we have determined that it is both technologically infeasible and not 
cost effective for continuous web cleaning machines to comply with our 
final promulgated emissions limit. As also stated in Section III.A.3. 
of the preamble, in this final rule, we are not setting any emissions 
limits for facilities that use continuous web cleaners. As also 
explained earlier, we are concluding that the current level of control 
for continuous web cleaning machines called for by the existing NESHAP 
reduces HAP emissions to levels that present an acceptable risk, 
protects public health with an ample margin of safety, and prevents 
adverse environmental effects.
    Comment: We received significant comments from five narrow tubing 
manufacturers. These commenters presented very significant and 
compelling reasons as to why they could not meet the proposed emission 
limits. The commenters indicated that carbon absorption systems were 
the only available feasible control technology but that installation 
would result in only a maximum of 25 percent overall emissions 
reduction. The commenters stated that vacuum-to-vacuum machines have 
not been engineered or tested to the sizes that are required for their 
specific industrial processes. They claimed that such large vacuum-to-
vacuum machines are not available from machine manufacturers. One 
commenter stated that after five years of research and design they may 
be able to achieve the 100,000 kg/yr MC equivalent emission limit.
    Response: EPA is persuaded that narrow tube manufacturing 
facilities are the most technically challenged in reducing emissions to 
the levels called for by either our proposed or final promulgated 
60,000 kg/yr emission limit. EPA has also determined that this industry 
is bound to the use of chlorinated solvents and solvent switching is 
not a viable option for compliance. Furthermore, EPA is persuaded that 
vacuum-to-vacuum technology has not developed to a point where this 
industry can install these machines into their processes with certainty 
of performance. Therefore, EPA has concluded in this rule that this 
industry could only achieve both the proposed and final promulgated 
emissions limits by implementing newly engineered and untested 
technology. Consequently, as explained earlier in Section III.A.3. of 
the Preamble, EPA is adopting no changes to the 1994 NESHAP for the 
halogenated solvent cleaning machines used by the narrow tubing 
industry, and we are concluding that the current level of control by 
the existing NESHAP reduces HAP emissions to levels that present an 
acceptable risk, protects public health with an ample margin of safety, 
and prevents adverse environmental effects.

B. Cost Impacts

    Comment: One aerospace facility maintained that the application of 
various technologies would result in 85 percent overall emissions 
reduction at capital costs of between $1.1 and $1.7 million, for this 
particular facility, but that it would need considerable more time 
beyond the proposed two years compliance period to implement the 
proposed emissions limits.
    Response: As a result of the comments on compliance costs, EPA re-
evaluated the ability of the aerospace industry to feasibly implement 
in a cost effective manner other emission limits we discussed at 
proposal but did not propose (ranging from 60,000 kg/yr to 250,000 kg/
yr MC equivalent emission limits). We relied on commenters' submissions 
to assist us in revising our cost estimates for complying with these 
emissions limits by the aerospace industry and also relied on it in 
part in applying cost assumptions to the remainder of the other 
industries that use halogenated solvent cleaning machines.
    The results indicated that implementing additional emission control 
levels, (ranging from 60,000 kg/yr to 250,000 kg/yr MC equivalent 
emission limits), within a three-year compliance period would result in 
total capital costs of over $9 million with a cost effectiveness of 
about $2,000/ton of solvent used. Furthermore, EPA calculated the total 
annualized costs for each cancer case avoided would be more than $17.5 
million for the 100,000 kg/yr MC equivalent emission limit. Therefore, 
EPA is concluding in this final rule that the NESHAP requirements for 
aerospace manufacturing and maintenance degreasing machines, provide an 
ample margin of safety and that the requirements set forth in this 
final rule are not applicable to halogenated solvent cleaning machines 
that are associated with the aerospace manufacturing and maintenance 
industry and facilities. Under this final rule, the 1994 NESHAP 
requirements remain applicable to all the halogenated solvent cleaning 
machines associated with the aerospace manufacturing and maintenance 
facilities.
    Comment: Commenters that use continuous web cleaning machines 
projected the capital costs of complying with the proposed emission 
limits (through ``additions'' to their production lines) at about 
$1,000,000.
    Response: EPA recognizes the unique character of continuous web 
cleaning machines and is persuaded that technical emission control 
choices are limited to CADs to attain significant emission reductions. 
EPA has assumed that CADs may only achieve a 10 to 30 percent overall 
reductions in facility-wide emissions. Therefore, CAD alone would be 
insufficient for purposes of complying with the final promulgated

[[Page 25155]]

emissions limit. We have taken this into consideration in promulgating 
the final rule.
    Comment: The narrow tube manufacturing industry calculated their 
costs of compliance with the proposed emission limits on the basis of 
installing CAD and researching and designing new and untested vacuum-
to-vacuum technology. They indicated that capital costs for CAD 
installation ranged from $200,000 to $1,800,000. They also indicated 
that while this option is technically feasible it would only achieve 10 
to 30 percent maximum in overall facility emissions reductions. The 
commenters further indicated that compliance with the proposed limits 
would require engineering new technology or relying on vacuum-to-vacuum 
machines, but that after conferring with vacuum-to-vacuum machine 
manufacturers, the cost estimates were more than $4,600,000 in capital 
costs with about $578,000 for operating costs. One facility, which 
produces specialized narrow tubing for medical applications, projected 
costs for vacuum-to-vacuum machines installation at $10.5 million and 
estimated that it would require between five and six years for the 
evaluation of the machines' cleaning performance. The commenters also 
stated that end-loading machines would require additional building 
space for loading and unloading tube bundles with lengths of 80 to 110 
feet.
    Response: EPA is persuaded that the narrow tubing industry is 
confronted with the biggest technological hurdle in achieving emissions 
reductions for purposes of achieving either the proposed or final 
promulgated emission limits. EPA is persuaded that emission control 
choices, for the narrow tubing industry, are limited to CAD, in order 
to attain the most significant emission reductions within the three-
year compliance time frame. EPA is also persuaded that CAD may only 
achieve a 10 to 30 percent overall reductions in facility-wide 
emissions. Therefore, we have determined that installation of CAD alone 
would not control emissions to the level of either the proposed or 
final promulgated emission limits. We have also taken into 
consideration the costs for developing technology that will reduce 
emissions to both the proposed and final promulgated emissions limits. 
EPA has amended its cost analysis for this group of facilities and has 
determined that a cost effectiveness of over $3,600/ton, when joined 
with EPA's estimate of over $87 million in annual costs for each cancer 
case avoided, is unreasonable. Therefore, EPA is concluding in this 
final rule that the NESHAP requirements for narrow tube manufacturing 
provide an ample margin of safety, prevent adverse environmental 
effects and that the requirements set forth in this final rule will not 
be applicable to halogenated solvent cleaning machines associated with 
the narrow tubing manufacturing industry. Under this final rule, the 
1994 NESHAP requirements remain applicable to all continuous web and 
halogenated solvent cleaning machines used by narrow tubing and 
aerospace manufacturing and maintenance facilities.

C. Compliance Schedule

    Comment: Aerospace industries maintained that a five-year minimum 
compliance period would be necessary to investigate technology and 
protocol changes in order to comply with the proposed 40,000 kg/yr 
limit. A commenter from the narrow tubing industry suggested between 
five and ten years as necessary for them to investigate the probability 
of applying technology to reduce emissions to a significant amount, to 
either of the proposed emission limits.
    The narrow tube manufacturing commenters stated that their machines 
are unique, indicated the non-availability of feasible emission 
reductions technology for either proposed emission limits and 
recommended that EPA allow the industry five to ten years for research 
and development of specific vacuum-to-vacuum technology for the 
specific needs of their industry.
    Response: As stated in responses to earlier comments, EPA has 
considered these comments as significant and after re-evaluating 
compliance costs, technical feasibility and other factors, is 
concluding that, for the aerospace manufacturing and maintenance 
industry, narrow tube manufacturing industry, and facilities using 
continuous web cleaning machines, the current level of control provided 
by the existing NESHAP both reduces HAP emissions to levels that 
present an acceptable risk and provides an ample margin of safety to 
protect public health.

VI. Impacts

    For sources required to comply with the 60,000 kg/yr MC equivalent 
emission limit, the national capital costs to reach compliance with the 
final rule are estimated to be $15,000,000 with annualized cost savings 
of $1.3 million. The capital costs for individual facilities would 
range from $15,000 to $800,000 with an average cost of about $200,000. 
More than 60 percent of the facilities implementing control technology 
would recognize a cost savings primarily from solvent savings. 
Capturing and controlling HAP emissions is a pollution prevention 
approach where emissions reduction translate into less PCE, TCE and MC 
consumption and reduced operating costs primarily because facilities 
would need to purchase less solvents. Using the 2002 NEI database, the 
maximum individual cancer risk is estimated to be reduced from 100-in-1 
million to between 20 and 50-in-a-million (using both OPPTS and CalEPA 
potency values). The rule is expected to reduce cancer incidence from 
0.55 cases annually to 0.36 cases annually, a reduction in cancer 
incidence of 0.19 cases annually.
    EPA also estimates that to comply with the 100,000 kg/yr MC 
equivalent emission limit, military depot maintenance facilities are 
expected to incur $540,000 in capital costs with annualized savings of 
about $56,000. Using the 2002 NEI database, the maximum individual 
cancer risk is estimated to be reduced from six-in-a-million to three-
in-a-million. The emission limit for military depot maintenance 
facilities is expected to reduce cancer incidence by 0.002 cases 
annually.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is a ``significant regulatory action.'' Executive Order (EO) 
12866 gives the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) the authority to 
review regulatory actions that are categorized as ``significant'' under 
section 3(f) of the EP, i.e., those actions that are likely to result 
in a rule that may raise novel legal and policy issues arising out of 
mandates in CAA section 112(f)(2) and 112(d)(6). Accordingly, EPA 
submitted this action to OMB for review under EO 12866 and any changes 
made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the 
docket for this action.
    In addition, EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and 
benefits associated with this action. This analysis, which is briefly 
summarized in Section III.B. of the Preamble, is contained in National 
Cost Impacts Memorandum. A copy of the analysis is available in the 
docket for this action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden. 
Owners

[[Page 25156]]

or operators will continue to keep records and submit required reports 
to EPA or the delegated State regulatory authority. Notifications, 
reports, and records are essential in determining compliance and are 
required, in general, of all sources subject to the 1994 Halogenated 
Solvent Cleaning NESHAP. Owners or operators subject to the 1994 
Halogenated Solvent Cleaning NESHAP continue to maintain records and 
retain them for at least 5 years following the date of such 
measurements, reports, and records. Information collection requirements 
that were promulgated on December 2, 1994 in the Halogenated Solvent 
Cleaning NESHAP prior to the 2005 proposed amendments, as well the 
NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are 
mandatory for all owners or operators subject to national emission 
standards, are documented in EPA ICR No. 1652.05. The Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved these information 
collection requirements contained in the existing regulations 40 CFR 
part 63 subpart T under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0273, 
EPA ICR number 1652.05. A copy of the OMB approved Information 
Collection Request (ICR) may be obtained from Susan Auby, Collection 
Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T); 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460 or by calling (202) 566-
1672.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR part 15.
    We have established a public docket for this action, which includes 
the ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0009, which can be 
found in http://www.regulations.gov. This final decision will not 

change the burden estimates from those developed and approved in 1994 
for the national emission standard.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impact of the final action on small 
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined 
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of 
a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a 
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is 
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated 
and is not dominant in its field.
    As mentioned earlier in this Preamble, facilities across several 
industries use halogenated solvents to degrease their products, 
therefore a number of size standards are utilized in this analysis. For 
the industries represented in this analysis, the employment size 
standard varies from 500 to 1,500 employees. The annual sales standard 
is as low as 4 million dollars and as high as 150 million dollars.
    After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small 
entities, we have concluded that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
This conclusion is based on the economic impact of the final rule to 
affected small entities in the entire halogenated solvent cleaning 
source category. The final rule is expected to affect 125 ultimate 
parent entities that will be regulated as major sources. Forty of the 
parent entities, or approximately one-third, are defined as small 
according to the SBA small business size standards. None of the small 
firms has an annualized cost of more than 0.7 percent of sales 
associated with meeting the requirements for major sources, and 16 of 
the forty affected small firms are estimated to incur no costs or have 
cost savings associated with compliance with the final rule. For more 
information, please consult the economic impact analysis for this 
rulemaking.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted.
    Before we establish any regulatory requirements that may 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal 
governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a 
small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying 
potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected 
small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the 
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal 
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising 
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    We have determined that this final rule does not contain a Federal 
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for 
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the 
private sector in any 1 year. Thus, this final rule is not subject to 
the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
    EPA has determined that the final rule contains no regulatory 
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments because it contains

[[Page 25157]]

no requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations 
upon them.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism,'' (64 FR 43255, 
August 10, 1999) requires EPA to develop an accountable process to 
ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in 
the development of regulatory policies that have federalism 
implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism implications'' is 
defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have 
``substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not 
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. None of the affected halogenated 
solvent cleaning facilities are owned or operated by State or local 
governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the final 
rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribe Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
requires us to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes, 
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the 
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
    This final rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship 
between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
government and Indian tribes as specified in Executive Order 13175. 
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this final decision.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as 
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental 
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or 
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This final decision is not subject to the Executive Order because 
it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, 
the Agency believes this action represents reasonable further efforts 
to mitigate risks to the general public, including effects on children. 
This conclusion is based on our assessment of the imposed emission 
limits that would reduce chlorinated solvent impacts on human health 
associated with exposures to halogenated solvent cleaning operations.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    The final rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not 
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy.
    This final rule will have a negligible impact on energy consumption 
because about ten percent of entities using halogenated solvent 
cleaning will have to reduce emissions through a range of activities 
involving simple process changes to the installation of additional 
emission control equipment or special low emitting machines to comply. 
The cost of energy distribution should not be affected by the final 
rule at all since the standards do not affect energy distribution 
facilities. We also expect that there would be no impact on the import 
of foreign energy supplies, and no other adverse outcomes are expected 
to occur with regards to energy supplies. Further, we have concluded 
that this final rule is not likely to have any significant adverse 
energy effects.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), 
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards 
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and 
business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. The 
NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when 
the Agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS.
    This final revision to the 1994 NESHAP for halogenated solvent 
cleaning do not include requirements for technical standards beyond 
what the NESHAP requires. Therefore, the requirements of the NTTAA do 
not apply to this action.

J. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing the final rule 
amendment and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. 
House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United 
States prior to publication of this final rule amendment in the Federal 
Register. The final rule amendment is not a ``major rule'' as defined 
by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This final rule is effective on May 3, 2007.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous 
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 16, 2007.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.

0
For reasons stated in the Preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 63--[Amended]

0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart T--[Amended]

0
2. Section 63.460 is amended by revising paragraphs (c), (d), and (g) 
and adding paragraph (i) to read as follows:

[[Page 25158]]

Sec.  63.460  Applicability and designation of source.

* * * * *
    (c) Except as provided in paragraph (g) of this section, each 
solvent cleaning machine subject to this subpart that commenced 
construction or reconstruction after November 29, 1993 shall achieve 
compliance with the provisions of this subpart, except for Sec.  
63.471, immediately upon start-up or by December 2, 1994, whichever is 
later.
    (d) Except as provided in paragraph (g) of this section, each 
solvent cleaning machine subject to this subpart that commenced 
construction or reconstruction on or before November 29, 1993 shall 
achieve compliance with the provisions of this subpart, except for 
Sec.  63.471, no later than December 2, 1997.
* * * * *
    (g) Each continuous web cleaning machine subject to this subpart 
shall achieve compliance with the provisions of this subpart, except 
for Sec.  63.471, no later than December 2, 1999.
* * * * *
    (i) The compliance date for the requirements in Sec.  63.471 
depends on the date that construction or reconstruction of the affected 
facility commences. For purposes of this paragraph, affected facility 
means all solvent cleaning machines, except solvent cleaning machines 
used in the manufacture and maintenance of aerospace products, solvent 
cleaning machines used in the manufacture of narrow tubing, and 
continuous web cleaning machines, located at a major source that are 
subject to the facility-wide limits in Table 1 of Sec.  63.471(b)(2), 
and for area sources, affected facility means all solvent cleaning 
machines, except cold batch cleaning machines, located at an area 
source that are subject to the facility-wide limits in Table 1 of Sec.  
63.471(b)(2).
    (1) Each affected facility that was constructed or reconstructed on 
or before August 17, 2006, shall be in compliance with the provisions 
of this subpart no later than May 3, 2010.
    (2) Each affected facility that was constructed or reconstructed on 
or after August 17, 2006, shall be in compliance with the provisions of 
this subpart on May 3, 2007 or immediately upon startup, whichever is 
later.

0
3. Section Sec.  63.471 is added to Subpart T to read as follows:

Sec.  63.471  Facility-wide standards.

    (a) Each owner or operator of an affected facility shall comply 
with the requirements specified in this section. For purposes of this 
section, affected facility means all solvent cleaning machines, except 
solvent cleaning machines used in the manufacture and maintenance of 
aerospace products, solvent cleaning machines used in the manufacture 
of narrow tubing, and continuous web cleaning machines, located at a 
major source that are subject to the facility-wide limits in paragraph 
(b)(2) of this section, and for area sources, affected facility means 
all solvent cleaning machines, except cold batch cleaning machines, 
located at an area source that are subject to the facility-wide limits 
in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
    (b)(1) Each owner or operator of an affected facility must maintain 
a log of solvent additions and deletions for each solvent cleaning 
machine.
    (2) Each owner or operator of an affected facility must ensure that 
the total emissions of perchloroethylene (PCE), trichloroethylene (TCE) 
and methylene chloride (MC) used at the affected facility are equal to 
or less than the applicable facility-wide 12-month rolling total 
emission limit presented in Table 1 of this section as determined using 
the procedures in paragraph (c) of this section.

              Table 1.--Facility-wide Emission Limits for Facilities With Solvent Cleaning Machines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Facility-wide annual
                                                                emission limits in kg--    Facility-wide annual
                       Solvents emitted                          for general population    emission limit in kg
                                                                  degreasing machines       for military depot
                                                                                          maintenance facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PCE only \a\..................................................                    4,800                    8,000
TCE only......................................................                   14,100                   23,500
MC only.......................................................                   60,000                  100,000
Multiple solvents--Calculate the MC-weighted emissions using                     60,000                 100,000
 equation 1...................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ PCE emission limit calculated using CalEPA URE.

    Note: In the equation, the facility emissions of PCE and TCE are 
weighted according to their carcinogenic potency relative to that of 
MC. The value of A is 12.5. The value for B is 4.25.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03MY07.015

Where:

WE = Weighted 12-month rolling total emissions in kg (lbs).
PCE = 12-month rolling total PCE emissions from all solvent cleaning 
machines at the facility in kg (lbs).
TCE = 12-month rolling total TCE emission from all solvent cleaning 
machines at the facility in kg (lbs).
MC = 12-month rolling total MC emissions from all solvent cleaning 
machines at the facility in kg (lbs).

    (c) Each owner or operator of an affected facility shall on the 
first operating day of every month, demonstrate compliance with the 
applicable facility-wide emission limit on a 12-month rolling total 
basis using the procedures in paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) of this 
section. For purposes of this paragraph, ``each solvent cleaning 
machine'' means each solvent cleaning machine that is part of an 
affected facility regulated by this section.
    (1) Each owner or operator of an affected facility shall, on the 
first operating day of every month, ensure that each solvent cleaning 
machine system contains only clean liquid solvent. This includes, but 
is not limited to, fresh unused solvent, recycled solvent, and used 
solvent that has been cleaned of soiled materials. A fill line must be 
indicated during the first month the measurements are made. The solvent 
level within the machine must be returned to the same fill-line each 
month, immediately prior to calculating monthly emissions as specified 
in paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) of this section. The solvent cleaning 
machine does not have to be emptied and filled with fresh unused 
solvent prior to the calculations.
    (2) Each owner or operator of an affected facility shall, on the 
first operating day of the month, using the records of all solvent 
additions and deletions for the previous month, determine solvent 
emissions (Eunit) from each solvent cleaning machine using 
equation 10:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03MY07.016

Where:

Eunit = the total halogenated HAP solvent emissions from 
the solvent cleaning

[[Page 25159]]

machine during the most recent month i, (kilograms of solvent per 
month).
SAi = the total amount of halogenated HAP liquid solvent 
added to the solvent cleaning machine during the most recent month 
i, (kilograms of solvent per month).
LSRi = the total amount of halogenated HAP liquid solvent 
removed from the solvent cleaning machine during the most recent 
month i, (kilograms of solvent per month).
SSRi = the total amount of halogenated HAP solvent 
removed from the solvent cleaning machine in solid waste, obtained 
as described in paragraph (c)(3) of this section, during the most 
recent month i, (kilograms of solvent per month).

    (3) Each owner or operator of an affected facility shall, on the 
first operating day of the month, determine SSRi using the 
method specified in paragraph (c)(3)(i) or (c)(3)(ii) of this section.
    (i) From tests conducted using EPA reference method 25d.
    (ii) By engineering calculations included in the compliance report.
    (4) Each owner or operator of an affected facility shall on the 
first operating day of the month, after 12 months of emissions data are 
available, determine the 12-month rolling total emissions, 
ETunit, for the 12-month period ending with the most recent 
month using equation 11:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03MY07.017

Where:

ETunit = the total halogenated HAP solvent emissions over 
the preceding 12 months, (kilograms of solvent emissions per 12-
month period).
Eunit = halogenated HAP solvent emissions for each month 
(j) for the most recent 12 months (kilograms of solvent per month).

    (5) Each owner or operator of an affected facility shall on the 
first operating day of the month, after 12 months of emissions data are 
available, determine the 12-month rolling total emissions, 
ETfacility, for the 12-month period ending with the most 
recent month using equation 12:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03MY07.018

Where:

ETfacility = the total halogenated HAP solvent emissions 
over the preceding 12 months for all cleaning machines at the 
facility, (kilograms of solvent emissions per 12-month period).
ETunit = the total halogenated HAP solvent emissions over 
the preceding 12 months for each unit j, where i equals the total 
number of units at the facility (kilograms of solvent emissions per 
12-month period).

    (d) If the applicable facility-wide emission limit presented in 
Table 1 of paragraph (b)(2) is not met, an exceedance has occurred. All 
exceedances shall be reported as required in Sec.  63.468(h).
    (e) Each owner or operator of an affected facility shall maintain 
records specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section 
either in electronic or written form for a period of 5 years. For 
purposes of this paragraph, ``each solvent cleaning machine'' means 
each solvent cleaning machine that is part of an affected facility 
regulated by this section.
    (1) The dates and amounts of solvent that are added to each solvent 
cleaning machine.
    (2) The solvent composition of wastes removed from each solvent 
cleaning machines as determined using the procedure described in 
paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
    (3) Calculation sheets showing how monthly emissions and the 12-
month rolling total emissions from each solvent cleaning machine were 
determined, and the results of all calculations.
    (f) Each owner or operator of an affected facility shall submit an 
initial notification report to the Administrator no later than May 3, 
2010. This report shall include the information specified in paragraphs 
(f)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) The name and address of the owner or operator of the affected 
facility.
    (2) The address (i.e., physical location) of the solvent cleaning 
machine(s) that is part of an affected facility regulated by this 
section.
    (3) A brief description of each solvent cleaning machine at the 
affected facility including machine type (batch vapor, batch cold, 
vapor in-line or cold in-line), solvent/air interface area, and 
existing controls.
    (4) The date of installation for each solvent cleaning machine.
    (5) An estimate of annual halogenated HAP solvent consumption for 
each solvent cleaning machine.
    (g) Each owner or operator of an affected facility shall submit to 
the Administrator an initial statement of compliance on or before May 
3, 2010. The statement shall include the information specified in 
paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(3) of this section.
    (1) The name and address of the owner or operator of the affected 
facility.
    (2) The address (i.e., physical location) of each solvent cleaning 
machine that is part of an affected facility regulated by this section.
    (3) The results of the first 12-month rolling total emissions 
calculation.
    (h) Each owner or operator of an affected facility shall submit a 
solvent emission report every year. This solvent emission report shall 
contain the requirements specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(3) 
of this section.
    (1) The average monthly solvent consumption for the affected 
facility in kilograms per month.
    (2) The 12-month rolling total solvent emission estimates 
calculated each month using the method as described in paragraph (c) of 
this section.
    (3) This report can be combined with the annual report required in 
Sec.  63.468(f) and (g) into a single report for each facility.

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

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P