[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 203 (Monday, October 20, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62383-62408]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-24013]



[[Page 62383]]

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

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 63



National Emission Standards for Halogenated Solvent Cleaning; Proposed 
Rule

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

[[Page 62384]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0009; FRL-8727-5]
RIN 2060-AP07


National Emission Standards for Halogenated Solvent Cleaning

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed Notice of Reconsideration and Request for Public 
Comment.

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

SUMMARY: On May 3, 2007, EPA promulgated the final rule titled: 
National Air Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 
Halogenated Solvent Cleaning (the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule) 
pursuant to sections 112(d)(6) and 112(f) of the Clean Air Act. The 
Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule set facility-wide emission limits for 
certain halogenated solvent cleaning machines and a May 3, 2010, 
compliance deadline.
    Following promulgation of the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule, 
the Administrator received several petitions for reconsideration, 
pursuant to Clean Air Act section 307(d)(7)(B). The purpose of this 
notice is to initiate a process for responding to certain issues raised 
in the petitions. We are requesting comment on the particular issues 
for which we are granting reconsideration, and those issues are 
identified, in detail, below. Specifically, we are requesting comment 
on the revised risk assessment, our use of the 2002 National Emissions 
Inventory data in lieu of the 1999 National Emissions Inventory data, 
which was used at proposal, our ample margin of safety determination 
under Clean Air Act section 112(f)(2), our determination under Clean 
Air Act section 112(d)(6), and the compliance deadline.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before December 4, 
2008.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a 
public hearing by October 30, 2008, a public hearing will be held 
November 4, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2002-0009, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail: [email protected].
     Fax: (202)566-1741.
     Mail: Air and Radiation Docket, EPA, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a 
duplicate copy, if possible. We request that a separate copy of each 
public comment also be sent to the contact person listed below (see FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
     Hand Delivery: In person or by courier, deliver comments 
to: EPA Docket Center (2822T), EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only 
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation and special 
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. We 
request that a separate copy of each public comment also be sent to the 
contact person listed below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2002-0009. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you 
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site 
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without 
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of 
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0009, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open 
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 
566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is 
(202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed 
action, contact Mr. H. Lynn Dail, Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Natural Resources and 
Commerce Group (E143-03), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-2363; fax 
number: (919) 541-3470; and e-mail address: [email protected]. For 
specific information regarding the modeling methodology, contact Ms. 
Elaine Manning, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Health 
and Environmental Impacts Division, Sector Based Assessment Group 
(C539-02), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle 
Park, NC 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5499; fax number: (919) 
541-0840; and e-mail address: [email protected]. For information 
about the applicability of these national emission standards for 
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) to a particular entity, contact Mr. 
Scott Throwe, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, (202) 564-7013; and e-
mail address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities. Categories and entities 
potentially affected by this notice include:

[[Page 62385]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         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
                               affected industries   methylene chloride
                               include those in      (MC),
                               NAICS Codes           perchloroethylene
                               beginning with: 331   (PCE), or
                               (primary metal        trichloroethylene
                               manufacturing), 332   (TCE).
                               (fabricated metal
                               manufacturing), 333
                               (machinery
                               manufacturing), 334
                               (computer and
                               electronic product
                               manufacturing), 335
                               (electrical
                               equipment,
                               appliance, and
                               component
                               manufacturing); 336
                               (transportation
                               equipment
                               manufacturing); 337
                               (furniture and
                               related products
                               manufacturing); and
                               339 (misc.
                               manufacturing).
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 this 
proposed action. This action proposes to require an owner or operator 
of a facility that is subject to the 1994 NESHAP for Halogenated 
Solvent Cleaning (40 CFR part 63.460 of subpart T) to operate under 
certain specific emission limits. If you have any questions regarding 
the applicability of this proposal to a particular entity, consult the 
person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Submitting Comments/CBI. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2002-0009. Do not submit CBI to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Instead, send or deliver information 
identified as CBI only to the following address: Mr. Roberto Morales, 
OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle 
Park, NC 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0009. Clearly 
mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For 
CBI information on a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to Mr. Morales, mark 
the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify 
electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that 
is claimed as CBI.
    In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes 
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain 
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the 
public docket. If you submit a CD-ROM or disk that does not contain 
CBI, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM clearly that it does not 
contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the 
public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice.
    If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming 
CBI, please consult the person identified in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section. Information marked as CBI will not be 
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 
2. Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, 
an electronic copy of this proposed action will also be available on 
the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following 
signature, a copy of the proposed action will be posted on the TTN's 
policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the 
following address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN provides 
information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution 
control.
    Additional information is available in section I of this preamble 
and on the Halogenated Solvents Cleaning Web page at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. This information includes source 
category descriptions and detailed emissions and other data that were 
used as inputs to the risk assessments.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a 
public hearing concerning the particular issues for which we are 
granting reconsideration by October 30, 2008, we will hold a public 
hearing at 10 a.m. at EPA's Campus located at 109 T.W. Alexander Drive 
in Research Triangle Park, NC, or an alternate site nearby on November 
4, 2008. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony should contact 
Ms. Joan C. Rogers, Natural Resources and Commerce Group (E143-03), 
Sector Policies and Programs Division, EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 
27711, telephone number: (919) 541-4487, e-mail address: 
[email protected], by October 30, 2008. Persons interested in 
attending the public hearing should also call Ms. Rogers to verify the 
time, date, and location of the hearing. A public hearing will provide 
interested parties the opportunity to present data, views, or arguments 
concerning the proposed standards.
    Outline. The information presented in this Preamble is organized as 
follows:

I. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for regulating hazardous air 
pollutants?
    B. What is the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule?
    C. What have we been asked to reconsider?
II. Proposed Response to the Petitions for Reconsideration
    A. What is our proposed action?
    B. What is the reason for our proposed action?
III. Discussion of Issues Subject to Reconsideration
    A. Baseline Risk Assessment and Decision on Acceptable Risk
    B. Decision on Ample Margin of Safety
    C. Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(6) Review
    D. Compliance Schedule
IV. Proposed Regulatory Text
V. Impacts
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations

I. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for regulating hazardous air 
pollutants?

    Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) establishes a two-stage 
regulatory process to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants 
(HAP) from stationary sources. In the first stage,

[[Page 62386]]

after EPA has identified categories of sources emitting one or more of 
the HAP listed in section 112(b) of the CAA, section 112(d) of the CAA 
calls for us to promulgate NESHAP for those sources: ``Major sources'' 
are those that emit or have the potential to emit any single HAP at a 
rate of 10 tons or more per year or 25 tons or more per year of any 
combination of HAP. For major sources, the technology-based standards 
must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP 
achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air 
quality health and environmental impacts) and are commonly referred to 
as maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards.
    The MACT floor is the minimum control level allowed for NESHAP and 
is defined under section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. For new sources, the 
MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is 
achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. The MACT 
standards for existing sources can be less stringent than standards for 
new sources, but it cannot be less stringent than the average emission 
limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of existing 
sources in the category or subcategory (or the best-performing five 
sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In 
developing MACT standards, we must also consider control options that 
are more stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more 
stringent than the floor based on the consideration of the cost of 
achieving the emission reductions, any non-air quality health and 
environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
    EPA is then required to review these technology-based standards and 
to revise them ``as necessary (taking into account developments in 
practices, processes, and control technologies)'' no less frequently 
than every 8 years, under CAA section 112(d)(6). In this proposal, we 
are publishing the results of our 8-year technology review for the 
halogenated cleaning solvent source category.
    The second stage in standard-setting focuses on reducing any 
remaining ``residual'' risk according to CAA section 112(f). This 
provision requires, first, that EPA prepare a Report to Congress 
discussing (among other things) methods of calculating risk posed (or 
potentially posed) by sources after implementation of the MACT 
standards, the public health significance of those risks, the means and 
costs of controlling them, actual health effects to persons in 
proximity of emitting sources, and recommendations as to legislation 
regarding such remaining risk. EPA prepared and submitted this report 
(Residual Risk Report to Congress, EPA-453/R-99-001) in March 1999. 
Congress did not act in response to the report, thereby triggering 
EPA's obligation under CAA section 112(f)(2) to analyze and address 
residual risk.
    CAA section 112(f)(2) requires us to determine for source 
categories subject to certain CAA section 112(d) standards whether the 
emission limitations provide an ample margin of safety to protect 
public health. If the MACT standards for HAP ``classified as a known, 
probable, or possible human carcinogen do not reduce lifetime excess 
cancer risks to the individual most exposed to emissions from a source 
in the category or subcategory to less than 1-in-1 million,'' EPA must 
promulgate residual risk standards for the source category (or 
subcategory) as necessary to provide an ample margin of safety to 
protect public health. EPA must also adopt more stringent standards, if 
necessary, to prevent an adverse environmental effect,\1\ but must 
consider cost, energy, safety, and other relevant factors in doing so. 
In a residual risk rulemaking under section 112(f)(2), EPA may adopt 
standards equal to the existing MACT standards (NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 
1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Adverse environmental effect'' is defined in CAA Section 
112(a)(7) as any significant and widespread adverse effect, which 
may be reasonably anticipated to wildlife, aquatic life, or natural 
resources, including adverse impacts on populations of endangered or 
threatened species or significant degradation of environmental 
quality over broad areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA expressly preserves our use of the 
two-step process for developing standards to address residual risk and 
our interpretation of ``ample margin of safety'' developed in the 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Benzene 
Emissions from Maleic Anhydride Plants, Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, 
Benzene Storage Vessels, Benzene Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product 
Recovery Plants (Benzene NESHAP) (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989). See 
NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077 D.C. Cir. 2008). The first step in the 
residual risk process is the determination of acceptable risk. The 
second step provides for an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health, which is the level at which the standards are set (unless a 
more stringent standard is required to prevent, taking into 
consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an 
adverse environmental effect).
    The terms ``individual most exposed,'' ``acceptable level,'' and 
``ample margin of safety'' are not specifically defined in the CAA. 
However, CAA section 112(f)(2)(B) directs us to use the interpretation 
set out in the Benzene NESHAP. See also, A Legislative History of the 
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, volume 1, p. 877 (Senate debate on 
Conference Report). We notified Congress in the Residual Risk Report to 
Congress that we intended to use the Benzene NESHAP approach in making 
CAA section 112(f) residual risk determinations (EPA-453/R-99-001, p. 
ES-11).
    In the Benzene NESHAP, we stated as an overall objective:

    * * * in protecting public health with an ample margin of 
safety, we strive to provide maximum feasible protection against 
risks to health from hazardous air pollutants by (1) protecting the 
greatest number of persons possible to an individual lifetime risk 
level no higher than approximately 1-in-1 million; and (2) limiting 
to no higher than approximately 1-in-10 thousand (i.e., 100-in-1 
million) the estimated risk that a person living near a facility 
would have if he or she were exposed to the maximum pollutant 
concentrations for 70 years.

    We also stated that, ``The EPA also considers incidence (the number 
of persons estimated to suffer cancer or other serious health effects 
as a result of exposure to a pollutant) to be an important measure of 
the health risk to the exposed population. Incidence measures the 
extent of health risk to the exposed population as a whole, by 
providing an estimate of the occurrence of cancer or other serious 
health effects in the exposed population.'' The EPA went on to conclude 
that ``estimated incidence would be weighed along with other health 
risk information in judging acceptability.'' As explained more fully in 
our Residual Risk Report to Congress, EPA does not define ``rigid 
line(s) of acceptability,'' but considers rather broad objectives to be 
weighed with a series of other health measures and factors (EPA-453/R-
99-001, p. ES-11).

    The determination of what represents an ``acceptable'' risk is 
based on a judgment of ``what risks are acceptable in the world in 
which we live'' (54 FR 38045, quoting the Vinyl Chloride decision at 
824 F.2d 1165) recognizing that our world is not risk-free.

    In the Benzene NESHAP, we stated that ``EPA will generally presume 
that if the risk to (the maximum exposed) individual is no higher than 
approximately 1-in-10 thousand, that risk level is considered 
acceptable.'' We discussed the maximum individual lifetime cancer risk 
as being ``the

[[Page 62387]]

estimated risk that a person living near a plant would have if he or 
she were exposed to the maximum pollutant concentrations for 70 
years.'' We explained that this measure of risk ``is an estimate of the 
upperbound of risk based on conservative assumptions, such as 
continuous exposure for 24 hours per day for 70 years.'' \2\ We 
acknowledge that maximum individual lifetime cancer risk ``does not 
necessarily reflect the true risk, but displays a health-protective 
risk level which is an upper bound that is unlikely to be exceeded.'' 
\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Quoted text is from the Benzene NESHAP preamble, pages 38045 
and 38046.
    \3\ Quoted text is from the Benzene NESHAP preamble, pages 38045 
and 38046.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Understanding that there are both benefits and limitations to using 
maximum individual lifetime cancer risk as a metric for determining 
acceptability, we acknowledged in the 1989 Benzene NESHAP that 
``consideration of maximum individual risk * * * must take into account 
the strengths and weaknesses of this measure of risk.'' \4\ 
Consequently, the presumptive risk level of 100-in-1 million (1-in-10 
thousand) provides a benchmark for judging the acceptability of maximum 
individual lifetime cancer risk, but does not constitute a rigid line 
for making that determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Quoted text is from the Benzene NESHAP preamble, pages 38045 
and 38046.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA also explained in the 1989 Benzene NESHAP the following:

    In establishing a presumption for MIR \5\, rather than rigid 
line for acceptability, the Agency intends to weigh it with a series 
of other health measures and factors. These include the overall 
incidence of cancer or other serious health effects within the 
exposed population, the numbers of persons exposed within each 
individual lifetime risk range and associated incidence within, 
typically, a 50 kilometer (km) exposure radius around facilities, 
the science policy assumptions and estimation uncertainties 
associated with the risk measures, weight of the scientific evidence 
for human health effects, other quantified or unquantified health 
effects, effects due to co-location of facilities, and co-emission 
of pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ MIR is the maximum individual cancer risk.

    In some cases, these health measures and factors taken together may 
provide a more realistic description of the magnitude of risk in the 
exposed population than that provided by maximum individual lifetime 
cancer risk alone.
    As explained in the Benzene NESHAP, ``(e)ven though the risks 
judged ``acceptable'' by EPA in the first step of the Vinyl Chloride 
inquiry are already low, the second step of the inquiry, determining an 
``ample margin of safety,'' again includes consideration of all of the 
health factors, and whether to reduce the risks even further. In the 
second step, EPA strives to provide protection to the greatest number 
of persons possible to an individual lifetime risk level no higher than 
approximately 1 in 1 million. In the ample margin decision, the EPA 
again considers all of the health risk and other health information 
considered in the first step. Beyond that information, additional 
factors relating to the appropriate level of control will also be 
considered, including costs and economic impacts of controls, 
technological feasibility, uncertainties, and any other relevant 
factors. Considering all of these factors, the EPA will establish the 
standard at a level that provides an ample margin of safety to protect 
the public health, as required by section 112.''

B. What is the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule?

    On December 2, 1994, we promulgated national emission standards for 
halogenated solvent cleaning machines \6\ (59 FR 61801, December 2, 
1994) (1994 NESHAP), to control emissions of the halogenated solvents 
MC, PCE, TCE, 1,1,1,-trichloroethane (TCA), carbon tetrachloride, 
chloroform, and halogenated solvent blends or their vapors from 
halogenated solvent cleaning machines, pursuant to Section 112(d) of 
the CAA. The standards, which can be found in 40 CFR Subpart T, include 
multiple alternatives that allow maximum compliance flexibility. The 
final rule is available in the docket for this rulemaking. It can also 
be accessed at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/degrea/halopg.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Carbon tetrachloride and chloroform are no longer used in this 
source category. The Montreal Protocol, a multi-national treaty signed 
on September 16, 1987, phased out the production and use of these 
chlorofluorocarbons by January 1, 1996. The Montreal Protocol also 
phased out the production and use of TCA. Although production and use 
of TCA has been phased out since 1998, an exemption to the phase-out 
allows facilities with essential products or activities to continue 
their use of TCA, and facilities with non-essential activities or 
products to continue the use of their remaining TCA stockpiles until 
depleted. A declining quantity of TCA continued to be used until 2002, 
when all production of TCA ceased, and eventually, facilities used TCA 
stockpiles until depleted. Since January 1, 2002, TCA has not been 
manufactured for domestic use in the United States.
    Halogenated solvent cleaning machines use MC, PCE, TCE and TCA to 
remove soils such as grease, oils, waxes, carbon deposits, fluxes, and 
tars from metal, plastic, fiberglass, printed circuit boards, and other 
surfaces. Halogenated solvent cleaning is typically performed prior to 
processes such as painting, plating, inspection, repair, assembly, heat 
treatment, and machining. Types of halogenated solvent cleaning 
machines include, but are not limited to, batch vapor, in-line vapor, 
in-line cold, and batch cold solvent cleaning machines. Buckets, pails, 
and beakers with capacities of 7.6 liters (2 gallons) or less are not 
considered halogenated solvent cleaning machines.
    In May 2007, we promulgated the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule 
(72 FR 25138), which established revised standards that further limit 
emissions of MC, TCE and PCE from facilities engaged in halogenated 
solvent cleaning, pursuant to CAA section 112(f). Specifically, we 
promulgated a facility-wide emission limit of 60,000 kilograms per year 
(kg/yr) MC equivalent \7\ that applied to all halogenated solvent 
cleaning machines with the exception of halogenated solvent cleaning 
machines used by the following industries: Facilities that manufacture 
narrow tubing, facilities that use continuous web cleaning machines, 
aerospace manufacturing and maintenance facilities, and military 
maintenance and depot facilities. We also promulgated a facility-wide 
emission limit of 100,000 kg/yr MC

[[Page 62388]]

equivalent for halogenated solvent cleaning machines used at military 
maintenance and depot facilities. We required existing facilities to 
comply with the revised standards by May 3, 2010, which is three years 
after the effective date of the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule. 
Further, with regard to halogenated solvent cleaning machines used by 
facilities that manufacture narrow tubing, facilities that use 
continuous web cleaning machines, and aerospace manufacturing and 
maintenance facilities we found, after considering risks, associated 
compliance costs and the availability of control measures, that the 
1994 NESHAP reduces risk to acceptable levels, provides an ample margin 
of safety to protect public health, and prevents adverse environmental 
effects. We also reviewed the 1994 NESHAP as required by CAA section 
112(d)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ All emission limits and emission rates in the assessments 
were converted to MC equivalents based on the relative cancer 
potency of the HAP emitted. The cancer potency-weighted MC 
equivalent emission rate was calculated as the estimated emissions 
for the HAP in kg/yr or lb/yr times the unit risk estimate (URE) for 
the HAP divided by the URE for MC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. What have we been asked to reconsider?

    Following promulgation of the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule, 
the Administrator received several petitions \8\ for reconsideration 
(Petitions), under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B). Generally, petitioners 
claimed that the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule contained legal 
interpretations and information that are of central relevance to the 
final rule that were not sufficiently reflected at proposal, and that 
they, therefore, did not have adequate opportunity to provide input 
during the designated public comment period. Further, petitioners 
claimed that additional information on compliance measures had become 
available since the close of the public comment period for the 
Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule, and that this new information is 
also of central relevance to the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ These petitions for reconsideration were filed by the 
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 
Natural Resources Defense Council, Citizens for Pennsylvania's 
Future and Sierra Club, several State and federal legislators and 
the Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (petitioners).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 15, 2007, EPA informed petitioners of its intent to 
initiate notice and comment rulemaking to address the Petitions. We 
also informed petitioners that the particular issues for 
reconsideration and the specifics of the reconsideration process would 
be addressed in a forthcoming Federal Register notice. Additionally, we 
denied the request to stay the effectiveness of the Halogenated Solvent 
Cleaning rule pending completion of the reconsideration proceedings. 
(These letters are in the docket for this rulemaking.)
    Finally, petitioners challenged the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning 
rule in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.\9\ 
Because we intended to initiate notice and comment rulemaking to 
address the Petitions, the Court has granted our request to hold the 
litigation in abeyance. The Court has directed the parties to the 
litigation to file Motions to Govern Further Proceedings by November 3, 
2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 
Protection v. EPA, No. 07-1129 (D.C. Cir.); Citizens for 
Pennsylvania's Future and Sierra Club v. EPA, No. 07-1255 (D.C. 
Cir.); Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, No. 07-1256 (D.C. 
Cir.). These cases have since been consolidated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Proposed Response to the Petitions for Reconsideration

A. What is our proposed action?

    In this action, we are proposing to find that the risk associated 
with the 1994 NESHAP for the halogenated solvent cleaning source 
category is acceptable within the meaning of Section 112(f). We are 
also proposing various regulatory options that would provide an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health and prevent adverse 
environmental effects. These proposed requirements would apply to 
owners and operators of halogenated solvent cleaning machines that are 
subject to the 1994 NESHAP. We are proposing these requirements under 
both CAA sections 112(d)(6) and 112(f)(2). For existing sources that 
were not subject to the emission reduction requirements in the 
Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule,\10\ we are proposing a 2-year 
compliance deadline from the date of publication of the final rule in 
the Federal Register. As to those sources that were subject to emission 
reduction requirements in the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule,\11\ if 
the final rule on reconsideration changes those requirements and makes 
them more stringent, we propose that these sources have two years from 
the date of publication of the final rule to comply with the 
requirements of the final rule. We believe that such an extension is 
appropriate to allow the affected facilities time to meet the more 
stringent emission limitations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ These sources include halogenated solvent cleaning machines 
used by facilities that manufacture narrow tubing, facilities that 
manufacture specialized products requiring continuous web cleaning 
machines, and aerospace manufacturing and maintenance facilities.
    \11\ These sources include halogenated solvent cleaning machines 
at military maintenance and depot facilities and the general 
population of halogenated solvent cleaning machines. The general 
population of halogenated solvent cleaning machines includes all 
halogenated solvent cleaning machines, except those machines used by 
facilities that manufacture narrow tubing, facilities that 
manufacture specialized products requiring continuous web cleaning, 
aerospace manufacturing and maintenance facilities, and military 
maintenance and depot facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are seeking public comment on all aspects of this proposed 
reconsideration rule. As noted above, the issues identified below are 
the ones for which we are granting reconsideration. We will convey our 
decision as to any other issues raised in the reconsideration petitions 
no later than the date by which we take final action on the issues 
discussed in this action.

B. What is the reason for our proposed action?

    On August 17, 2006, pursuant to CAA section 112(f), we proposed 
revised standards (71 FR 47670, August 17, 2006) (August 2006 Proposal) 
to further limit emissions of MC, TCE and PCE from facilities engaged 
in halogenated solvent cleaning. We co-proposed emission limits of 
25,000 kg/yr MC equivalent and 40,000 kg/yr MC equivalent to provide an 
ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevent adverse 
environmental effects. The August 2006 proposal also identified other 
levels of emission reductions, including the 60,000 and 100,000 kg/yr 
MC equivalent levels. 71 FR 47680-81. We indicated that we expected to 
finalize one of the two co-proposed options, and that the standards 
finalized would apply to the entire source category in addition to the 
1994 NESHAP requirements. We also proposed a compliance deadline for 
existing sources of two years after the effective date of the final 
rule.
    Industry, States, solvent manufacturers, industry trade 
associations and district air associations submitted comments in 
response to our August 2006 proposal. Industry's comments were 
primarily submitted by the aerospace manufacturing and maintenance 
industry, the narrow tubing manufacturing industry, facilities that use 
continuous web cleaning machines, and military maintenance and depot 
facilities. Comments focused on associated compliance costs, technical 
feasibility, and the proposed compliance deadline. In response to these 
comments, we issued a Notice of Data Availability (NODA), on December 
14, 2006 (71 FR 75182), requesting specific information on compliance 
costs, technical feasibility, and compliance deadlines as they related 
to halogenated solvent machines used by the above-referenced 
industries. Responses to the NODA provided significant data and 
information that led

[[Page 62389]]

EPA to re-evaluate the data and assumptions used to estimate risks, 
costs and technical feasibility of compliance with the co-proposed 
emission limits.
    In the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule, we presented our re-
evaluation of risks, costs and technical feasibility of compliance with 
the co-proposed emission limits. As a result of our re-evaluation, we 
promulgated a facility-wide emission limit of 60,000 kg/yr MC 
equivalent for all halogenated solvent cleaning machines with the 
exception of halogenated solvent cleaning machines used by facilities 
that manufacture narrow tubing, facilities that use continuous web 
cleaning machines, aerospace manufacturing and maintenance facilities, 
and military maintenance and depot facilities. We determined that this 
emission limit would provide an ample margin of safety to protect 
health and prevent adverse environmental effects. For all halogenated 
solvent cleaning machines used at military maintenance and depot 
facilities, we promulgated a facility-wide emission limit of 100,000 
kg/yr MC equivalent that would provide an ample margin of safety to 
protect health and prevent adverse environmental effects. We also set a 
compliance deadline of three years from the effective date of the 
Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule. Finally, with regard to facilities 
that use continuous web cleaning machines and halogenated solvent 
cleaning machines used by facilities that manufacture narrow tubing and 
aerospace manufacturing and maintenance facilities, we found that the 
current level of control required by the 1994 NESHAP reduces HAP 
emissions to levels that provide an ample margin of safety to protect 
public health and prevent any adverse environmental effects.
    As noted earlier above, following promulgation of the Halogenated 
Solvent Cleaning rule, the Administrator received several petitions for 
reconsideration, under CAA Section 307(d)(7)(B). In general, 
petitioners alleged that the following issues appeared for the first 
time in the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule, making it impracticable 
to raise objections during the period provided for public comment: The 
60,000 kg/yr MC equivalent limit for the general population of 
halogenated solvent cleaning machines; the 100,000 kg/yr MC equivalent 
limit for halogenated solvent cleaning machines used by military 
maintenance and depot facilities; EPA's decision to use in support of 
its risk assessment, data from the 2002 National Emissions Inventory 
(NEI) as opposed to data from the 1999 NEI; EPA's conclusion that the 
1994 NESHAP reduces risk to acceptable levels and provides an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health for aerospace manufacturing 
and maintenance facilities, facilities that manufacture narrow tubing, 
and facilities that use continuous web cleaning machines; EPA's 
technical feasibility and cost analyses in the final rule; and the 3-
year compliance period for existing sources.
    Petitioners also provided information on technical feasibility that 
was not otherwise available to EPA at the time of promulgation of the 
Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule. That information shows certain 
facilities that manufacture narrow tubing either taking steps or 
planning to take steps to reduce HAP emissions at their facilities. 
This information is discussed in greater detail below.
    In response to the petitions, we are reconsidering various issues, 
and those issues are described in detail below.

III. Discussion of Issues Subject to Reconsideration

A. Baseline Risk Assessment and Decision on Acceptable Risk

    In addition to the general issues raised above, petitioners raised 
several specific issues relating to the baseline risk assessment and 
EPA's decision on acceptable risk.
    Before discussing the issues on which we are granting 
reconsideration, we would like to clarify a misunderstanding that was 
revealed to us in the Petitions. Specifically, certain petitioners 
contend that by removing facilities that use continuous web cleaning 
machines, and halogenated solvent cleaning machines used by facilities 
that manufacture narrow tubing, aerospace manufacturing and 
maintenance, and military maintenance and depot facilities in the risk 
assessments for the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule, we failed to 
consider the health risks from the entire source category and thus, 
that the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule deviated from the Benzene 
NESHAP (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989) framework and CAA Section 
112(f)(2)(B). Petitioners also contend that the risks associated with 
the source category are ``gross underestimates of actual risks'' 
because of our removal of this subset of sources. One petitioner 
asserts that because the risk assessment at proposal showed the 
baseline maximum individual risk (MIR) as 200-in-1 million with 0.40 
annual cancer incidences, as compared to 100-in-1 million and 0.55 
annual cancer incidences presented in the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning 
rule, the resulting 38 percent increased cancer incidence was not 
subject to public comment. The petitioner further contends that cancer 
risks would have increased beyond 38 percent but for the exemptions of 
certain halogenated solvent cleaning machines that had a further effect 
of removing the Collegeville, PA, population from the population risk 
distribution.
    However, contrary to petitioners understanding, we performed a risk 
assessment for the entire halogenated solvent cleaning machines source 
category both for the August 2006 Proposal (71 FR 47670) and for the 
Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule (72 FR 25138). Our re-evaluation of 
risks involved the re-assessment of the risks for the entire category 
using both the 1999 and the 2002 NEI inventory (discussed in greater 
detail, below), which was not available at the time of the August 2006 
Proposal, but was available for the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule. 
The preamble and risk assessment also provided separate analyses for 
each of the industry sectors (facilities that manufacture narrow 
tubing, aerospace manufacturing and maintenance, military maintenance 
and depots, facilities that use continuous web cleaning machines) and 
the subset of remaining facilities not included in one of these four 
sectors that make up the halogenated solvent cleaning source category. 
This approach allowed us to compare the risk contribution of each 
sector to the overall risks presented by the facilities in the 
halogenated solvent source category. In this way, we were able to show 
the contribution of each sector's risk to the risk from the entire 
category. Therefore, contrary to petitioners' allegations, our re-
analyses of the risks in the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule did not 
exclude a subset of the halogenated solvent cleaning machines source 
category and therefore, did not understate or fail to consider a 
portion of the risks associated with the entire source category.
    With regard to the issues on which EPA is granting reconsideration, 
one petitioner states that we failed to consider the risk assessment 
prepared by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of 
Environmental Protection (PADEP),\12\ and that our maximum

[[Page 62390]]

individual cancer risk level of 70-in-1 million associated with the 
narrow tubing industry was erroneous given the associated risks of 160-
in-1 million indicated by PADEP's risk assessment. Another petitioner 
contends that the certain assumptions underlying EPA's risk assessment 
for the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule are erroneous. In support of 
its position, the petitioner cites EPA's use of census block centroids 
to predict MIR. The petitioner argues that EPA should have estimated 
risk at the nearest residence and that EPA's census block approach may 
have resulted in an underprediction of risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ In addition to raising the PADEP risk assessment in their 
Petitions, Petitioners identified certain other documents dated 
after the close of the public comment period, which they argue are 
of central relevance to the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule. If 
the Petitioners believe that these documents are relevant to the 
issues on which we are granting reconsideration in this rule, we 
invite petitioners to submit the documents to EPA during the public 
comment period. We will consider such documents at the same time we 
consider all significant comments received during the comment period 
for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We reviewed the risk assessment prepared by the PADEP, and we 
disagree with their conclusion that our estimated MIR risk level 
associated with the narrow tubing industry is erroneous. The PADEP risk 
assessment was based on ambient monitoring data collected in 2004. 
(PADEP continues to collect ambient data on TCE in the Collegeville, 
PA, area.) From 2004 to 2007, the annual average TCE concentrations 
measured over the 4 years ranged from 0.6 micrograms per cubic meter 
([mu]g/m\3\) to 1.5 [mu]g/m\3\ (avg. = 0.9 [mu]g/m\3\) at the 
Evansberg, PA site and 1.2 [mu]g/m\3\ to 1.3 [mu]g/m\3\ (avg. = 1.3 
[mu]g/m\3\) at the Trappe, PA, site. We extended our risk assessment, 
which was based on dispersion modeling of TCE emissions from the two 
Collegeville, PA, halogenated solvent cleaning facilities in the 2002 
NEI emissions inventory, to estimate TCE concentrations of 0.8 [mu]g/ 
m\3\ and 1.4 [mu]g/m\3\ at the Evansberg and Trappe monitoring sites, 
respectively. Thus, from an ambient air concentration perspective, the 
two risk assessments are consistent. The risk assessments differ, 
however, because TCE exposures were assessed using different cancer 
unit risk estimates (URE) for TCE. Following the long-established EPA 
policy, we used the California EPA (CalEPA) inhalation URE for TCE. In 
contrast, PADEP used a unit risk value for TCE developed by EPA in a 
draft report issued in 2001. That draft report was subjected to peer 
review by the EPA's Science Advisory Board, and the Board raised 
several important issues. As a result of the Science Advisory Board's 
input on the draft report, EPA asked the National Academy of Sciences 
(NAS) to examine issues critical to developing an objective, realistic, 
and scientifically-based health assessment of TCE. The NAS released 
their report in 2006, providing EPA further insight as they develop a 
revised health risk assessment for TCE. EPA never finalized the 2001 
draft report because of the significant issues raised by the Science 
Advisory Board and NAS. Thus, PADEP's use of EPA's draft 2001 TCE risk 
assessment neither satisfies the basic requirements of our peer review 
policy, nor is the draft 2001 TCE risk assessment currently endorsed by 
the EPA's Office of Research and Development.
    In addition, PADEP used an oral cancer slope value from the draft 
TCE document instead of the inhalation value derived in that document, 
and extrapolated the oral cancer slope factor for use in their 
inhalation risk assessment. Use of such an extrapolation is considered 
substantially inferior to use of values developed directly from 
inhalation data. PADEP's use of the draft extrapolated URE in their 
assessment resulted in the estimation of a maximum individual cancer 
risk of 160-in-1 million at the Trappe site, a risk which is 
approximately 50 times higher than what the EPA risk assessment 
indicates for that location. Thus, while both risk assessments are 
consistent with respect to the estimates of ambient TCE concentrations 
around these monitoring sites, there is a significant difference in the 
estimation of individual cancer risk. The difference results from PADEP 
using a cancer potency value that would not be considered acceptable 
under EPA's Information Quality Guidelines because it did not withstand 
a rigorous scientific peer review.
    Several petitioners stated that the EPA's decision to use available 
data from the 2002 NEI, instead of data from the 1999 NEI as proposed, 
appeared for the first time in the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule, 
making it impracticable to raise objections during the period provided 
for public comment.
    Based on public comments on our August 2006 Proposal, our risk 
assessment for the entire source category that was presented in the 
Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule used the 2002 NEI database instead of 
the 1999 NEI database as presented at proposal. The 2002 NEI database 
was unavailable at proposal. Further, since receipt of the petitions, 
we have conducted additional risk assessments using facility emissions 
from both the 1999 and 2002 NEI, explicitly assessing the risks 
separately for each of the industry sectors identified above at various 
levels of control, similar to our August 2006 Proposal and the 
Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule. In this way, we have been able to 
show the contribution of each sector's risk to the risk from the entire 
source category. The 1999 NEI contains information for 1,167 
halogenated solvent cleaning facilities, out of which 743 emit 
carcinogenic HAP. The 2002 NEI contains information for 1,080 
halogenated solvent cleaning facilities, out of which 734 emit 
carcinogenic HAP. Considering the uncertainties associated with the 
development of emission inventories, we consider neither the 1999 nor 
the 2002 NEI to be accurate in an absolute sense. Rather, we consider 
them to be our best estimates of annual snapshots of emissions for this 
source category. For each base year risk assessment, we scale-up the 
modeled results to reflect what we believe to be the true number of 
facilities in the source category, approximately 1,900. Given our 
knowledge of the NEI database and as a result of meetings with industry 
we believe that 1,900 is a better estimate of the number of sources in 
the source category.
    To develop an estimate of facilities currently operating, EPA asked 
State and EPA regional source category contacts for estimates of the 
number of cleaning machines in their jurisdictions. As a result of that 
effort, EPA concluded that there were 3,821 halogenated solvent 
cleaning machines nationwide. EPA also determined that there was on 
average about two machines per facility, therefore, EPA estimated a 
total of 1,932 solvent cleaning facilities currently existing 
nationwide. Therefore, for the development of this rule, the number of 
sources in this source category was assumed to be about 3,800 cleaning 
machines located at 1,900 facilities nationwide. This estimate is based 
on information collected by EPA in 1998 and in 2005. If the scale-up 
had not been implemented the cost and HI results would be reduced by 56 
percent (given that the scale-up factor is 1.76) relative to the number 
of facilities and may not truly represent the affected universe. We 
request comment on the use of the scale-up to accurately represent the 
universe of sources.
    In addition, the Johnson and Capel (1992) population mobility 
model,\13\ used to develop the population risk distribution for the 
Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule, was updated subsequent to 
promulgation of that rule. The updated model reflects the use of more 
recent Surveys of Income and Program

[[Page 62391]]

Participation (SIPP) data and a newer, more complete modeling approach. 
The new model randomly selects subjects from the U.S. Census Bureau's 
American Community Survey database,\14\ and estimates time already 
spent in the residence, future time to be spent in the residence, and 
future length of life. These estimates are then combined to predict the 
total time, past and future, that the subject would occupy the current 
residence. Results are then compared with SIPP residence time data and 
adjusted to compensate for ``residential inertia'' (i.e., a tendency in 
the SIPP data for long-term residents to have lower-than-expected move 
rates). As a result of this update to the modeling approach, the 
baseline population risk estimates in this preamble differ somewhat 
from those presented in the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule. This 
preamble (section III) presents risk estimates based on the 2002 NEI. 
We believe the 2002 NEI is likely to provide more accurate estimates of 
current emissions from the source category (compared to the 1999 NEI), 
reflecting known decreases in solvent demand and use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Ted Johnson and Jim Capel. 1992. A Monte Carlo Approach to 
Simulating Residential Occupancy Periods and Its Application to the 
General U.S. Population, EPA-450/3-92-011, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. (This information 
has been placed in the docket for this rule).
    \14\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2007. American Community Survey. 
Available online at http://www.census.gov/acs/www/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since promulgation of the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule, we 
have also become aware of a newer assessment for non-cancer effects of 
TCE developed by the New York State Department of Health (NYS DOH). The 
NYS DOH states that their ``air criterion,'' is ``essentially 
equivalent to an United States Environmental Protection Agency's (US 
EPA, 2002a) reference concentration (RfC) * * * or an Agency for Toxic 
Substances and Disease Registry's (ATSDR, 1996) chronic minimal risk 
level (MRL) * * * .'' \15\ In addition to evaluating a number of 
studies which look at numerous different toxicological endpoints, the 
NYS DOH air criterion relies on a 1993 study which evaluated clinical 
neurological effects (as measured by coordination tests) in 99 Danish 
workers. For 70 of these workers, the dominant exposure was TCE, while 
for 25 of the workers the dominant exposure was to CFC 113. Air 
exposures were extrapolated from measurements of the urinary metabolite 
TCA. Limitations of this study include some uncertainty about the 
actual long-term exposure levels of the workers to TCE during their 
employment, and that 25 of the 99 subjects were exposed primarily to 
CFC 113. The NYS DOH assessment is limited by gaps in the data on 
developmental effects and immunotoxicity, and concerns about adequacy 
of methods for evaluating health risks to children (limitations it 
shares with the CalEPA assessment). The results of the scientific 
review are described in the NYS DOH toxicological review document.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ New York State Department of Health, Trichloroethene Air 
Criteria Document, October 2006, page 1, http://www.health.state.ny.us/environmental/chemicals/trichloroethene/docs/cd_tce.pdf.
    \16\ NYS DOH toxicological review document. http://www.health.state.ny.us/environmental/chemicals/trichloroethene/docs/cd_tce.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CalEPA inhalation reference exposure level (REL) \17\ used in 
the risk assessment for this proposal and our previous assessment was 
based on a 1973 study of 19 workers who experienced symptoms of 
drowsiness, fatigue, headache, and eye irritation. CalEPA identified 
the use of human exposure data from workers exposed over a period of 
years as a strength of the REL. The lack of reproductive and 
developmental toxicity studies and the lack of a no effect level were 
identified as major areas of uncertainty. Both CalEPA and NYS DOH had 
an external peer review process and allowed for public comment before 
finalizing their respective assessments. The NYS DOH assessment was 
finalized in 2006 and the CalEPA assessment was finalized in 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ California EPA, 1999. Chronic toxicity summary: 
Trichloroethylene. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/chronic_rels/pdf/79016.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Non-cancer risk results were derived using the NYS DOH TCE air 
criterion as well as using the CalEPA value in the additional risk 
assessments completed since promulgation of the Halogenated Solvent 
Cleaning rule. The results of our additional risk assessments are 
summarized in section III of this preamble and the complete 
documentation is available in the docket for this rulemaking. In this 
action, we are providing this additional risk analysis and are 
soliciting comment on it, including comments on the use of the NYS DOH 
air criterion. We note that we received no comments recommending use of 
the NYS DOH TCE air criterion either in comment on the proposed rule, 
in comment on the NODA, or in any of the petitions for reconsideration 
submitted to the EPA.
    The additional risk assessment conducted in support of this 
proposal reaffirms our baseline risk analysis that was presented in the 
Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule. The results are summarized in Table 
1, below. Specifically, the analysis confirms that: (1) The baseline 
MIR for the entire source category is approximately 100-in-1 million 
and (2) the total cancer incidence associated with the source category 
is approximately 0.55 cases per year. The updated population risk 
distribution at baseline emission levels shows that 100 people are 
exposed to risk levels at or above 100-in-1 million, 82,000 people are 
estimated to have risks between 10-in-1 million and 100-in-1 million, 
and 8,000,000 people are estimated to have risks between 1-in-1 million 
and 10-in-1 million. These values can be compared to the baseline risk 
estimates that we presented in the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule, 
i.e., about 25 people exposed to risks at or above 100-in-1 million, 
about 22,000 people at estimated risks between 10-in-1 million and 100-
in-1 million risk level, and about 4,000,000 people at estimated risks 
between 1-in-1 million and 10-in-1 million.
    Additionally, in our previous risk assessment for the Halogenated 
Solvent Cleaning rule, the maximum hazard index (HI) was 0.2 (this HI 
is associated with the compound TCA), and there were no facilities with 
a HI greater than 1. However, if we were to use the NYS DOH air 
criterion for TCE mentioned above, rather than the CalEPA REL and apply 
the national scaling factor \18\ we estimate that there are ten 
facilities with HI greater than 1 and a maximum HI of 7. A chronic HI 
less than or equal to 1 indicated that there is no appreciable risk of 
adverse effects. Although, a chronic HI greater than 1 raises concern 
over potential toxicity, the numerical magnitude of the HI must be 
interpreted in the context of the supporting information. Thus, we 
examined these ten HI values greater than 1 in the context of 
uncertainties and additional supporting information. In the risk 
assessment document used to support the August 2006 proposal, we stated 
that the approach used then (and in all subsequent risk analyses for 
this source category) was a reasonable one which was more likely to 
over-predict risks than under-predict them. When we consider the 
distribution of the population at different HI levels, we see that out 
of a total exposed population of approximately 6 million people living 
around the ten facilities, only 2,000 people are estimated to be 
exposed to concentrations whose HI values exceed 1. Further, when the 
underlying information for the NY value is considered, we see that the 
NYS DOH air criterion incorporates a significant

[[Page 62392]]

degree of health protection in its use of a composite uncertainty 
factor of 1000. The range of maximum HI values (0.2 to 7) resulting 
from consideration of reference values from both CalEPA and NYS DOH is 
indicative of the range of uncertainty in the toxicity estimates for 
TCE. When the NYS DOH value is used, the maximum HI is 7; however, when 
the CalEPA value is used, the maximum HI becomes 0.2 and the 0.2 value 
is no longer driven by TCE emissions, but by TCA emissions. Thus, 
considering that our models would tend to overestimate risk, the 
limited number of people living around these ten facilities whose 
exposures correspond to HI values above 1, and the health-protective 
factors inherent in the derivation of the NY central nervous system 
value, we conclude that the chronic non-cancer risks estimated around 
these ten facilities using the NY criteria value and associated with 
the baseline scenario are, in this case, acceptable. We are seeking 
comment on whether the scaling factor applied to the narrow tubing 
facilities and population exposed, as discussed earlier, is appropriate 
in this case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The 2002 NEI contained 1,080 facilities and we estimate 
that there are a nationwide total of 1,900 facilities in this source 
category, we scale up the facility population by a factor of 1.76 to 
obtain an estimated total of facilities for the HI analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have not conducted any additional assessment of environmental 
risks for this source category. The record established in the 
Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule is sufficient to conclude that ``no 
adverse environmental effects,'' as defined in CAA section 112(a)(7), 
are associated with the emissions from these sources. After considering 
all of these health risk measures and factors in this action, we are 
again concluding that the risks associated with the 1994 NESHAP are 
acceptable.

 Table 1--Estimated Baseline Cancer Risk, Population Risk Distribution,
and Estimated Number of Facilities at Various Risk Levels Using NEI 2002
    Data: Scaled to National Level--All Halogenated Solvent Cleaning
                               Facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Baseline no
                  Cancer risk results                        control
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated maximum individual lifetime cancer risk (per               100
 million) \1\.........................................
Estimated annual cancer incidence \2\.................              0.55
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Estimated lifetime cancer risk (per million)  persons
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     100
>= 10 to < 100........................................            82,000
>= 1 to < 10..........................................         8,000,000
Total Pop >= 1........................................         8,082,100
                                                       -----------------
    Total Population Living within 50 km of any              200,000,000
     Halogenated Solvent Cleaner......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Estimated lifetime cancer risk (per million)  facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       9
>= 10 to < 100........................................                86
>= 1 to < 10..........................................               394
< 1 (only carcinogen emitters)........................               802
< 1 (including sources emitting non-carcinogens) \3\..             1,411
                                                       -----------------
    Estimated total number of facilities \4\..........            1,900
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Estimated maximum individual lifetime cancer risks are rounded to
  one significant figure.
\2\ Estimated annual cancer incidence and population counts have been
  rounded to two or three significant figures where appropriate.
\3\ Includes facilities with cancer risk < 1 plus 609 (346 scaled up) of
  the Year 2002 facilities that emit only the non-carcinogen 1,1,1-
  trichloroethane (TCA).
\4\ Represents the total number of facilities in this category. This
  facility count should equal the sum of facilities with any MIR greater
  than or equal to 1 and the number of facilities with less than 1
  (including sources emitting non-carcinogens).

B. Decision on Ample Margin of Safety

    Petitioners raised a number of issues related to the approach and 
information that we used in making the ample margin of safety 
determination in the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule. In the 
following sections we summarize and address these issues. In addition, 
the following sections present regulatory options that we are proposing 
in this action, as well as health information, cost information, and 
other relevant factors that support an ample margin of safety analysis 
for those options. Finally, this section provides reasons why EPA might 
choose one option over another in our final action.
1. What is the approach used in making the ample margin of safety 
determination?
    Petitioners raised a number of issues pertaining to EPA's overall 
approach to conducting ample margin of safety analyses and making ample 
margin of safety determinations, and we address these issues in this 
section of the preamble. The petitioners also raise a number of points 
directed at EPA's obligations and discretion under the CAA, as well as 
our exercise of those obligations and that discretion. Issues raised by 
petitioners that pertain to more specific topics or analyses related to 
our ample margin of safety determination are addressed later in this 
notice.
    Several petitioners contend that our finding for facilities that 
manufacture narrow tubing that the 1994 NESHAP provides an ample margin 
of safety to protect public health is arbitrary and capricious because 
it rests on an ``erroneous assumption that the MIR from (narrow tubing) 
facilities is 70-in-1 million'' given that PADEP risk data indicated 
risks of 160-in-1 million associated with the same facilities in the 
Collegeville, PA area. As discussed in the previous section, we believe 
that the PADEP risk assessment is in error, and instead rely on our 
estimated baseline MIR for the narrow tubing industry of 70-in-1 
million. One petitioner also contended that ``(d)espite the principle 
articulated by EPA in the Benzene NESHAP that residual risk standards

[[Page 62393]]

should `protect the greatest number of persons possible to an 
individual lifetime risk level no higher than approximately 1-in-1 
million,' '' the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule failed to 
demonstrate that it reduced risk in this manner. Petitioners further 
claim that consideration of cost-effectiveness of controls in making an 
ample margin of safety finding is unlawful and does not conform to the 
Benzene NESHAP approach. For example, one petitioner stated that ``EPA 
claims that `incremental' reductions in risk that would result from the 
40,000 kg/yr instead of the 60,000 kg/yr are not cost-effective.'' 
Petitioners argue that cost and cost-effectiveness are different 
concepts and CAA section 112(f)(2)(B) does not contemplate basing the 
ample margin of safety analysis on cost-effectiveness. The petitioner 
stated that EPA's reliance on cost-effectiveness changes the inquiry 
from whether the residual risk standards provide an ample margin of 
safety to protect public health, as intended by Congress, to a far more 
discretionary inquiry of whether controls measures are cost-effective.
    Petitioners claim that CAA section 112(f)(2)(B) does not 
contemplate basing the ample margin of safety analysis on cost-
effectiveness, suggesting that EPA inappropriately and impermissibly 
considered cost-effectiveness as well as incremental cost-effectiveness 
(as opposed to just cost) in making our ample margin of safety 
determination.
    EPA disagrees with the petitioners and contends that the CAA 
contemplates consideration of cost-effectiveness in ample margin of 
safety determinations. The Benzene NESHAP, which is incorporated into 
CAA section 112(f)(2) by reference, explains that in the second step of 
the ample margin of safety analysis we consider all of the health risks 
and other health information considered in the first step--determining 
what level of risk is acceptable. The Benzene NESHAP goes on to explain 
that in the second step; in the ample margin of safety decision, we 
consider additional factors relating to the appropriate level of 
control, including costs and economic impacts of controls, 
technological feasibility, uncertainties and other relevant factors. To 
reiterate, in the second step of the ample margin of safety 
determination, we adopt standards at the level that provides an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health. That level may be equal to 
or more stringent than the acceptable risk level. The EPA's authority 
to consider such factors was affirmed in NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d. 1077, 
1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which stated:

    * * * subsection 112(f)(2)(B) expressly incorporates EPA's 
interpretation of the Clean Air Act from the Benzene standard, 
complete with a citation to the Federal Register. In that 
rulemaking, EPA set forth its standard for benzene ``at a level that 
provides an `ample margin of safety' in consideration of all health 
information * * * as well as other relevant factors including costs 
and economic impacts, technological feasibility, and other factors 
relevant to each particular decision.'' 54 FR 38045. (Emphasis in 
original).

    In discussing the second step of the ample margin of safety 
analysis in the Benzene NESHAP, the EPA stated that other relevant 
factors, aside from cost and feasibility, could include, but are not 
limited to, impact on the national economy, small business impacts, 
cost-effectiveness, incremental cost-effectiveness, or net benefits. 
Indeed, with regard to the consideration of cost-effectiveness and 
incremental cost-effectiveness, the Benzene NESHAP states that:

    Because the court (in Vinyl Chloride) has specifically 
sanctioned the consideration of costs as well as feasibility of 
controls, it is clear that Vinyl Chloride does not require 
imposition of the maximum feasible controls without regard to cost 
or effectiveness. (54 FR 38057).

    The EPA further stated in the Benzene NESHAP that:

    * * * EPA concluded that all the relevant health, technological 
and economic information should be considered in making the ample 
margin of safety decision. Accordingly, EPA rejects the position 
that the maximum feasible control technologies should be applied in 
all cases and accepts the position that an analysis of incremental 
risk reduction benefits versus incremental costs of additional 
controls be performed to help determine if additional control is 
warranted. (54 FR 38061).

    Based on the foregoing, the EPA can consider, among other things, 
cost-effectiveness and incremental cost-effectiveness in the second 
step of the ample margin of safety decision.
    Petitioners contend that even if CAA section 112(f)(2)(B) allows 
for consideration of cost-effectiveness, the EPA failed to provide a 
reasoned explanation supporting its cost conclusions in the Halogenated 
Solvent Cleaning rule. In particular, the petitioners argue that the 
EPA has not explained why the cost and cost-effectiveness values 
estimated by the EPA for options that were assessed in the rule, but 
ultimately rejected, were unacceptable. Petitioners also contend that 
in the past the EPA has promulgated other rules where estimates of cost 
or cost-effectiveness are within the range of those for options 
rejected in the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule. For example, 
Petitioners assert that a $3,600/ton cost-effectiveness is well within 
range of cost-effectiveness that the EPA has found acceptable in the 
past for less toxic pollutants. Petitioners also question why a cost-
effectiveness of $3,400/ton and $2,000/ton for facilities that use 
continuous web cleaning machines and aerospace manufacturing and 
maintenance facilities, respectively, is not reasonable. Petitioners 
further contend that a cost-effectiveness of $520/ton and annualized 
costs of $1.2 million for the proposed 25,000 kg/yr MC equivalent limit 
and $74/ton and annualized costs of $130,000 for the proposed 40,000 
kg/yr MC equivalent limit are well within the range of costs the EPA 
has found acceptable in the past. Some petitioners also contend that 
the EPA failed to calculate costs of 30 percent TCE reduction as 
indicated in response to comments at proposal by one facility that 
manufactures narrow tubing.
    The EPA's rationale supporting its ample margin of safety decision 
was set forth in the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule. Consistent with 
the Benzene NESHAP, after determining that risks were acceptable, the 
EPA weighed the health information evaluated in the acceptability 
determination and other relevant factors as specified in the Benzene 
NESHAP to determine the appropriate level of control to provide an 
ample margin of safety (e.g., see excerpts from the EPA's analysis in 
the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule, below). As noted above, the 
Benzene NESHAP is inherently and necessarily flexible regarding what 
factors the EPA might consider, and how they might be weighed, in our 
ample margin of safety analysis, stating that ``* * * EPA believes the 
relative weight of the many factors that can be considered in selecting 
an ample margin of safety can only be determined for each specific 
source category. This occurs mainly because technological and economic 
factors (along with the health-related factors) vary from source 
category to source category.'' (54 FR 38061).
    Concerning the petitioners' assertion that the EPA did not explain 
why the magnitude of certain cost and cost-effectiveness values that 
supported the EPA's decision were unacceptable, and the petitioner's 
contention that these values are in fact similar to values estimated 
for other pollutants in previous rulemakings, the EPA affirms that we 
conducted our analysis in

[[Page 62394]]

accordance with the framework established in the Benzene NESHAP. With 
regard to comparing cost or cost-effectiveness values to values in past 
rules, the EPA points out that the Benzene NESHAP specifically 
discourages such a practice: ``(EPA) does not intend to use `bright-
line' cost-effectiveness ratios to make the ample margin of safety 
decision but rather will consider such information with all the other 
relevant information available for this decision.'' (54 FR 38061). 
Further, as explained above, the Benzene NESHAP provides that the ample 
margin of safety analysis is a category-specific determination (``the 
relative weight of the many factors that can be considered in selecting 
an ample margin of safety can only be determined for each specific 
source category'') reflecting the consideration of a number of factors, 
all of which may be weighed differently for different source categories 
such that comparisons of the magnitudes of factors are rendered 
meaningless.
    The EPA also clearly explained how we determined ample margin of 
safety and why the minimal risk reductions achieved by the options we 
ultimately rejected in the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule did not 
warrant the disproportionate costs. For example, in addition to other 
detailed results, we stated in the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule 
that:

    The finding regarding an `ample margin of safety' is based on a 
consideration of the relatively small reductions in health risks 
likely to result from the feasible emission reductions we evaluated, 
the additional costs required to achieve further control, the lack 
of technically feasible control options for these sectors, and the 
time required to comply with any requirements. (72 FR 25146)

and

    Therefore, we believe that a requirement for these facilities to 
meet a 100,000 kg/yr MC equivalent emission limit is technically 
feasible, provides an annual and long-term cost savings, provides an 
ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevents adverse 
environmental effects. (72 FR 25145)

and

    After considering revisions to the risk and cost estimates 
presented at proposal, we believe that the 60,000 kg/yr MC 
equivalent emission limit for those halogenated solvent cleaning 
machines not identified as being in use by one of the four sectors 
discussed in section II, above, protects public health with an ample 
margin of safety and prevents adverse environmental effects. 
Specifically, the 60,000 kg/yr level reduces 90 percent of the HAP 
emissions reduced at the 40,000 kg/yr level. The 60,000 kg/year 
emission limit achieves reductions in MIR and cancer incidence that 
are similar to those expected at the 25,000 kg/yr and 40,000 kg/yr 
emission levels. The incremental reduction in emissions with a 
40,000 kg/yr level instead of 60,000 kg/yr imposes an incremental 
cost of $1.5 million per year. The incremental cost per ton of this 
reduction is roughly $9,000/ton.
    Moreover, in comparing the 40,000 kg/yr and the 60,000 kg/yr 
emission limits, the incremental cost per cancer case avoided, $73 
million/case, is substantial, supporting our conclusion that the 
$60,000 kg/yr emission limit provides an ample margin of safety 
consistent with the Benzene NESHAP. (72 FR 25145)

    Moreover, contrary to the petitioners' claims, an analysis such as 
the one we provided in the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule is 
consistent with, and more comprehensive than, similar analyses 
presented in the Benzene NESHAP. For example, one ample margin of 
safety analysis in the Benzene NESHAP offered the conclusion that:

    * * * this control option will reduce benzene emissions by 70 to 
90 Mg/yr, which represents less than an additional one percent 
reduction over the uncontrolled level. The cost of this additional 
emission reduction (and consequent risk reduction) would be about 
$200,000/yr (1982 dollars). While this additional cost is small, it 
is disproportionately large in comparison to the small additional 
emission and risk reduction achieved. (54 FR 38050)

While it is ultimately irrelevant (for the reasons stated above), the 
EPA notes that annualized costs rejected in the Benzene NESHAP itself--
$200,000 per year in 1982 dollars, or approximately $430,000 \19\ per 
year in 2007 dollars--are even less than the cost estimates for options 
that the EPA rejected that are cited by the petitioners (e.g., see 
above where the petitioner cites $600,000; $630,000, and $700,000 per 
year).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Escalation in costs is calculated using the CPI-U (ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioners cite to the Benzene NESHAP, arguing ``that residual 
risk standards should `protect the greatest number of persons possible 
to an individual lifetime risk level no higher than approximately 1-in-
1 million.' '' Petitioners focus, however, on one facet of the Benzene 
NESHAP in isolation, without accounting for the fact that the EPA 
evaluates various factors as part of the ample margin of safety 
determination. Specifically, the Benzene NESHAP states that ``* * * EPA 
strives to provide maximum feasible protection against risks to health 
from hazardous air pollutants by (1) protecting the greatest number of 
persons possible to an individual lifetime risk level no higher than 
approximately 1 in 1 million and (2) limiting (maximum individual risk, 
the MIR) to no higher than approximately 1 in 10 thousand * * *'' (54 
FR 38044-38045). The Benzene NESHAP continues with an explicit 
statement that

    ``(i)mplementation of these goals is by means of a two-step 
standard-setting approach'' (54 FR 38045), which the notice explains 
further in greater detail. As described in this preamble (and in the 
Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule), the EPA has implemented the two-
step standard-setting approach to achieve these goals. As an 
additional note, the EPA points out that the Benzene NESHAP is 
unambiguous that ``* * * it is clear that * * * (the court) does not 
require imposition of the maximum feasible controls without regard 
to cost or effectiveness'' (54 FR 38057).

    Petitioners further claim that category-wide residual risk 
standards must be set for the entire source category, but that the 
EPA's rule exempted certain machines. First, the EPA would like to 
reiterate that we did not ``exempt'' machines in our Halogenated 
Solvent Cleaning rule. The EPA implemented the statutorily-mandated 
two-step Benzene NESHAP framework and ultimately re-adopted the 1994 
NESHAP for certain segments of the source category. Our authority to 
re-adopt the NESHAP in our residual risk rulemaking was recently 
affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit in NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077 (D.C. Cir. 2008). In 
that case, the court stated that ``If EPA determines that the existing 
technology-based standards already provide an `ample margin of safety,' 
then the agency is free to readopt those standards during a residual 
risk rulemaking.'' In this rule, we have adhered to the two-step 
approach set forth in the Benzene NESHAP, and we are proposing a range 
of regulatory options.
2. Overview of Options Examined
    Similar to the approach taken in our August 2006 Proposal and 
discussed in the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule, we have evaluated a 
range of regulatory options and have assessed the residual risk 
reductions that could be achieved if post-MACT HAP emissions were 
controlled further. These options incorporate MC equivalent based 
emission limits because we continue to believe that such emission 
limits (e.g., as promulgated in the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule 
that is the subject of this reconsideration) may provide an opportunity 
for additional risk reduction. These options were derived from 
information on the availability and feasibility of specific emission 
control technologies or practices, and are expressed as maximum 
facility-wide

[[Page 62395]]

emission limits and requirements that would apply to the total 
emissions from all of a facility's solvent cleaning machines that are 
subject to the 1994 NESHAP. This proposal also reflects our 
investigations of information received subsequent to promulgation of 
the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule and our belief based on that 
information that certain emission limits could be achieved through both 
solvent switching and traditional technologies and practices for some 
sectors of the category. We have produced additional risk and cost 
analyses to support the evaluation of these proposed regulatory 
options.
    We recognize that some commenters may either endorse aspects of one 
or more of the proposed regulatory options or advocate for a 
combination of the options in ways other than presented in this 
proposal. Specifically, comments that we receive may lead us to 
conclude that the most appropriate regulatory approach would be one 
that combines sector-specific alternatives from different options. This 
proposal seeks to allow such an approach by providing the risk (Table 
3, section III) and cost (Table 5, section III) estimates that 
correspond to each of the sector-specific alternatives that make up the 
broader options (Options 1, 2, and 3) we are proposing. The estimated 
risk reductions and associated costs for Options 1, 2 and 3 are 
presented in Tables 2 and 4 below. This approach differs from our 
August 2006 Proposal where we explicitly solicited comments on only two 
co-proposed options, although we had also developed six emission levels 
to evaluate reductions in residual risk if post-MACT emissions (i.e., 
baseline emissions) were controlled further from this source category. 
Thus, we are soliciting comments on options 1 through 3, and any 
combination of the proposed sector-specific options identified in this 
proposal. Our decision on the final regulatory approach will reflect 
the comments we receive. The options are summarized below:
i. Proposed Option 1
    A 60,000 kg/yr MC equivalent limit would be applicable to sources 
associated with the general population of halogenated solvent cleaning 
machines. A 100,000 kg/yr MC equivalent limit would be applicable to 
halogenated solvent cleaning machines located at military maintenance 
and depot facilities. With respect to facilities that use continuous 
web cleaning machines, halogenated solvent cleaning machines used by 
facilities that manufacture narrow tubing, and halogenated solvent 
cleaning machines used by aerospace manufacturing and maintenance 
facilities, we are proposing to re-adopt the 1994 NESHAP under CAA 
section 112(f)(2) because we are proposing that the current level of 
control called for by the 1994 NESHAP reduces HAP emissions to levels 
that present an acceptable level of risk, provide an ample margin of 
safety to protect public health, and prevent any adverse environmental 
effects. (This option represents the standards promulgated in the 
Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule.)
ii. Proposed Option 2
    A 60,000 kg/yr MC equivalent limit would be applicable to sources 
associated with the general population of halogenated solvent cleaning 
machines and halogenated solvent cleaning machines used by facilities 
that manufacture narrow tubing. A 100,000 kg/yr MC equivalent limit 
would be applicable to halogenated solvent cleaning machines located at 
military maintenance and depot facilities. With respect to facilities 
that use continuous web cleaning machines, and halogenated solvent 
cleaning machines used by aerospace manufacturing and maintenance 
facilities, we are proposing to re-adopt the 1994 NESHAP under CAA 
section 112(f)(2) because we are proposing that the current level of 
control called for by the 1994 NESHAP reduces HAP emissions to levels 
that present an acceptable level of risk, provide an ample margin of 
safety to protect public health, and prevent any adverse environmental 
effects.
iii. Proposed Option 3
    A 60,000 kg/yr MC equivalent limit would be applicable to sources 
associated with the general population of halogenated solvent cleaning 
machines and halogenated solvent cleaning machines used by facilities 
that manufacture narrow tubing. A 100,000 kg/yr MC equivalent limit 
would be applicable to halogenated solvent cleaning machines used by 
aerospace manufacturing and maintenance facilities and halogenated 
solvent cleaning machines located at military maintenance and depot 
facilities. Facilities that use continuous web cleaning machines that 
exceed 60,000 kg/yr MC equivalent HAP emissions would have to achieve 
80 percent overall control efficiency for those units.
3. How Did the EPA Establish the Proposed Regulatory Options?
    This section describes our determination that the above proposed 
regulatory options are technically feasible. Additionally, section III 
discusses human health risks and costs associated with these options. 
Similar to our August 2006 Proposal and our May 3, 2007 final rule, we 
have also re-examined and re-evaluated the impacts to small businesses 
associated with the alternative emission limits based on supporting 
information from the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule (contained in 
the docket for that rule) and information we received after 
promulgation of the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule. Our discussion 
of the small business impacts of this action are presented in section 
VI of this preamble.
    Several petitioners contend that we did not evaluate all of the 
control options provided in response to our August 2006 Proposal and 
subsequent NODA. However, the EPA did carefully evaluate specific 
comments from commenters on costs, on results, on technical 
compatibility with products and technical feasibility. While commenters 
identified specific control options, most indicated implementing such 
controls were not feasible because of physical limitations of the 
facility or the proposed compliance timeframes.
    Petitioners also provided information indicating that certain 
manufacturers in the narrow tube industry, after the close of the 
comment period for our August 17, 2006 proposal, either instituted or 
began planning the installation of various control measures that would 
have achieved the emission limitations that the EPA co-proposed in 
August 2006 and contend that this information was of central relevance 
to the outcome of the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule. Petitioners 
further contend that we excluded available alternative control measures 
without providing an explanation in the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning 
rule, that we frequently set technology-forcing standards, and that 
recognizing the responses by the affected industries regarding 
compliance difficulty is not an excuse for our failure to set a 
standard. In the May 3, 2007 rule, the EPA set a final standard 
according to section 112(f)(2) and 112(d)(6) and provided explanations 
for that final standard. In response to the petitioners comment on 
setting technology-forcing standards, the EPA is bound by CAA section 
112(f)(2) to make an ample margin of safety decision according to the 
Benzene NESHAP and not to extend this authority in setting technology-
forcing standards. In summary, petitioners contend that the 
requirements promulgated in the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule were 
not a logical

[[Page 62396]]

outgrowth of the August 2006 Proposal and December 2006 NODA.
    As part of this reconsideration effort, we have re-analyzed our 
conclusions on risk, cost, technical feasibility, and compliance 
deadlines made in the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule. In this action 
and in response to the petitions we reassessed the regulatory options 
for halogenated solvent cleaning machines used by facilities that 
manufacture narrow tubing, aerospace manufacturing and maintenance, 
military maintenance and depot facilities, facilities that use 
continuous web cleaning machines, and for all other halogenated solvent 
cleaning machines that are not included in these named sectors.
    This proposal is based on supporting data and information from the 
Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule (contained in the docket for that 
rule) and data and information received since promulgation of the 
Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule. Data and information received since 
promulgation of the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule indicates the 
availability of control measures that would enable certain facilities 
in the narrow tube industry and certain facilities that use continuous 
web cleaning machines to achieve HAP emission reductions that we did 
not believe feasible when we finalized the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning 
rule. In some cases, this proposal reflects a re-evaluation of the 
information on availability of control measures that we received in 
response to both the August 17, 2006 proposal and subsequent NODA, in 
light of information that we received since we promulgated the 
Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule.
    As in the final Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule, today's proposal 
recognizes that certain facilities might be able to use control 
measures that include retrofit technologies, such as a carbon 
adsorption device (CAD), and vacuum-to-vacuum machines, switching from 
HAP to non-HAP solvents, such as n-propyl bromide (nPB), changes to the 
manufacturing process, and instituting emission reduction programs. 
Further, this proposal recognizes and reflects the differences between 
facilities that use continuous web cleaning machines and batch cleaning 
machines, and acknowledges comments on the August 2006 Proposal and 
subsequent NODA indicating that control efficiency requirements rather 
than straight emission limits are a preferable approach for expressing 
emission limitations for facilities that use continuous web cleaning 
machines because continuous web cleaning machines must control 
emissions at both entry and exit points. These comments from some 
facilities that use continuous web cleaning machines suggested that 
their emission capture systems could be modified within a 3-year period 
to achieve an 80 percent overall control efficiency, over uncontrolled 
emission levels. Control efficiency requirements rather than straight 
emission limits are a preferable approach for expressing emission 
limitations for facilities that use continuous web cleaning machines, 
which is the same conclusion that we made in the final Halogenated 
Solvent Cleaning rule. In this action, we also are soliciting comments 
on whether CAD or emission capture systems operating at high efficiency 
would provide an opportunity for facilities that use continuous web 
cleaning machines to control up to 80 percent of their emissions. We 
note that although the final Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule also 
considered, but ultimately rejected, such an option, the option in 
today's proposal (described in more detail below) would restrict this 
requirement to facilities emitting over 60,000 kg/yr MC equivalent HAP 
emissions.
i. Narrow Tube Manufacturing Facilities
    Petitioners contend that we failed to consider and evaluate various 
compliance options for the facilities that manufacture narrow tubing 
despite responses and comments we received on both our August 17, 2006 
proposal and NODA. Specifically:
     Petitioners cite comments and responses to both the August 
17, 2006 proposal and the subsequent NODA from several facilities that 
manufacture narrow tubing indicating the likelihood of 25 percent TCE 
emission reductions through installation of CAD and a capture and 
control system. The EPA considered this comment in our final rule (see 
72 FR 25154) and concluded that while reductions may be obtained, the 
industry, through their comments, was unable to research, design and 
implement the necessary technological controls within the compliance 
period and the EPA's proposed costs.
     Petitioners cite responses by various facilities that 
manufacture narrow tubing indicating an ability to achieve emission 
reductions ranging from either 25-35 percent or 50-95 percent through 
installation of emission control devices and changes in production 
processes. The EPA considered this comment in developing our final rule 
and concluded that while reductions may be obtained through solvent 
switching and installation of controls, the narrow tube manufacturing 
industry, through their comments, indicated that there was inadequate 
research available to the industry to warrant solvent switching. They 
indicated the research, design and implementation could not be 
accomplished within the EPA's proposed compliance period and would 
exceed the EPA's proposed costs.
     Petitioners also cite responses indicating the ability of 
one particular facility to reduce TCE emissions from 68.4 tons per year 
(tpy) to 52 tpy. The EPA considered this comment in developing our 
final rule (see 72 FR 25154) and concluded that the industry, through 
their comments, was unable to research, design and implement the 
necessary technological controls within the compliance period and EPA's 
proposed costs. Petitioners further argue that we should have 
investigated the feasibility of establishing a 100,000 kg/yr MC 
equivalent emission limit given the response of one facility that 
manufactures narrow tubing indicating the ability to meet this level 
within five years of promulgation. The EPA did not develop this option 
for two reasons: First, Congress limits the EPA's ability to impose 
compliance periods that exceed three years, and, second, the industrial 
sector commented that they simply could not implement the necessary 
technology within the 3-year compliance period permitted by Congress 
and within the cost parameters the EPA assumed in the August 17, 2006 
proposal.

Subsequent to promulgation of the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule, 
Petitioners provided information to the EPA indicating that this 
industrial sector may, in fact, be capable of complying with the co-
proposed limits in our August 17, 2006 proposal within the 3-year 
compliance period provided in the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule. 
Petitioners also provided information indicating that subsequent to the 
close of the comment period of the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule 
various facilities that manufacture narrow tubing either installed 
control devices or were in advanced planning stages to install control 
devices that would enable them to achieve either of our August 17, 2006 
co-proposed emission limits. Specifically, subsequent to promulgation 
of the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule, one facility that 
manufactures narrow tubing has installed vacuum-to-vacuum machines. Two 
other facilities that manufacture narrow tubing have switched from 
solvent HAP to a non-HAP, nPB. One of these two facilities also 
indicated an ability to achieve eight

[[Page 62397]]

percent and 22 percent TCE emission reductions through reconfiguration 
of two flush degreasers and use of reformulated materials, 
respectively.\20\ Petitioners also provided information indicating that 
the other of the two facilities was in advanced installation stages for 
CAD and a capture and control system that would likely achieve 30 
percent TCE reduction. This information and supporting documentation 
have been placed in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ EPA notes that in this case the facility's permit does not 
identify a specific reformulated material that would be used to 
achieve 22 percent TCE emissions reduction. In addition, materials 
reformulation specified in the facility's permit could be 
implemented to reduce TCE emissions from an activity that is not in 
the source category addressed in today's notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained earlier, our August 17, 2006 proposal would have 
required all owners and operators of all halogenated solvent cleaning 
machines to comply with either 25,000 kg/yr or 40,000 kg/yr MC 
equivalent facility-wide emission limit. We assumed compliance with 
these limits could be achieved by installation of control technologies, 
such as vacuum-to-vacuum machines and CAD, and switching solvents, 
either from PCE to TCE or TCE to MC. We also assumed compliance would 
be achieved through retrofit technologies such as freeboard ratios, 
working mode covers and freeboard refrigeration devices. In commenting 
on our August 17, 2006 proposal, various facilities that manufacture 
narrow tubing indicated that further HAP control that would be required 
by the co-proposed standards would likely be achieved only through 
installation of expensive technology, and that such technologies had 
yet to be proven either effective or reliable for their manufacturing 
processes. They also expressed concerns over the proposed compliance 
period. Additionally, several facilities that manufacture narrow tubing 
that use PCE indicated that solvent switching was an unsuitable 
compliance option because they were bound to their customers' 
procedural requirements for the higher vapor temperature of PCE and 
thus, that both TCE and MC, which have lower vapor pressure 
temperature, would be inadequate for proper cleaning. Although some 
facilities that manufacture narrow tubing indicated the possibility of 
switching solvents from TCE to nPB, they also stated that it had yet to 
be proven as a degreaser and thus, had yet to be approved as an 
alternative solvent by many original equipment manufacturers. They 
further indicated that such approval processes would likely be beyond 
the proposed 2-year compliance period. Some facilities that manufacture 
narrow tubing also described their halogenated solvent cleaning 
machines as unique due to their large size and capacity and indicated 
the non-availability of vacuum-to-vacuum machines as a result.
    As explained above, subsequent to our evaluation of these comments, 
we issued a NODA that requested additional information on costs, 
compliance deadlines and technical feasibility for halogenated solvent 
cleaning at facilities that manufacture narrow tubing. In response, 
most facilities that manufacture narrow tubing reiterated and expanded 
upon the reasons why they were unable to comply with the 25,000 kg/yr 
and 40,000 kg/yr MC equivalent co-proposed limits due to technological 
factors, costs and compliance deadline constraints. The facilities that 
manufacture narrow tubing did, as noted by the petitioners and 
described at the beginning of this section, outline those emission 
reduction measures they believed they could achieve. Because we were 
persuaded by their assertions, we found, after re-evaluating risks, 
associated compliance costs and availability of control measures, that 
the 1994 NESHAP both reduces risk to acceptable levels and provides an 
ample margin of safety to protect public health for halogenated solvent 
cleaning machines used by facilities that manufacture narrow tubing. In 
the final Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule the EPA also considered, 
but ultimately rejected in our ample margin of safety analysis, a 
compliance option that would have required a 10 percent reduction in 
HAP emissions from facilities that manufacture narrow tubing. We 
believed this reduction could feasibly be achieved by facilities that 
manufacture narrow tubing within the compliance period through 
installation of side chambers, however the estimated risk reductions 
were small in comparison to the cost.
    We are now aware, however, that since promulgation of the 
Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule, at least four out of 17 facilities 
that manufacture narrow tubing have either implemented or instituted 
plans to install control measures and HAP reduction techniques that 
would likely achieve either of the August 17, 2006 co-proposed limits, 
i.e., 25,000 kg/yr and 40,000 k/yr MC equivalent limits. These control 
measures and HAP emission reduction techniques have been implemented 
within the compliance period--which earlier comments by the facilities 
indicated was not possible--and include:
     Installing CAD and vacuum-to-vacuum machines (installed by 
the facilities that manufacture narrow tubing that indicated uniqueness 
of their halogenated solvent cleaning machines due to size, in their 
comments on the August 17, 2006 proposal),
     Switching to nPB (a non-HAP solvent), and
     Manufacturing process changes such as cleaning smaller 
bundles of tubes and/or allowing product to remain in the machine for a 
longer duration to allow complete condensation of the solvent vapors 
before removal.

These accomplishments are applauded by the EPA, yet appear to be in 
direct conflict with the comments submitted on the August 17, 2006 
proposal and subsequent NODA.
    We are also aware that at least four facilities would not need to 
install any additional controls in order to comply with these proposed 
regulatory options. The remaining nine facilities continue to use HAP 
solvents and operate in accordance with the 1994 NESHAP. We believe the 
techniques and technologies employed by the four facilities that 
manufacture narrow tubing may be used by the remaining facilities to 
achieve further emission reductions to comply with the emission limit 
of 60,000 kg/yr MC equivalent.
    In light of the information that was otherwise not available to the 
EPA at the time of promulgation of the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning 
rule, we have reviewed and revised our conclusions on technical 
feasibility, the compliance deadline and compliance costs associated 
with meeting the August 17, 2006 co-proposed limits. With the 
activities completed by these facilities that manufacture narrow 
tubing, we believe that the remaining facilities that manufacture 
narrow tubing nationwide, most with lower total emissions than the 
facilities mentioned above, could achieve reductions in emissions 
within a 2-year compliance period and at a potentially reasonable cost. 
Therefore, as discussed in section III of this Preamble, we are 
proposing two regulatory options that would be applicable to 
halogenated solvent cleaning machines in use at facilities that 
manufacture narrow tubing. We are soliciting comments on the proposed 
regulatory options as they relate to facilities that manufacture narrow 
tubing.
ii. Aerospace Manufacturing and Maintenance Facilities
    Petitioners contend that the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule does

[[Page 62398]]

not provide any explanation as to why vacuum-to-vacuum technology and 
retrofit technologies such as freeboard ratios, working mode covers and 
freeboard refrigeration devices cannot be used by aerospace 
manufacturing and maintenance facilities. One petitioner stated that 
there was no explanation for the rejection of vacuum-to-vacuum 
technology as a control option for aerospace manufacturing and 
maintenance facilities even though the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning 
rule indicated that such technology was in use by ``similar'' aerospace 
manufacturing and maintenance facilities.
    In response to both our August 17, 2006 proposal, and subsequent 
NODA, aerospace manufacturing and maintenance facilities indicated an 
inability to comply with our co-proposed limits due to technical 
infeasibility, associated compliance costs and the limited proposed 
compliance deadline. Some facilities indicated a 5-year minimum 
compliance period would be required because they would need to 
investigate technology and protocol changes called for by the proposed 
40,000 kg/yr MC equivalent limit. With regard to vacuum-to-vacuum 
technology, aerospace manufacturers indicated that vacuum-to-vacuum 
technology was extremely expensive and had not been proven effective or 
reliable for the operations at aerospace manufacturing and maintenance 
facilities. With regard to solvent switching, those aerospace 
manufacturing and maintenance facilities that use PCE stated that 
switching to either TCE or MC would be an unsuitable compliance option 
because of incompatibility issues and lower vapor pressure. Other 
facilities also stated that they may be able to switch from a HAP 
solvent to a non-HAP solvent such as nPB, but indicated that nPB 
solvent was untested in their industry. They also stated that changing 
solvents involved a rigorous approval process by the original equipment 
manufacturers and the Federal Aviation Administration in order to 
ensure that safety and quality criteria continue to be met and that 
such process would likely be beyond the 2-year proposed compliance 
deadline. We note, in general, that the bulk of comments indicated an 
inability to implement these control measures within the proposed 2-
year compliance period at the costs presented in our August 17, 2006 
proposal.
    In the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule, we evaluated costs alone 
for the 60,000 kg/yr MC equivalent emission limit and both risks and 
costs for the 100,000 kg/yr and 250,000 kg/yr MC equivalent levels for 
aerospace manufacturing and maintenance, but rejected these options 
based on our conclusion that they were either not cost-effective or the 
costs were disproportionate given the emission reductions achieved. We 
also rejected these options because the industry strongly indicated 
necessary emission control actions could not be achieved within the 
compliance timeframe. Additionally, similar to the facilities that 
manufacture narrow tubing, we were persuaded by the industry's 
responses and information, and after our re-evaluation of compliance 
costs, technical feasibility and risks, we determined that the current 
level of control provided by the 1994 NESHAP for the aerospace 
manufacturing and maintenance industry both reduces HAP emissions to 
levels that present an acceptable risk and provides an ample margin of 
safety to protect public health.
    Since receiving the petitions, we have re-evaluated our treatment 
of the responses to the NODA by aerospace manufacturing and maintenance 
facilities. Specifically, we have re-evaluated responses we received 
from various aerospace manufacturing and maintenance facilities 
indicating the availability of compliance options that include various 
work practices and installing larger or additional CAD systems, and 
vacuum-to-vacuum machines and switching from a HAP solvent to nPB. We 
have also learned that certain aerospace manufacturing and maintenance 
facilities are testing nPB as a compliance approach to HAP emission 
reductions. We currently do not have sufficient information that would 
allow us to conclude definitively that nPB switching is a viable 
compliance option for this industry primarily because we are aware of 
material compatibility concerns. Therefore, we do not believe that we 
can extrapolate the use of nPB by facilities that manufacture narrow 
tubing to the aerospace manufacturing and maintenance facilities. We 
have thus calculated compliance costs for the aerospace manufacturing 
and maintenance facilities using HAP solvent switching, retrofitting of 
machines, vacuum-to-vacuum machines and CAD using the same assigned 
costs used in the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule, which were based 
on costs provided in public comments. As discussed in section III of 
this preamble, we are proposing a range of regulatory options that 
would be applicable on a facility-wide basis for all halogenated 
solvent cleaning machines in use at aerospace manufacturing and 
maintenance facilities.
iii. Continuous Web Cleaning Machines \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 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. They are semi-enclosed, with emission points 
where the workload enters and exits the machine. Squeegee rollers 
reduce carry out emissions by removing excess solvent from the 
exiting workload. The workload is uncoiled and conveyorized 
throughout the cleaning machine at speeds in excess of 11 feet per 
minute and recoiled or cut as it exits the machine. Emission points 
are similar to emission points from other in-line cleaners. Also 
some continuous web machines have exhaust systems that are similar 
to those used with some in-line cleaners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioners also allege that the EPA failed to provide any 
explanation as to why several alternative reduction measures, such as 
either vacuum-to-vacuum machines or solvent switching are not available 
control options for facilities that use continuous web cleaning 
machines.
    As explained earlier, in response to both our August 17, 2006 
proposal, and subsequent NODA, the EPA received significant comments 
from some facilities that use continuous web cleaning machines 
identifying numerous compliance issues presented by the co-proposed 
limits. Responses included that switching from either PCE or TCE to MC 
was not an available compliance option due to the fact that MC is 
incompatible with certain metals, and production processes, has a lower 
boiling point, and stringent worker safety OSHA requirements. Some 
facilities also indicated that installation of vacuum-to-vacuum 
machines was not a compliance option due to the differences between the 
continuous web cleaning process and other batch cleaning operations. 
They stated that the 1994 NESHAP, in recognition of these differences, 
prescribed compliance options for facilities that use continuous web 
cleaning machines that were different from other halogenated solvent 
cleaning machines. They requested that we set different compliance 
requirements that would be based on overall control efficiency rather 
than an emission limit, in light of the fact that they could not comply 
with either of the proposed emission limits in the August 2006 proposed 
rule. They maintained that attaining a degree of control rather than 
meeting an emission limit was a more appropriate measure of their 
emission reduction capability. They also indicated that they had 
installed CAD, which can operate at about 99 percent control 
efficiency, and that they could possibly achieve an overall 
effectiveness of 80 percent control efficiency (the

[[Page 62399]]

1994 NESHAP requires 70 percent overall control efficiency).
    Similar to our treatment of comparable assertions by both 
facilities that manufacture narrow tubing and aerospace manufacturing 
and maintenance facilities, we were persuaded by these assertions, and 
in the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule, we acknowledged that 
continuous web machines are designed differently from general 
halogenated solvent cleaning machines, i.e., batch cleaning machines, 
and that it would be both technologically infeasible and cost 
prohibitive for facilities that use continuous web cleaning machines to 
comply with our final promulgated emission limits. Further, we 
determined that their control choices were limited to installation of 
CAD, but that CAD would be insufficient for purposes of complying with 
either the proposed or final promulgated emission limits because they 
would likely achieve only a 10 to 30 percent overall emission 
reductions in facility-wide emissions. 72 FR 25155. In our final 
Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule we analyzed and discussed a 
regulatory alternative that would require 80 percent overall control 
efficiency for all facilities, but we ultimately concluded that for 
facilities that use continuous web cleaning machines the current level 
of control provided by the 1994 NESHAP both reduces HAP emissions to 
levels that present an acceptable risk and provides an ample margin of 
safety to protect public health.
    Since promulgation of the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule, and 
receipt of the reconsideration petitions, we have also re-evaluated our 
assumptions on compliance options, and costs for additional emission 
reductions as it relates to facilities that use continuous web cleaning 
machines. In doing so, we have re-examined the comments submitted on 
the August 16, 2006 proposal and NODA, where some facilities that use 
continuous web cleaning machines indicated their preference for tighter 
control efficiency as compared to a straight emission limit and more 
specifically their comments that indicated the ability to achieve 80 
percent overall control efficiency over uncontrolled emission levels 
within a 3-year compliance period. (These comments are in the docket 
for this rulemaking.) Facilities that use continuous web cleaning 
machines are currently required to achieve 70 percent overall control 
efficiency under the 1994 NESHAP.
    This proposal reflects this re-evaluation and our belief that a 
relative reduction limit is more suitable than an emission cap for 
facilities that use continuous web cleaning machines. Under one of the 
regulatory options presented in this proposal, six facilities would be 
required to reduce emissions by 33 percent, i.e., ((1 - 70%) - (1 - 
80%)/(1 - 70%) = 33%). To meet this proposed emission requirement, we 
assumed three facilities could switch their HAP solvent to nPB (based 
on the use of nPB in the narrow tubing industry). Based on the analysis 
we conducted to support the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule we also 
assumed that three facilities could install CAD or automated gates 
control to comply with the proposed option. Thus, as earlier discussed 
in section III of this preamble, we are proposing an option that 
includes an overall control efficiency of 80 percent for facilities 
that use continuous web cleaning machines that exceed a 60,000 kg/yr MC 
equivalent limit.
iv. Military Maintenance and Depot Facilities
    Petitioners also contend that the EPA announced a final rule that 
dramatically departed from the proposed rule by imposing a 100,000 kg/
yr MC equivalent limit for halogenated solvent cleaning machines used 
by military maintenance and depot facilities. Petitioners contend that 
the public was deprived of the opportunity to comment on this standard 
and on the technical, legal and policy rationale the EPA proffered in 
the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule.
    In response to both our August 17, 2006 proposal and the NODA, 
military depot and maintenance facilities indicated an inability to 
comply with either co-proposed limits due to both technological and 
compliance deadline constraints. They indicated, however, an ability to 
comply with a 100,000 kg/yr MC equivalent limit. Persuaded by these 
responses, we determined that the 100,000 kg/yr MC equivalent limit for 
halogenated solvent cleaning machines used by military depot and 
maintenance facilities would provide an ample margin of safety in the 
Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule.
    Since promulgation of the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule, and 
receipt of the petitions, we have also re-evaluated our assumptions on 
compliance options, and costs for additional emission reductions as 
they relate to military maintenance and depot facilities. In this 
action, as discussed in section III above, for halogenated solvent 
cleaning machines used by military maintenance and depot facilities we 
are re-proposing the 100,000 kg/yr MC equivalent emission limit option 
that we finalized in the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule.
v. General Population of Halogenated Solvent Cleaning Machines
    Petitioners stated that the 60,000 kg/yr MC equivalent level we 
promulgated for the general population of halogenated solvent cleaning 
machines was neither proposed nor made available for public comment. In 
reconsideration of the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule, we re-
examined the proposed 40,000 kg/yr and promulgated 60,000 kg/yr MC 
equivalent levels of control for the general population, retaining the 
emission control assumptions (and thus the risk reduction and cost 
assumptions) used in the final rule. As in the Halogenated Solvent 
Cleaning rule, our evaluation is based on the 2002 NEI data.
    Since promulgation of the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule, we 
have received no new information that would lead us to change the facts 
and conclusions we presented for either the 40,000 kg/yr MC equivalent 
level (which we rejected in the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule) or 
the 60,000 kg/yr MC equivalent level. Therefore, in this action we are 
proposing a 60,000 kg/yr MC equivalent emission limit as a regulatory 
option for the general degreasing units.
4. Health Information for the Proposed Options
    As previously mentioned, we have performed additional risk 
assessments for this source category since the final rule was 
promulgated. In this section, we provide estimates of the health risk 
reductions achieved by each of the proposed regulatory options for each 
of the industry sectors. The estimates were derived using the same 
analytical methodologies which were used to derive the estimates for 
the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule, with two exceptions: (1) The 
health risk estimates were derived explicitly (rather than 
extrapolated, as was done for the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule) 
for each industrial sector as well as for the total population of 
facilities; and, (2) in addition to our use of the CalEPA chronic REL 
for TCE, a chronic non-cancer air criterion developed by the NYS DOH 
was used to characterize non-cancer risks for TCE.
    While health risks were estimated using both the 1999 NEI and the 
2002 NEI, we only present those derived using the more recent emission 
inventory data. Additional details and results are provided in the 
docket for this rule.

[[Page 62400]]

    Table 2 presents a summary of cancer risk results for the entire 
source category at baseline levels and for each of the proposed control 
options, indicating both how the maximum individual cancer risk level 
and the population within various individual risk ranges vary from 
option to option. It also shows the projected emission reductions and 
cancer incidence levels associated with each option, as well as the 
estimated maximum non-cancer target organ-specific HI values (indicated 
as a range, depending on which chronic reference value is used in the 
calculation). We note specifically that the range of exposures (as 
indicated by the HI values) for the baseline and Option 1 scenarios are 
near the exposure level where we can say that there is no appreciable 
risk of non-cancer health effects (see previous discussion in this 
section). We believe that this result does not indicate that there 
should be concern; rather, we believe it is indicative of the range of 
values associated with the chronic non-cancer toxicity of TCE. We also 
note that using the CalEPA REL there are no facilities with an HI above 
1; however, using the NYS DOH air criterion, which incorporates a 
significant degree of conservatism in its final estimate, the only HAP 
contributing to non-cancer HI values above 1 becomes TCE. The target 
organ system which is most sensitive for both the CalEPA REL and the 
NYS DOH air criterion is the central nervous system, with symptoms 
including dizziness, drowsiness, and confusion at high enough 
exposures. Effects to the liver and immune systems have also been 
observed in people at high enough TCE exposures.
    In response to one petitioner's assertion that the Halogenated 
Solvent Cleaning rule omitted an analysis of the population exposed to 
lifetime cancer risks greater than 1-in-1 million, Table 1, above, 
presents updated estimates of this information from the Halogenated 
Solvent Cleaning rule while Table 2, below, provides population risk 
information relevant to the different proposed regulatory options that 
we are seeking comment on in this action.

                          Table 2--Effect of the Proposed Options on Risk and Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Options                         Baseline        Option 1        Option 2        Option 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MIR (in-1 million)..............................             100             ~50             ~50             ~50
>100 in-1 million *.............................             100               0               0               0
>=10 to <100 in-1 million *.....................          82,000           7,500           6,600           5,700
>=1 to <10 in-1 million *.......................       8,000,000       2,100,000       2,087,500       1,946,500
Emissions Reduced (tons/yr).....................               0           1,681           2,601           3,188
Emissions Remaining (tons/yr)...................           4,200           2,535           1,615           1,028
Maximum Non-cancer HI...........................         0.2-7.0         0.2-2.0        0.05-1.0        0.05-1.0
Cancer Incidence (cases/yr).....................            0.55            0.36            0.35           0.32
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Number of people in the specified risk range

    Option 1: 60,000 kg/yr MC equivalent applicable to general 
population of halogenated solvent cleaning machines and 100,000 kg/yr 
MC equivalent for halogenated solvent cleaning machines in use at 
military maintenance and depot facilities.
    Option 2: 60,000 kg/yr MC equivalent applicable to facilities that 
manufacture narrow tubing and general population of halogenated solvent 
cleaning machines and 100,000 kg/yr MC equivalent for halogenated 
solvent cleaning machines in use at military maintenance and depot 
facilities.
    Option 3: 60,000 kg/yr MC equivalent applicable to general 
population and facilities that manufacture narrow tubing; 100,000 kg/yr 
MC equivalent applicable to aerospace manufacturing and maintenance 
facilities and military maintenance and depot facilities; and 80 
percent overall control efficiency for facilities that use continuous 
web cleaning machines that have emissions exceeding 60,000 kg/yr MC 
equivalent.
    Table 3 presents a summary of cancer incidence, cancer incidence 
reduction, and emission reductions for the general population and for 
each of the industrial sectors discussed above, for each of the control 
options being considered.

      Table 3--Incidence and Emissions Reductions for the Sector-Specific Components of Options 1, 2, and 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Baseline        Incidence
        Industry group           Emission limit      incidence     after control  Cases avoided/   Tons reduced
                                                    (cases/yr)      (cases/yr)         year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Degreaser Population    60,000 kg/yr....          0.45            0.26            0.19             1,592
 (not in any other sector).
Narrow Tubing Manufacturing...  60,000 kg/yr....          0.02            0.007           0.013              920
Continuous Web Cleaning         80 percent                0.03            0.02            0.01               263
 Machines (>60,000 kg/yr).       overall control
                                 efficiency.
Aerospace Manufacturing and     100,000 kg/yr...          0.05            0.03            0.02               324
 Maintenance.
Military maintenance and depot  100,000 kg/yr...          0.0003          0.0001          0.0002              89
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After promulgation of the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule, we 
became aware that nPB, a non-HAP, had already been substituted for TCE 
in at least two facilities that manufacture narrow tubing and that it 
may be a suitable alternative solvent at other facilities. As a result, 
in this proposal we have assumed that nPB could and would be used in 
both the narrow tube manufacturing industry and facilities that use 
continuous web cleaning machines. Due to materials incompatibility, 
however, we do not believe we can extrapolate the use of nPB to the 
aerospace manufacturing and maintenance facilities. The HAP emission 
reductions, risk reductions, and costs projected under these's proposed 
regulatory options 2 and 3 rely, and are based, in part, on nPB 
substitution for TCE in a specific number of machines of specific 
sizes.

[[Page 62401]]

    Although nPB is not a HAP, there are known adverse health effects 
from exposures to high levels of nPB, including effects on the nervous 
system (headaches, dizziness, nausea, numbness in the lower body) based 
on studies of exposed workers,\22\ and effects on the liver and 
reproductive system based on animal tests.\23\ In its review of the use 
of nPB as an alternative to using solvents which deplete stratospheric 
ozone (72 FR 30142, May 30, 2007), the EPA determined that nPB was an 
acceptable substitute in solvent cleaning applications, but recommended 
use of personal protective equipment and adherence to the capture and 
suppression guidelines in the NESHAP for halogenated solvent 
cleaning.\24\ For example, emission controls previously used for MC or 
TCE should remain in place for worker safety and general public safety 
reasons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Ichihara et al. 2004b. Neurological Abnormalities in 
Workers of 1-Bromopropane Factory, Environmental Health Perspectives 
published by the National Institute of Environmental Health 
Sciences, National Institute of Health, U.S. Department of Health 
and Human Services, June 2004.
    Ichihara et al. 2002. Neurological disorders in three workers 
exposed to 1-bromopropane. Journal of Occupational Health 44:1-7 
(2002).
    \23\ WIL. 2001. An Inhalation Two-Generation Reproductive 
Toxicity Study of 1-Bromopropane in Rats. Conducted by Stump D. G. 
at WIL Research Laboratories, Inc., Sponsored by Brominated Solvents 
Consortium. May 24, 2001.
    \24\ The EPA has addressed the use of nPB as a solvent in 
industrial equipment for metals cleaning, electronics cleaning and 
precision cleaning under the Significant New Alternative Policy 
(SNAP) Program. Under SNAP, EPA reviews substitutes for ozone 
depleting substances to determine if a substitute would pose a 
substantially greater risk to human health or the environment than 
other substitutes that are available. See CAA section 612(c), 40 CFR 
Part 82, subpart G. Specifically, based on evidence that in solvent 
cleaning worker exposure levels were consistently below levels of 
concern, EPA concluded that users could use nPB as safely as other 
available substitutes. Thus, EPA found nPB acceptable as a 
substitute for methyl chloroform and CFC-113, (72 FR 30142 May 30, 
2007). While under SNAP no restrictions were placed on the use of 
nPB in the solvent cleaning end uses addressed in the rule, SNAP 
approval does not relieve users from the obligation to comply with 
any other regulatory obligations, such as those that might apply 
under the 1994 NESHAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In evaluating nPB in a specific use under the SNAP program, we 
evaluated the worst-case level of nPB emissions. We note that even 
though this worst-case emission level is higher, by at least a factor 
of 4, than the highest-emitting facility in the halogenated solvents 
category, the worst-case impact estimated under the SNAP program is 
still substantially below, by more than a factor of 10, the derived 
threshold for non-cancer effects. This leads us to conclude that the 
substitution of nPB for TCE and/or MC in halogenated solvent cleaners 
should not pose any health risks to the general population.
    The SNAP final rule stated that for non-aerosol solvent cleaning, 
facilities should follow the guidelines in the NESHAP for halogenated 
solvent cleaning if they are using nPB. The equipment and procedural 
changes described in the NESHAP for halogenated solvent cleaning can 
reduce emissions, reduce solvent losses and lower the cost of cleaning 
with organic solvents.
    Based on this information, we conclude that use of nPB to comply 
with the proposed emission limit is reasonable, and we recommend that 
those switching to nPB maintain use of their current emission controls 
for worker and general public safety. In this notice, we request 
comment on additional or new information which might suggest that this 
conclusion is incorrect.
5. Costs and Other Relevant Factors for the Proposed Options
    As discussed earlier in sections I and III of this preamble, 
petitioners have raised several issues on our cost conclusions in the 
Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule. Since promulgation of the 
Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule, we have become aware of certain 
facilities that manufacture narrow tubing that have voluntarily 
investigated and instituted HAP emission reductions by installing CAD, 
vacuum-to-vacuum machines, switching from HAP solvents to a non-HAP 
solvent and reconfiguration and changing production processes.
    Consequently, we have re-evaluated our conclusions on costs, 
availability of technology and the compliance deadline for the 
facility-wide limits in the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule. As 
earlier explained in this section, existing information now leads us to 
conclude, in a change from the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule, that 
certain affected sources in the narrow tubing industry can comply with 
the proposed limits and requirements through installation of CAD, 
vacuum-to-vacuum machines, switching from HAP to non-HAP and improved 
work practices and manufacturing process changes. In addition, we 
extrapolated information on compliance measures that we obtained for 
the narrow tubing industry sector to facilities that use continuous web 
cleaning machines. Specifically, we assumed that facilities that use 
continuous web cleaning machines could substitute TCE for nPB. As noted 
earlier, however, due to concerns over materials incompatibility, we do 
not believe we can extrapolate the information on the use of nPB by 
facilities that manufacture narrow tubing to aerospace manufacturing 
and maintenance facilities. Finally, our cost estimates do not reflect 
any new information on available HAP emission reduction options for 
both the general population of halogenated solvent cleaning machines, 
the aerospace manufacturing and maintenance facilities and military 
maintenance and depot facilities.
    To estimate the costs of reducing emissions for individual 
facilities, the EPA first calculated the percent emission reductions 
necessary for each facility to comply with the levels being 
investigated. Then, control technologies were applied on a per unit 
basis to achieve the percent reduction necessary to achieve the level. 
The control technologies applied varied depending on the cleaning 
machine type, the solvent used, and the percent control required. As 
earlier stated, such control technologies include the replacement of 
existing units with vacuum-to-vacuum machines, solvent switching, and 
add-on controls. This proposal reflects our investigation of these 
control options and a determination of the direct costs associated with 
these emission reduction measures.
    Prior to selection of the proposed emission limits and control 
efficiency requirements, we have considered the costs of each of the 
emission limits in providing various degrees of emission reductions, 
similar to our August 17, 2006, proposal and our Halogenated Solvent 
Cleaning rule. The costs for an individual facility were then 
determined based on the costs associated with the controls needed to 
meet the level and taking into account any increase or decrease in 
solvent costs. We have determined facilities in each sector of 
industries engaging in halogenated solvent cleaning that would have to 
add technology measures to control emissions at the various emission 
limits discussed in this preamble. With regard to the narrow tube 
manufacturing industry, we have applied costs that were incurred by 
specific facilities in Pennsylvania for purposes of meeting various 
proposed emission limits. We have also extrapolated some of these costs 
to facilities that use continuous web cleaning machines (e.g., use of 
nPB as a substitute for TCE). We also assumed that the necessary 
controls were all high efficiency and costlier controls. We did not 
apply any mid-level controls and their associated costs for instances 
where we had direct compliance costs to use as examples. In other 
words, when estimating costs for the facilities

[[Page 62402]]

that manufacture narrow tubing, the EPA used cost information provided 
by facilities that manufacture narrow tubing that had already 
implemented control technologies, such as CAD, vacuum-to-vacuum 
machines, and switching to nPB. Additionally, costs and risk estimates 
were developed for the narrow tube manufacturing industry at various 
percent emission reduction levels and MC equivalent levels. We have 
then applied these associated direct costs to facilities that use 
continuous web cleaning machines because we have assumed that these 
associated direct costs would be a primary example of costs of 
complying with the various proposed emission limits for any facility 
with similar cleaning machines, similar solvent usage and similar HAP 
emission reduction. These applied assumptions are similar to our cost 
assumptions in the August 17, 2006, proposal. To more fully analyze the 
implications of the various emission limits, we re-calculated the 
overall and incremental annualized cost per cancer case avoided for 
each proposed option. The results of our analyses are summarized in 
Table 4 below. In general, we expect that facilities that use 
halogenated solvents with a higher URE, and as a result have lower 
emission limits, would likely incur higher costs to reduce emissions to 
the necessary limit. We are soliciting comments on these aspects of 
this proposal.

                                   Table 4--Cost Analysis for Proposed Options
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Option                                    1                2                3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Capital Costs (Millions)...............................          $15.65           $37.58           $49.89
Net Annualized Costs (Millions)..............................           $1.50            $3.73            $5.19
Operation and Maintenance Costs (Millions)...................           $0.76            $1.88            $2.61
Solvent Savings (Millions)...................................          ($3.65)          ($4.00)          ($4.96)
Total Annual Costs * (Millions)..............................          ($1.38)           $1.60            $2.83
Emissions Reduced (tons/yr)..................................           1,681            2,601            3,058
Cancer Cases Avoided/yr......................................            0.19             0.20             0.23
Cost Effectiveness of Control ($/ton)........................           ($821)            $616             $927
Incremental Cost effectiveness (compared to next least                  ($7.0)            $293             $41
 stringent option) (Millions $/case avoided).................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Net Annualized Costs plus O&M plus Solvent Savings.

    We are also presenting in Table 5 the associated costs and emission 
reductions for the sector-specific control options in light of the fact 
that we are soliciting comments on combinations of limits other than 
those represented by options 1 through 3 presented above in section 
III.

                                      Table 5--Cost Analysis for Sector-Specific Components of Options 1, 2, and 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     60,000 kg/yr MC                      80 percent
                                                                      equivalent for                   overall control
                                                                         general                        for continuous   100,000 kg MC    100,000 kg/yr
                                                                        degreaser     60,000 kg/yr MC    web cleaning    equivalent for   MC equivalent
                           Emission limit                               population     equivalent for    machines at       aerospace       for military
                                                                        (does not      narrow tubing      facilities    manufacture and  maintenance and
                                                                      include named                        emitting       maintenance         depot
                                                                         sectors)                       >60,000 kg/yr
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Capital Costs (Millions).....................................           $15.7           $21.92            $3.29            $9.02            $0.54
Net Annualized Costs (Millions)....................................           $1.45            $2.23            $0.63            $0.87            $0.06
Operation and Maintenance Costs (Millions).........................           $0.72            $1.11            $0.31            $0.44            $0.04
Solvent Savings (Millions).........................................          ($3.50)          ($0.36)          ($0.34)          ($0.68)          ($0.16)
                                                                            Million         Thousand         Thousand         Thousand         Thousand
Total Annual Costs * (Millions)....................................          ($1.32)           $2.97            $0.60            $0.63            $0.06
Emissions Reduced (tons/yr)........................................           1,621              920              290              324               89
Cost of Control ($/ton)............................................           ($832)          $3,238           $2,774           $1,933            ($625)
Cost per Case Avoided (Millions)...................................           ($7.0)            $596             $177              $31             ($56) 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Net Annualized Costs plus O&M plus Solvent Savings.

    Other factors relevant to our ample margin of safety determination 
include (but are not limited to) impact on the national economy, small 
business impacts, cost-effectiveness, incremental cost-effectiveness, 
or net benefits.
    All economic impact estimates incorporate the scale-up factor of 
1.76 applied to affected source populations and costs. Option 1 is 
expected to affect 120 ultimate parent entities, and 40 of these parent 
entities (one-third of the total number of ultimate parent entities 
affected) are small as defined by the Small Business Administration 
(SBA) small business size standards. Of these 40 small entities, none 
have an annualized cost of greater than one percent of their sales. 
Option 2 is expected to affect 148 ultimate parent entities, and 52 (or 
35 percent) of these entities are small. Of these 52 small entities, 
three have an annualized cost of greater than one percent of their 
sales. Finally, Option 3 is expected to affect 181 ultimate parent 
entities, and 56 (or 31 percent) of these entities are small. Of these 
56 small entities, three have an annualized cost of greater than one 
percent of their sales.
6. Ample Margin of Safety Rationale for Each of the Proposed Options
    This section provides the results of our reconsideration analysis 
and the options that the EPA believes suitable for proposal considering 
the issues raised by the petitioners and the capabilities of the 
industries affected by the source category NESHAP regulations. 
Specifically, Option 1 proposes the same limits promulgated in the 
Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule that is the subject of this 
reconsideration. Option 2 introduces

[[Page 62403]]

more stringent emission limits (60,000 kg/yr MC equivalent) for the 
narrow tube manufacturing industry. Finally, Option 3 introduces more 
stringent limits for aerospace manufacturing and maintenance facilities 
(100,000 kg/yr MC equivalent) and facilities that use continuous web 
cleaning machines (80% overall control efficiency for units at 
facilities emitting greater than 60,000 kg/yr MC equivalent).
    We recognize that there are significant differences between these 
options in terms of the level of emission reductions, the number of 
cancer cases avoided per year, and the associated costs of control, but 
we believe that each of the options presented provides an ample margin 
of safety consistent with the Benzene framework. We specifically 
solicit comment on the information included in Table 4 above and any 
other information relevant to our ample margin of safety determination.
i. What is our rationale for Option 1?
    A 60,000 kg/yr MC equivalent limit would be applicable to sources 
associated with the general population of halogenated solvent cleaning 
machines. A 100,000 kg/yr MC equivalent limit would be applicable to 
halogenated solvent cleaning machines located at military maintenance 
and depot facilities. With respect to facilities that use continuous 
web cleaning machines, and halogenated solvent cleaning machines used 
by facilities that manufacture narrow tubing and aerospace 
manufacturing and maintenance facilities, we are proposing to readopt 
the 1994 NESHAP under CAA section 112(d)(6) and (f)(2) because, as 
discussed below, we are proposing that the current level of control 
called for by the 1994 NESHAP reduces HAP emissions to limits that 
present an acceptable level of risk, provide an ample margin of safety 
to protect public health, and prevent any adverse environmental 
effects. (This option represents the standards promulgated in the 
Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule).
    Under this option, the total HAP emissions would be reduced by 
1,681 tpy. We anticipate that about 82 facilities and 98 halogenated 
solvent cleaning machines would be affected by this proposed option. 
Facilities would reduce their emissions to meet this proposed 
regulatory option by selecting control options that might include one 
or more of the following: (1) Solvent switching from a HAP solvent with 
a higher URE to a HAP solvent with a lower URE, such as switching from 
PCE or TCE to MC; (2) solvent switching from a HAP solvent to a non-HAP 
solvent; (3) retrofitting additional freeboard; (4) installing CAD; or 
(5) installing vacuum-to-vacuum machines.
    We are proposing to conclude that Option 1 reduces HAP emissions to 
levels that present an acceptable level of risk, provides an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health, and prevents any adverse 
environmental effects. When Option 1 is applied to the facilities in 
the 2002 NEI database we estimate that the MIR decreases to about 50-
in-1 million with an estimated reduction in cancer incidence of about 
0.19 cases annually, with an annualized cost savings of $1.3 million, 
or a cost savings of about $822 per ton. The maximum chronic noncancer 
HI is lower than the baseline, ranging from 0.2 to 2.0 depending on 
which noncancer toxicity value is used in the assessment. Specifically, 
using the CalEPA chronic REL to assess TCE noncancer hazard, emissions 
from no facilities would result in exposures exceeding an HI of 1. 
Using the NYS DOH noncancer criterion to assess TCE noncancer hazard, 
emissions from the five narrow tube manufacturing facilities would 
result in exposures exceeding an HI of 1, the HI value is 2 for each of 
these facilities. The HIs for the five other facilities that are above 
1 in the baseline using the NYS DOH noncancer criterion would fall 
below 1 under this option. In addition, considering the discussion of 
the conservatism associated with the chronic non-cancer toxicity of TCE 
using the NYS DOH criterion (discussed previously in section III), 
along with the additional cost and risk factors discussed above, we 
propose that this option provides an ample margin of safety to protect 
public health.
ii. What is our rationale for Option 2?
    A 60,000 kg/yr MC equivalent limit would be applicable to sources 
associated with the general population of halogenated solvent cleaning 
machines and halogenated solvent cleaning machines used by facilities 
that manufacture narrow tubing. A 100,000 kg/yr MC equivalent limit 
would be applicable to halogenated solvent cleaning machines located at 
military maintenance and depot facilities. With respect to facilities 
that use continuous web cleaning machines, and halogenated solvent 
cleaning machines used by aerospace manufacturing and maintenance 
facilities, we are proposing to re-adopt the 1994 NESHAP under CAA 
section 112(d)(6) and (f)(2) because, as discussed below, we are 
proposing that the current level of control called for by the 1994 
NESHAP reduces HAP emissions to levels that present an acceptable level 
of risk, provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health, 
and prevent any adverse environmental effects. We anticipate that about 
105 facilities and 150 halogenated solvent cleaning machines would be 
subject to this proposed option. Facilities would reduce their 
emissions by selecting control options that might include one or more 
of the following: (1) Solvent switching from a HAP solvent with a 
higher URE to a HAP solvent with a lower URE, such as switching from 
PCE or TCE to MC; (2) solvent switching from a HAP solvent to a non-HAP 
solvent; (3) retrofitting additional freeboard; (4) installing CAD or; 
(5) installing vacuum-to-vacuum machines.
    We are proposing to conclude that Option 2 reduces HAP emissions to 
levels that present an acceptable level of risk, provides an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health, and prevents any adverse 
environmental effects. When Option 2 is applied to the facilities in 
the 2002 NEI database, the MIR decreases to about 30-in-1 million with 
an estimated reduction in cancer incidence of about 0.20 cases 
annually, and annualized costs of $1.6 million, or annual costs of 
about $615 per ton. The maximum chronic noncancer HI is reduced from 
the baseline, to a range of 0.05 to 1 depending on which noncancer 
toxicity value is used in the assessment. The incremental annualized 
cost of control options 1 and 2 is about $3 million. The incremental 
emission reduced from Option 1 to Option 2 is 920 tons. Therefore the 
incremental cost-effectiveness between Options 1 and 2 is nearly 
$3,200/ton/year. The incremental cancer incidence reduction between 
options 1 and 2 is 0.01. The incremental cost-effectiveness/cancer case 
avoided is nearly $293 million.
iii. What is our rationale for Option 3?
    A 60,000 kg/yr MC equivalent limit would be applicable to sources 
associated with the general population of halogenated solvent cleaning 
machines and halogenated solvent cleaning machines used by facilities 
that manufacture narrow tubing. A 100,000 kg/yr MC equivalent limit 
would be applicable to halogenated solvent cleaning machines used by 
aerospace manufacturing and maintenance facilities and halogenated 
solvent cleaning machines located at military maintenance and depot 
facilities. Facilities that use continuous web cleaning machines that 
exceed 60,000 kg/yr MC equivalent HAP emissions would have to achieve 
80 percent overall control efficiency for those units.

[[Page 62404]]

    We anticipate that about 130 facilities and 260 halogenated solvent 
cleaning machines would be subject to this proposed option. Facilities 
would reduce their emissions by selecting control options that might 
include one or more of the following: (1) Solvent switching from a HAP 
solvent with a higher URE to a HAP solvent with a lower URE, such as 
switching from PCE or TCE to MC; (2) solvent switching from a HAP 
solvent to a non-HAP solvent; (3) retrofitting additional freeboard; 
(4) installing CAD; or (5) installing vacuum-to-vacuum machines.
    We are proposing to conclude that Option 3 reduces HAP emissions to 
levels that present an acceptable level of risk, provides an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health, and prevents any adverse 
environmental effects. When Option 3 is applied to 130 facilities in 
the 2002 NEI database, the MIR decreases to about 30-in-1 million with 
an estimated reduction in cancer incidence of about 0.23 cases 
annually, and annualized costs of $2.8 million, or annual costs of 
about $887 per ton. The incremental annualized cost of control Options 
2 and 3 is about $1.2 million. The incremental emission reduced from 
Option 2 to Option 3 is 587 tons. Therefore the incremental cost-
effectiveness/tons emissions reduced between Options 2 and 3 is nearly 
$2,100/ton/year. The incremental cancer incidence reduction between 
Options 2 and 3 is 0.03. The incremental cost-effectiveness/cancer case 
avoided is $41 million.

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

    Petitioners also contend that the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule 
does not satisfy our obligations under CAA section 112(d)(6). Several 
petitioners state that our review of the 1994 NESHAP failed to consider 
the availability of current control technology, such as CAD, and 
capture and control system that could achieve upwards of 35 percent TCE 
emissions reduction by facilities that manufacture narrow tubing. 
Petitioners also identify CAD, and vacuum-to-vacuum machines, and other 
control options, such as solvent switching as compliance options for 
halogenated solvent cleaning machines used by facilities that 
manufacture narrow tubing that became available subsequent to 
promulgation of the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule. Further, 
petitioners allege that we failed to provide any explanation as to why 
several alternative emission reduction measures, such as either vacuum-
to-vacuum machines or solvent switching were not available control 
options for facilities that use continuous web cleaning machines.
    CAA section 112(d)(6) requires the EPA to review and revise, as 
necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, 
and control technologies), emission standards promulgated under CAA 
section 112(d) no less often than every eight years. In light of the 
petitions, we have re-assessed the issue of whether there have been 
developments in practices, processes and control technologies since 
issuance of the 1994 NESHAP. We have also reviewed the information 
concerning compliance options included in the various petitions, as 
some of that information was not available to the EPA at the time of 
promulgation of the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule. Additionally, we 
have held discussions with industry representatives on the availability 
of control measures and the potential for additional emission 
reductions.
    We believe that there have been some developments in control 
technologies, practices and processes for the facilities that 
manufacture narrow tubing. The control technologies include the use of 
vacuum-to-vacuum technology and CAD. Other measures include, for 
example, switching from HAP to non-HAP cleaners, such as nPB and 
manufacturing process changes. We solicit comment on the extent to 
which these control approaches represent advances in the control of 
halogenated solvents for the entire source category or whether they are 
relevant only to certain sectors within the category.
    Section 112(d)(6) grants EPA much discretion to revise the 
standards ``as necessary.'' Thus, although the specifically enumerated 
factors that EPA should consider all relate to technology (e.g., 
developments in practices, processes and control technologies), the 
instruction to revise ``as necessary'' indicates that EPA is to 
exercise its judgment in this regulatory decision, and is not precluded 
from considering additional relevant factors, such as costs and risk. 
EPA has substantial discretion in weighing all of the relevant factors 
in arriving at the best balance of costs and emissions reduction and 
determining what further controls, if any, are necessary. This 
interpretation is consistent with numerous rulings by the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the DC Circuit regarding EPA's approach to weighing similar 
enumerated factors under statutory provisions directing the agency to 
issue technology-based standards. See, e.g. Husqvarna AB v. EPA, 254 
F.3d 195 (DC Cir. 2001). After weighing all relevant factors, we are 
proposing the same regulatory options described above for our 112(f)(2) 
residual risk analysis. Based on the information analyzed for the 
regulatory options, and discussed in detail above, we are proposing 
three options for emissions standards to satisfy the requirements of 
section 112(d)(6) review:
    Proposed Option 1: A 60,000 kg/yr MC equivalent limit would be 
applicable to sources associated with the general population of 
halogenated solvent cleaning machines. A 100,000 kg/yr MC equivalent 
limit would be applicable to halogenated solvent cleaning machines 
located at military maintenance and depot facilities. With respect to 
facilities that use continuous web cleaning machines, halogenated 
solvent cleaning machines used by facilities that manufacture narrow 
tubing, and halogenated solvent cleaning machines used by aerospace 
manufacturing and maintenance facilities, we are proposing to re-adopt 
the 1994 NESHAP under CAA section 112(f)(2).
    Proposed Option 2: A 60,000 kg/yr MC equivalent limit would be 
applicable to sources associated with the general population of 
halogenated solvent cleaning machines and halogenated solvent cleaning 
machines used by facilities that manufacture narrow tubing. A 100,000 
kg/yr MC equivalent limit would be applicable to halogenated solvent 
cleaning machines located at military maintenance and depot facilities. 
With respect to facilities that use continuous web cleaning machines, 
and halogenated solvent cleaning machines used by aerospace 
manufacturing and maintenance facilities, we are proposing to re-adopt 
the 1994 NESHAP under CAA section 112(f)(2).
    Proposed Option 3: A 60,000 kg/yr MC equivalent limit would be 
applicable to sources associated with the general population of 
halogenated solvent cleaning machines and halogenated solvent cleaning 
machines used by facilities that manufacture narrow tubing. A 100,000 
kg/yr MC equivalent limit would be applicable to halogenated solvent 
cleaning machines used by aerospace manufacturing and maintenance 
facilities and halogenated solvent cleaning machines located at 
military maintenance and depot facilities. Facilities that use 
continuous web cleaning machines that exceed 60,000 kg/yr MC equivalent 
HAP emissions would have to achieve 80 percent overall control 
efficiency for those units.
    We solicit comments on these proposed options.

[[Page 62405]]

D. Compliance Schedule

    As discussed in section II, one petitioner stated that the 3-year 
compliance period appeared for the first time in the Halogenated 
Solvent Cleaning rule, making it impracticable to raise objections 
during the period provided for public comment. One petitioner argued 
that our assumption that facilities that manufacture narrow tubing 
could only achieve a 10 percent emission reduction within a 3-year 
compliance period was unsupported by the record and unexplained. 
Another petitioner argued that CAA section 112(f)(4) is the controlling 
provision that addresses compliance deadlines for existing sources with 
regard to standards promulgated under CAA sections 112(d)(6) and 
(f)(2).
    At proposal, we determined that CAA section 112(i) was the 
controlling provision that addressed compliance deadlines for existing 
sources with regard to standards promulgated under CAA sections 
112(d)(6) and (f)(2). For existing sources, we proposed a 2-year 
compliance deadline from the effective date of the rule. We were 
persuaded, however, by comments on our August 17, 2006 proposal and 
subsequent NODA, indicating that additional time beyond the proposed 2-
year compliance deadline would be needed, and in the Halogenated 
Solvent Cleaning rule, we set a 3-year compliance period for existing 
sources, finding that this period was more appropriate given the time 
necessary to implement control approaches necessary to meet the 
emission requirements. Thus, we promulgated a 3-year compliance 
deadline for existing sources from the effective date of the 
Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule.
    In this action, for existing sources that were not subject to the 
emission reduction requirements in the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning 
rule,\25\ we are proposing a 2-year compliance deadline from the date 
of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. As to those 
sources that were subject to emission reduction requirements in the 
Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule,\26\ if the final rule on 
reconsideration changes those requirements significantly and makes them 
more stringent, we propose that these sources have two years from the 
date of publication of the final rule to comply with the requirements 
of the final rule. We believe that such an extension is appropriate to 
allow the affected facilities time to meet the more stringent emission 
limitations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ These sources include halogenated solvent cleaning machines 
used by facilities that manufacture narrow tubing, facilities that 
manufacture specialized products requiring continuous web cleaning, 
and aerospace manufacturing and maintenance facilities.
    \26\ These sources include halogenated solvent cleaning machines 
at military maintenance and depot facilities and the general 
population of halogenated solvent cleaning machines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule, we identified a conflict 
between section 112(i) and section 112(f)(4) of the Act. To avoid a 
conflict in these provisions addressing compliance deadlines, we 
interpreted the more specific and comprehensive set of provisions in 
section 112(i) as governing both CAA section 112(d) and (f) standards. 
We maintain this interpretation in this rule. We note, however, that 
the 2-year compliance deadline proposed in this action is consistent 
with an alternative interpretation of the Act, which petitioners 
endorse, that the provisions of CAA section 112(f)(4) control. CAA 
section 112(f)(4) would allow us to grant a 2-year extension of the 
compliance deadline for existing sources, in addition to the 90-day 
compliance date otherwise applicable. We believe that the proposed 2-
year compliance deadline is necessary for the installation of controls 
at existing sources, and section 112(f)(4) would allow us to grant such 
an extension for the installation of controls. The proposed 2-year 
compliance deadline takes into account that the sources that have 
already installed controls appear to have done so within a two year 
period. Thus, we believe that this proposal falls within the 2-year 
plus 90-day period that would be allowed under CAA section 
112(f)(4)(A)-(B) and is therefore within the permissible range of CAA 
section 112(f)(4), even if that section applies. We are also soliciting 
comments on this aspect of this proposal.

IV. Proposed Regulatory Text

    Given that we are proposing a range of regulatory options, we have 
not prepared proposed regulatory text for each option. The regulatory 
text for Option 1 is, however, set forth in the Halogenated Solvent 
Cleaning rule. If we elect to finalize options 2 or 3 or some 
combination thereof, the regulatory text will follow the framework set 
forth in the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning rule.

V. Impacts

    For the general population degreasing sources required to comply 
with the 60,000 kg/yr MC equivalent emission limit, the national 
capital costs to reach compliance are estimated to be $15,000,000 with 
annualized cost savings of $1.3 million (2007 dollars). The capital 
costs for individual facilities would range from $15,000 to $800,000 
with an average cost of about $190,000.
    More than 60 percent of the facilities implementing a control 
technology would recognize a cost savings primarily from solvent 
savings. Controlling solvent use is a pollution prevention approach 
where emissions reduction translate into less PCE, TCE and MC 
consumption and reduced operating costs primarily because facilities 
would need to purchase less solvents. Using the 2002 NEI database, the 
maximum individual cancer risk is estimated to be reduced from 100-in-1 
million to between 50 and 20-in-1 million, depending on the control 
option selected. The options outlined here are expected to reduce 
cancer incidence from a source category wide baseline of 0.55 cases 
annually to 0.33 for Option 1, with reductions to 0.33 when continuing 
to Option 3, resulting in a range of reduction in cancer incidence from 
between 0.19 to 0.22 cases annually, depending upon the option 
selected. Additionally, Option 1 is expected to reduce the range of 
possible chronic noncancer HI values from 0.2 to 7 at the baseline, to 
0.2 to 2, depending on which noncancer toxicity value is used in the 
assessment. Both Options 2 and 3 result in a reduction of the range of 
possible maximum chronic noncancer HI values from between 0.2 and 7 at 
the baseline, to between 0.05 and 1, depending on which noncancer 
toxicity value is used in the assessment.
    The EPA estimates that to comply with the 100,000 kg/yr MC 
equivalent emission limit, military maintenance and depot facilities 
are expected to incur $540,000 in capital costs with annualized savings 
of about $56,000. Using the 2002 NEI database, the maximum individual 
cancer risk is estimated to be reduced from 6-in-1 million to 3-in-1 
million. The emission limit for military maintenance and depot 
facilities is expected to reduce cancer incidence by 0.0002 cases 
annually.
    The EPA also estimates that to comply with the 100,000 kg/yr MC 
equivalent emission limit, aerospace manufacturing and maintenance 
facilities are expected to incur $9 million in capital costs with 
annualized costs of about $626,000. Using the 2002 NEI database, this 
emission limit for aerospace manufacturing and maintenance facilities 
is expected to reduce cancer incidence by 0.03 cases annually.
    The EPA also estimates that to comply with the 60,000 kg/yr MC 
equivalent emission limit, facilities that manufacture narrow tubing 
are expected

[[Page 62406]]

to incur $22 million in capital costs with annualized costs of about $3 
million. Using the 2002 NEI database, this emission limit for 
facilities that manufacture narrow tubing is expected to reduce cancer 
incidence by 0.005 cases annually.
    The EPA further estimates that to comply with the 80 percent 
overall control efficiency, facilities that use continuous web cleaning 
machines with total emissions over the 60,000 kg/yr MC equivalent 
thresholds are expected to incur $3 million in capital costs with 
annualized costs of about $601,000. Using the 2002 NEI database, this 
emission limit for facilities that use continuous web cleaning machines 
is expected to reduce cancer incidence by 0.003 cases annually.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden. 
Owners or operators will continue to keep records and submit required 
reports to EPA or the delegated State regulatory authority. 
Notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining 
compliance and are required, in general, of all sources subject to the 
1994 NESHAP. Owners or operators subject to the 1994 NESHAP continue to 
maintain records and retain them for at least five years following the 
date of such measurements, reports, and records. Information collection 
requirements that were promulgated on December 2, 1994, in the 
Halogenated Solvent Cleaning NESHAP prior to the 2006 proposed 
amendments, as well as the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart A), which are mandatory for all owners or operators subject to 
national emission standards, are documented in EPA ICR No. 1652.06. OMB 
has previously approved the information collection requirements 
contained in the existing regulations 40 CFR part 63 Subpart T under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 
and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0273. The OMB control numbers 
for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small 
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined 
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of 
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a 
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is 
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated 
and is not dominant in its field.
    The companies owning the affected facilities using halogenated 
solvents can be grouped into small and large categories using SBA 
general size standard definitions. Size standards are based on industry 
classification codes (i.e., North American Industrial Classification 
System, or NAICS) that each company uses to identify the industry or 
industries in which they operate. SBA defines a small business in terms 
of the maximum employment, annual sales, or annual energy-generating 
capacity (for electricity generating units) of the owning entity. These 
thresholds vary by industry and are evaluated based on the primary 
industry classification of the affected companies. In cases where 
companies are classified by multiple NAICS codes, the most conservative 
SBA definition (i.e., the NAICS code with the highest employee or 
revenue size standard) was used.
    As mentioned earlier in this preamble, facilities across a large 
number of industries use halogenated solvents, therefore a number of 
size standards are utilized in this analysis. For the 41 industries 
identified at the 6-digit NAICS code represented in this analysis, the 
employment size standard varies from 500 to 1,500 employees. The annual 
sales standard is as low as four million dollars and as high as 150 
million dollars. The specific SBA size standard is identified for each 
affected industry within the small entity database created for this 
economic analysis.
    After considering the economic impacts of this action on small 
entities, we have concluded that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
This certification is based on the economic impact of this action on 
all affected small entities in the entire halogenated solvent cleaning 
source category. Option 1 is expected to affect 120 ultimate parent 
entities, and 40 of these parent entities (one-third of the total 
number of ultimate parent entities affected) are small as defined by 
SBA small business size standards. Of these 40 small entities none have 
an annualized cost of greater than one percent of their sales. Option 2 
is expected to affect 148 ultimate parent entities, and 52 (or 35 
percent) of these entities are small. Of these 52 small entities, three 
have an annualized cost of greater than one percent of their sales. 
Finally, Option 3 is expected to affect 181 ultimate parent entities, 
and 56 (or 31 percent) of these entities are small. Of these 56 small 
entities, three have an annualized cost of greater than one percent of 
their sales. More information on these impacts can be found in the 
economic impact analysis for this proposed rule, a document available 
in the public docket for this action.
    Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has 
tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. When 
developing the proposed rule, we took special steps to ensure that the 
burdens imposed on small entities were minimal. We conducted several 
meetings with industry trade associations to discuss regulatory options 
and the corresponding burden on industry, such as recordkeeping and 
reporting.
    Following publication of the proposed rule, copies of the Federal 
Register notice and, in some cases, background

[[Page 62407]]

documents, will be publicly available to all industries, organizations, 
and trade associations that have had input during the regulation 
development, as well as State and local agencies.
    We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of this 
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related 
to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of 
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 
1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private 
sector. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local or 
tribal governments or the private sector. [The term ``enforceable 
duty'' does not include duties and conditions in voluntary Federal 
contracts for goods and services.] Therefore, this action is not 
subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.
    This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 
of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

    This proposed action does not have tribal implications, as 
specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It 
will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the 
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
government and Indian tribes as specified in EO 13175. Thus, Executive 
Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed action.
    EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule 
from tribal officials.

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

    EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying 
to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such 
that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the 
potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO 
13045 because it is based solely on technology performance.
    This proposed action is not subject to the EO because it is not 
economically significant as defined in EO 12866; the Agency believes 
this action represents reasonable further efforts to mitigate risks to 
the general public, including effects on children. This conclusion is 
based on our assessment of the imposed emission limits that would 
reduce chlorinated solvent impacts on human health associated with 
exposures to halogenated solvent cleaning operations.

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

    This proposed action is not a ``significant energy action'' as 
defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because 
it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy. This proposed action will have a 
negligible impact on energy consumption because about 10 percent of 
entities using halogenated solvent cleaning will have to reduce 
emissions through a range of activities involving simple process 
changes to the installation of additional emission control equipment or 
special low emitting machines to comply. The cost of energy 
distribution should not be affected by this proposed action at all 
since the standards do not affect energy distribution facilities. We 
also expect that there would be no impact on the import of foreign 
energy supplies, and no other adverse outcomes are expected to occur 
with regards to energy supplies. Further, we have concluded that this 
proposed action is not likely to have any significant adverse energy 
effects.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), 
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards 
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and 
business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. The 
NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when 
the Agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS.
    This proposed action does not involve technical standards. 
Therefore, we are not considering the use of any voluntary consensus 
standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) establishes 
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.

[[Page 62408]]

    EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the 
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without 
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or 
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: October 3, 2008.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E8-24013 Filed 10-17-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P