Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2007/05/03/E7-7668/national-air-emission-standards-for-hazardous-air-pollutants-halogenated-solvent-cleaning
Timestamp: 2018-07-23 08:57:13
Document Index: 747539278

Matched Legal Cases: ['§\u200963', 'art 63', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', 'art 63', 'art 63', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963']

Federal Register :: National Air Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Halogenated Solvent Cleaning
A Rule by the Environmental Protection Agency on 05/03/2007
72 FR 25137
25137-25159 (23 pages)
E7-7668
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/E7-7668 https://www.federalregister.gov/d/E7-7668
Start Preamble Start Printed Page 25138
Industry Any of numerous industries using halogenated solvent cleaning, primary affected industries include those in NAICS Codes beginning with: 331 (primary metal man.), 332 (fabricated metal man.), 333 (machinery man.), 334 (computer and electronic product man.), 335 (electrical equipment, appliance, and component man.); 336 (transportation equipment man.); 337 (furniture and related products man.); and 339 (misc. man.) Operations at sources that are engaged in solvent cleaning using MC, PCE, or TCE.
Federal, State, local, and tribal government Operations at sources that are engaged in solvent cleaning using MC, PCE, or TCE.
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 Start Printed Page 25139reasonable 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.
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 Start Printed Page 25140areas.”), but must consider costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors in doing so.
“Solvent cleaning machine” is defined in the Federal Register, 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 63.461. Solvent cleaning machine types such as batch cleaners and in-line cleaners are also described. Both cleaner types can be designed to use either solvent at room temperature (cold cleaners) or solvent vapor (vapor cleaners).
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.
The August 17, 2006 proposed rule would have required all owners and Start Printed Page 25141operators 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.
PCE only a 3,200b (26,700) a 2,000b (16,700)
TCE only 10,000 6,250
MC only 40,000 25,000
Multiple solvents—Calculate the MC-weighted emissions using equation 1 40,000 25,000
a PCE emission limit calculated using California EPA (CalEPA) Unit Risk Estimate (URE).
b PCE emission limit calculated using the EPA Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPPTS) Unit Risk Estimate (URE).
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. Start Printed 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.
PCE only 4,800 8,000
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 Start Printed Page 25143addition, the 1994 NESHAP requirements remain applicable.
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 Start Printed Page 25144maintenance 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.
At proposal we had presented two options for emission limits that would apply to all facilities in the category subject to the 1994 MACT standards—25,000 kg/yr MC equivalent and 40,000 kg/yr MC equivalent. We estimated that the 25,000 kg/yr limit would result in an emissions reduction of 6,778 tons/year, thereby reducing the MIR to 10-in-a million and reducing cancer incidence by 0.14-0.27 cases annually (depending on which URE we use for PCE), at an annual cost savings of $4.9 million annually or a cost savings of $724/ton HAP reduced. Comments received included support for and against this level of emissions reduction. Similarly, at proposal we estimated that applying the 40,000 kg/yr limit to facilities in the entire source category would result in an emissions reduction of 5,911 tons/yr, reducing the MIR to 20-in-a million and reducing cancer incidence by 0.12-0.23 cases annually, at an annual cost savings of $5.9 million annually or a cost savings of $1,000/ton HAP reduced.[1]
In developing the final rule, we initially re-examined the 25,000 kg/yr and 40,000 kg/yr levels of control for the subset of the category that excludes the four specific industry sectors identified above, using costing assumptions revised based on public comment as described above. This re-analysis uses the 2002 NEI data rather than the 1999 NEI data used in the proposal. We observed that although the overall reductions in MIR and cancer incidence at these levels would be similar to those estimated at proposal for the entire category, the substantial cost savings estimated at proposal would change to a net cost for both emission limits. This is a result of both our use of certain cost assumptions at proposal that have been amended for analyzing the cost of the final rule and the fact that four industry sectors are now being considered separately in this final rule. Specifically, for the 25,000 kg/yr limit, our analysis of the subset of the category that excludes the four specific industry sectors shows the same reduction in MIR (to 10-in-a-million) and similar estimated reduction in cancer incidence, 0.24 cases annually, as we showed at proposal. In contrast, our cost analysis for this subset of the source category shows a total annualized cost (not savings) of about $1.2 million, or a cost of about $520 per ton HAP reduced (we estimate 2,351 tons HAP reduced at this level). Similarly, for the 40,000 kg/yr limit, our revised analysis shows the Start Printed Page 25145same 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.
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.)
We received comments from these three sectors on the proposal, in response to the NODA, and in subsequent meetings with Start Printed Page 25146representatives 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 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.
At proposal, we explained that the Agency's IRIS health assessment for PCE is currently being revised. Therefore, we requested comment on the use of the CalEPA URE,[3] the OPPTS URE,[4] or other values in deriving the PCE emission limit for the final rule (71 FR 47680). We received comments both supporting and opposing our use of the CalEPA URE for PCE.
For those situations where a particular chemical does not have a cancer potency value in IRIS, we have established a prioritization process for accessing other health assessment information (as described in our “Residual Risk Report to Congress” on pages 56 through 58). This hierarchy includes peer reviewed cancer potency values from EPA as well as from other agencies that conduct chemical carcinogenicity assessments such as the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). See also our responses to comments on this issue in the final Coke Oven Batteries NESHAP (70 FR 19998-20000, (April 15, 2005)). In this final rulemaking, we have chosen to use the CalEPA URE in preference to the OPPTS value for a number of reasons. CalEPA's PCE cancer unit risk value was derived using two different approaches for estimating the metabolized dose in humans, whereas the OPPTS value incorporated a single model of metabolism. Additionally, while the CalEPA approach allowed for the consideration of variability and uncertainty, the OPPTS approach did not. We have used both the CalEPA and OPPTS UREs for PCE in the risk Start Printed Page 25147characterizations 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.
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 Start Printed Page 25148would 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.
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 Start Printed Page 25149estimated 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.
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.
Comment: One commenter stated that proposed § 63.460(i) would allow sources that only have existing halogenated solvent cleaning machines two years to comply, but if they construct or reconstruct a single machine after August 17, 2006, they would lose the two-year compliance period. The commenter recommended that any facility that has existing halogenated solvent cleaning machines and that exceeds the proposed facility wide emission limits should be allowed two years from the date of the final rule to comply with the standard, even if one or more halogenated solvent cleaning machines are constructed or reconstructed after August 17, 2006.
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 Start Printed Page 25150addressing compliance deadlines for existing sources with regard to standards promulgated under CAA section 112(d)(6) and 112(f)(2). Thus, in this final rule, in accordance with CAA section 112(i)(3), EPA is promulgating a three-year compliance deadline from the effective date of this rule for existing sources. Further, for purposes of today's rule, existing sources are affected facilities (as defined in § 63.461) on which construction or reconstruction began on or before August 17, 2006. New sources are affected facilities that commence construction or reconstruction after August 17, 2006. This is consistent with CAA Section 112(i)(1)-(3). Additionally, “construction” and “reconstruction,” are defined at 40 CFR 63.2. However, changes to the emission controls at a facility made to comply with existing source standards in today's rule do not trigger the reconstruction threshold.
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. Start Printed Page 25151Consequently, 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.
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 Start Printed Page 25152from 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.
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 Start Printed Page 25153percent 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.
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 Start Printed Page 25154compliance options would take six years or more.
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 Start Printed Page 25155emissions limit. We have taken this into consideration in promulgating the final rule.
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.
This action does not impose any new information collection burden. Owners Start Printed Page 25156or 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.
EPA has determined that the final rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it contains Start Printed Page 25157no requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations upon them.
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.
2. Section 63.460 is amended by revising paragraphs (c), (d), and (g) and adding paragraph (i) to read as follows:
§ 63.460
(c) Except as provided in paragraph (g) of this section, each solvent cleaning machine subject to this subpart that commenced construction or reconstruction after November 29, 1993 shall achieve compliance with the provisions of this subpart, except for § 63.471, immediately upon start-up or by December 2, 1994, whichever is later.
(d) Except as provided in paragraph (g) of this section, each solvent cleaning machine subject to this subpart that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before November 29, 1993 shall achieve compliance with the provisions of this subpart, except for § 63.471, no later than December 2, 1997.
(g) Each continuous web cleaning machine subject to this subpart shall achieve compliance with the provisions of this subpart, except for § 63.471, no later than December 2, 1999.
(i) The compliance date for the requirements in § 63.471 depends on the date that construction or reconstruction of the affected facility commences. For purposes of this paragraph, affected facility means all solvent cleaning machines, except solvent cleaning machines used in the manufacture and maintenance of aerospace products, solvent cleaning machines used in the manufacture of narrow tubing, and continuous web cleaning machines, located at a major source that are subject to the facility-wide limits in Table 1 of § 63.471(b)(2), and for area sources, affected facility means all solvent cleaning machines, except cold batch cleaning machines, located at an area source that are subject to the facility-wide limits in Table 1 of § 63.471(b)(2).
3. Section § 63.471 is added to Subpart T to read as follows:
§ 63.471
PCE only a 4,800 8,000
Eunit = the total halogenated HAP solvent emissions from the solvent cleaning Start Printed Page 25159machine during the most recent month i, (kilograms of solvent per month).
(d) If the applicable facility-wide emission limit presented in Table 1 of paragraph (b)(2) is not met, an exceedance has occurred. All exceedances shall be reported as required in § 63.468(h).
(3) This report can be combined with the annual report required in § 63.468(f) and (g) into a single report for each facility.
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.
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.
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/​.)